A/HRC/31/18 externum. External “manifestations” of religion or belief, while in many cases also amounting to “expressions” in the understanding of article 19 of the Covenant, often reflect an existential desire to actually live in accordance with one’s religious or other conviction, for instance by observing certain dress codes or dietary restrictions, thus exceeding mere communicative “expressions”. One example illustrating the difference is conscientious objection to military service, which falls within the subcategories of “observance” or “practice” listed in article 18. Conscientious objectors would most likely not be satisfied with having the mere option to publicly “express” their opposition to the use of military force. What counts for many of them is the possibility to actually shape their lives in accordance with their conscience-based moral and/or religious position. Generally speaking, while freedom of religion or belief has a strong communicative component, which it shares with freedom of opinion and expression, the protected dimensions of religious manifestations — worship, observance, practice and teaching — cannot be summed up under the heading of communicative freedom only because they also include other aspects of leading one’s life in conformity with one’s religion or belief. 24. The importance of living in accordance with one’s religion or belief naturally includes family life. In article 18 (4) of the Covenant, States parties “undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents, and when applicable, legal guardians to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions”. There is no parallel provision in article 19, however, that should not lead to the wrong conclusions. Of course, the freedom “to impart information and ideas of all kinds”, as guaranteed in article 19 (2) of the Covenant, also applies to free communication within the family, particularly between parents and children. Nonetheless, the specific significance which religious or belief-related convictions have for the self-understanding of individuals and communities necessitates an explicit recognition of religious and moral socialization processes within the family. Freedom to “manifest” one’s religion or belief thus includes the various practical dimensions of organizing one’s entire private and public life, individually and together with others, in conformity with one’s identity-shaping religious or belief-related convictions. 4. Criteria for limitations 25. Although the forum externum of freedom of religion or belief and freedom expression is not protected unconditionally in articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant, its legal protection remains strong. Limitations or restrictions cannot be legitimate unless they satisfy all the criteria set out in article 18 (3) or article 19 (3), respectively. Notwithstanding differences in concrete formulations, the tests required in both articles contain similar elements. Firstly, limitations or restrictions must be “prescribed by law” or “provided by law”. The requirement of a clearly formulated legal basis should prevent Governments from intervening in an arbitrary and unpredictable manner. Moreover, limitations or restrictions must serve a legitimate purpose from an exhaustive list of possible purposes. In the case of article 18 (3), this list comprises “public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. Article 19 (3) enumerates “respect of the rights and reputations of others”, as well as “protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals”. Finally, both articles require that limitations or restrictions be strictly “necessary” to pursue one of the said purposes. In other words, proposed limitations cannot be legitimate if the respective purpose could also be served by a less far-reaching intervention. 26. The Human Rights Committee emphasizes the need for limitation clauses to be applied in a strict manner to ensure that the substance of the respective provisions is preserved also in situations of a real or alleged collision with other rights or important public interests. In its general comment No. 22, the Committee insists that “limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly 8