CCPR/C/123/D/2807/2016 contains additional factual evidence, is new and thus inadmissible”. This decision cannot be appealed. The author maintains that she has exhausted all available domestic remedies. 2.7 The author points out that she was not assisted by counsel at the community court in Nantes; that the procedure is an expedited one, with a single judge who is generally not even a judge by profession; and that the procedure is not subject to appeal, leaving her no chance to set out arguments related to her religious freedom and the discriminatory nature of the Act. 2.8 The author adds that the Court of Cassation, by holding that “the argument regarding a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, since it was not brought before the trial judge and contains additional factual evidence, is new and thus inadmissible”, incorrectly applied article 619 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which provides that new grounds will not be admissible before the Court of Cassation. Nevertheless, the following may be raised for the first time, unless stipulated otherwise: (a) purely legal grounds; and (b) grounds based on the impugned decision. 2.9 According to the author, as the ground invoked, that is, the incompatibility of a law, constitutes “purely legal grounds”, her appeal to the Court of Cassation against the banning of the full-face veil was perfectly admissible, notwithstanding the fact that it was a new argument. The author cites the example of a posteriori review of constitutionality; since 2010, it has been possible by law to raise this issue for the first time in an appeal to the Court of Cassation. She adds that an assessment in abstracto of the constitutionality of a law is by nature a “purely legal” matter and takes no account of the specific circumstances in a given case. According to the author, the same holds true when the conformity of a domestic law with a treaty obligation is assessed with the same degree of objectivity. 2.10 The author therefore calls upon the Committee to find that her complaint cannot be deemed inadmissible, as the ground invoked before the Court of Cassation did not constitute additional evidence of fact and law, but was a “purely legal” ground. 2.11 The author submitted an application to the European Court of Human Rights on 24 June 2013, calling for it to find violations of articles 6 (1) and 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Her application was declared inadmissible by the Court, meeting in singlejudge formation between 21 August and 4 September 2014, on the grounds that the conditions of admissibility laid down in articles 34–35 of the Convention had not been met. Complaint 3.1 According to the author, the ban on concealing the face in public spaces and the fact that she was convicted for wearing the niqab are a violation of her rights under articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant. 3.2 Regarding article 18, wearing the niqab or the burka amounts to wearing a garment that is customary for a segment of the Muslim faithful. It is an act motivated by religious beliefs. Consequently, it concerns the observance and practice of a religion, and freedom to manifest that religion is guaranteed by article 18 of the Covenant, notwithstanding the fact that wearing the niqab or the burka is not a religious requirement common to all practising Muslims. The author refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993), in which it stated that the observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts, but also such customs as the observance of dietary regulations and the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings. Wearing the niqab or the burka amounts to wearing a garment that is customary for a segment of the Muslim faithful, an act that is motivated by religious beliefs and is thus part of the observance and practice of religion, and freedom to manifest a religion is guaranteed by article 18 of the Covenant. 3.3 According to the author, there can be no disputing that the State is interfering in the religious freedom of the minority of Muslim women who wear the full-face veil (according to a parliamentary commission that studied the matter, fewer than 2,000 women are concerned). The author recalls, in this regard, the reservation entered by the Constitutional Council of France regarding places of worship, in its decision of 7 October 2010: “The ban on concealing the face in public spaces cannot, without excessively undermining article 10 of the Declaration of 1789, restrict the exercise of religious freedom in places of worship 3