A/HRC/4/21/Add.1 page 55 Response from the Government dated 13 March 2006 230. The Dutch Government wishes to add that the staff regulations of the school contained provisions obliging all feminine employees to wear a headscarf. An exception was provided for non-Islamic women, who could be released from the obligation on request. The Government also informs that a complaint has been lodged by Ms. Haddad at the “Commissie Gelijke Behandeling” (Dutch Equal Treatment Commission). The Dutch Equal Treatment Commission concluded that the school failed to demonstrate that the obligation to wear a headscarf was necessary in pursuance of the post of an Arabic teacher and decided in favour of Ms. Haddad. In this particular case, the school decided to disregard the opinion of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission. Since Ms. Haddad has not started legal proceedings, there is currently no follow up of the case. 231. A judgement (“Opinion”) of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission is the result of a specific case of alleged differentiation between two parties. In a written explanation the Commission describes whether the respondent has acted in contravention with the Dutch equal treatment laws or not. Its opinions are not legally binding, but are generally acted upon accordingly by petitioner and respondent. 232. Regarding the legal basis regulating the wearing of religious symbols, the Government indicated that there is no specific regulation regarding the wearing of religious symbols. The relevant jurisprudence in this field describes only two possible situations in which regulation imposing restrictions on the wearing of garments covering the face or part of the face can be justified: the necessity to ensure identification and proper communication and the necessity to guarantee the neutrality of state organs. Observations 233. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the detailed response from the Government. She would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Religious symbols” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. c). Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has already covered the question of religious symbols in detail in her 2006 report to the Commission on Human Rights (see E/CN.4/2006/5, paras. 36-60). She would like to reiterate that “[t]he fundamental objective should be to safeguard both the positive freedom of religion or belief as manifested in observance and practice by voluntarily wearing or displaying religious symbols, and also the negative freedom from being forced to wear or display religious symbols.” (see E/CN.4/2006/5, para. 60). While welcoming the opinion of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission in the case of Ms. Haddad, the Special Rapporteur expresses her concern about pressure within the school to adhere to certain religious obligations. She recognizes the complexity of the issues involved and encourages the Government to promote an atmosphere of tolerance and non-discrimination. Pakistan Communication sent on 20 January 2006 234. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had received concerning Shaukat Ali Wahla, an employee of the Auqaf Organization in Punjab.