CCPR/C/123/D/2807/2016 restrictions could be tolerated. Because it is so general in nature, the ban introduced by the Act cannot be described as necessary for the protection of public order. 3.10 In any event, the ban is not proportionate to its objective, as the ban is permanent, it covers all public spaces and violation is a criminal offence. Wearing the full-face veil – the means of concealment of the face specifically targeted by the draft and in the debate leading up to the adoption of the Act – apparently can never be authorized under the exceptions set out in article 2 (2) of the Act.8 3.11 The European Court of Human Rights, in its judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France, dismissed the objective of protecting public safety and public order invoked by France, applying the principle of proportionality.9 The ban on concealing the face in public spaces therefore is not necessary to protect public safety and public order, insofar as it is clearly disproportionate to the stated objective. 3.12 With regard to the claim under article 26, the author submits that the application of the Act was indirectly discriminatory, as it effectively compromised her exercise of freedom of religion and freedom of movement. The Act does not treat the author in the same way as the rest of the population. It obliges her, if she does not wish to risk a criminal penalty, to refrain from wearing the full-face veil in public, while for her, doing so is a religious duty. As the only way for her to wear the veil is to avoid going out and moving about in public, her liberty of movement, specifically guaranteed by article 12 of the Covenant, is restricted. 3.13 While the Act is supposed to apply without distinction to any persons who conceal their faces in public, the fact remains that it has the effect of indirectly discriminating against women who wear the full-face veil. The discussions preceding the adoption of the Act clearly attest to the fact that it was considered a general solution that would specifically prohibit, by law, the wearing of the full-face veil. This indirect discrimination is also confirmed by the figures relating to the implementation of the Act, which nonetheless is supposed to cover any type of facial concealment, including helmets and ski masks.10 3.14 Lastly, the author reiterates that there are 2,000 women who wear the full-face veil in France. They account for more than half of the persons subjected to checks under the Act, which demonstrates that they are disproportionately subjected to checks. 3.15 The author therefore calls upon the Committee to find that articles 18 and 26 of the Covenant have been violated. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 15 November 2016, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of the communication and requested the Committee to declare it inadmissible in accordance with article 5 (2) (a) and (b) of the Optional Protocol. 4.2 The author was found guilty of wearing a niqab in a public space by the community court in Nantes on 26 March 2012 and fined €150. The author did not attend the hearing. The author then submitted an application for review to the criminal chamber of the Court of Cassation, which, in a decision of 3 April 2013, rejected the application on the basis that “the 8 9 10 Article 2 (2) stipulates that the ban does not apply to any article of clothing prescribed or authorized by law or justified for health reasons or on professional grounds, or is part of sporting, artistic or traditional festivities or events. The circular of 2 March 2011 subsequently clarified, to some extent, the implementation of the Act. With regard to the legal exceptions, it stipulates that “religious processions, to the extent that they are of a traditional nature, are covered by the scope of the exceptions to the ban set out in article 1”. However, the term “religious procession” is not defined. European Court of Human Rights, S.A.S. v. France, application No. 43835/11, Judgment, 1 July 2014, para. 139. The Observatory of Secularism, a body that reports to the Office of the Prime Minister, noted in a report that: “From the beginning of implementation of the Act up until 21 February 2014, 1,111 checks were carried out, the vast majority being performed on women wearing full-face veils. Some were checked on several occasions. In all, 1,038 police reports were issued recording the offence and 61 offenders received warnings. Of the 594 women who were fully veiled and subjected to checks, 461 had been born in France and 133 abroad. The foreigners came mainly from the Maghreb (97) and the Middle East (9). Nine were from the sub-Saharan community.” 5