A/HRC/4/21/Add.1 page 54 Nepal Communication sent on 10 October 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance 226. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had received concerning attacks on Dalit members of the community in the Doti district of Nepal. On 26 August 2006, Dalit women were allegedly harassed by the Priest of Shivalaya Temple and some local men when they attempted to worship on the occasion of Teej, a Hindu festival. They were eventually barred from entering the temple. On 16 September 2006, the District Administrative Officer issued a formal notice that Dalits have the right to enter and worship at public temples, and that those who choose to discriminate on the basis of caste, in whatever form, will be prosecuted. 227. On 17 September 2006, Dalit worshippers visited the Saileswori Temple of Dipayal in Silgadhi, Doti District. Their worship was disrupted when upper-caste people, who alleged that the Dalit worshippers had been acting in an offensive manner, physically attacked them with knifes and other weapons. Observations 228. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. a) and “Places of worship” (category I. 3. b). As she noted in her 2005 report to the Commission on Human Rights, “members of religious communities or communities of belief, whenever they find themselves in places of worship, are in a situation of special vulnerability given the nature of their activity. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that States should pay increased attention to attacks on places of worship and ensure that all perpetrators of such attacks are properly prosecuted and tried.” (E/CN.4/2005/61, para. 49). Netherlands Communication sent on 28 October 2005 229. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government the situation of Ms. Samira Haddad, a 32-year-old Muslim woman who was reportedly refused a post as Arabic teacher at the Islamic College in Amsterdam based on her refusal to wear a headscarf. Subsequent to the communication sent on 28 October 2005, she has been informed by various reliable sources that the national Equality Commission ruled in favour of Ms. Haddad on 15 November 2005. Although the Netherlands’ system of parallel public and private denominational education gave the Islamic college a high level of discretion in deciding what requirements it could set for its staff, the Equality Commission found that the fact that non-Muslim employees were exempt from the requirement to wear a headscarf while Muslim employees were obliged to wear a headscarf constituted an inadmissible differentiation on the basis of religion.