CCPR/C/123/D/2807/2016 State party’s observations on the merits 5.1 In its observations on the merits of the communication dated 14 March 2017, the State party argues that the Act was passed, but for one vote, unanimously by the National Assembly and the Senate after a wide-ranging democratic debate. In this context, a parliamentary task force was set up involving elected representatives from across the political spectrum, which proceeded to hear many persons of diverse opinions, including both Muslim and non-Muslim women and civil society actors. 5.2 On 11 May 2010 – prior to the adoption of the Act – the National Assembly adopted a resolution in which it said that radical practices detrimental to human dignity and equality between men and women, including the wearing of a full-face veil, were contrary to the values of the Republic and called for the implementation of all possible measures to ensure the effective protection of women subjected to violence or pressure, including by being forced to wear a full-face veil.14 5.3 The general ban introduced by the Act is extremely limited in scope, given that only the concealment of the face is prohibited. In addition, that measure is essential to defend the principles underlying its adoption, and the sanctions for violating article 1, applicable to women choosing to wear the full Islamic veil, are measured, lawmakers having given priority to the role of education. The Act therefore strikes a reasonable balance between the defence of the essential principles of a democratic society and the freedom to dress according to one’s religious or other beliefs. 5.4 The State party emphasizes that it is not the only one to have banned the wearing of clothing that conceals the face in public spaces. For example, the federal parliament of Belgium has adopted the same ban and the lower house of the Parliament of Italy has passed a bill to the same effect. 5.5 The ban introduced by the Act covers any article of clothing intended to conceal the face in public spaces, regardless of the form that it takes or the reason for wearing it. Therefore no special treatment is reserved for garments worn for religious or cultural reasons. Nevertheless, when certain articles of clothing intended to conceal the face are worn for religious reasons, the ban can be seen as a “restriction” on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs (positive law). 5.6 The restriction in question is provided for in law, pursues a legitimate objective and is proportionate to this objective. The ban is prescribed in clear and precise terms, as are the exceptions. A circular of 2 March 2011 provides a comprehensive explanation of the scope and modalities for the application of the Act, which was complemented by a campaign in public places and a leaflet available in government offices, as well as an educational website. The Act provides for a period of six months from the time of its enactment to its entry into force and therefore meets the predictability requirement; the author knew that she was liable to be fined. 5.7 The impugned Act pursues a legitimate aim, namely, the protection of the rights and freedoms of others and the protection of public order, which are among the grounds set out in article 18 (3) of the Covenant. These aims are clearly defined in the Act’s preamble, which reaffirms the values of the Republic and the requirements of living together. In this regard, the European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France, considered that the ban could be justified only insofar as it sought to guarantee the conditions for “living together”, which the Government defined as observance of the minimum requirements of life in society. Public space is the social space par excellence in which a person is called upon to interact with others. In this interaction, the face plays a prominent role, since it is the part of the body where the shared humanity of individuals and their interlocutors is recognized. Showing one’s face not only indicates agreement to be identified by the interlocutor as an individual, but also agreement not to unfairly conceal the spirit in which the relationship is entered into, and is therefore a manifestation of the minimum level of trust required to live together in an open and egalitarian society, such as French society. 14 National Assembly resolution of 11 May 2010 on the commitment to uphold republican values in the face of the development of radical practices that undermine them. 7