E/CN.4/2005/61 page 19 child should be permitted to wear the headscarf in public schools. The Special Rapporteur notes, however, that the specific legislation or draft laws do not themselves discriminate against any single religion or belief. 65. From a human rights law perspective, the Special Rapporteur notes that most international judicial or quasi-judicial bodies have considered that the display of religious symbols is a “manifestation” of religion or belief falling within the purview of the second part of article 18, paragraph 1, of ICCPR and therefore susceptible of limitation rather than an element of the “forum internum”, which is protected by the first part of article 18, paragraph 1, of ICCPR and hence not susceptible of any limitation. 66. She also notes that the Human Rights Committee considered, in its general comment No. 22, that the manifestation of religion or belief in worship included “the display of symbols” and certain customs such as the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings.7 67. Having noted the above, the Special Rapporteur considers that the question of restrictions placed on these voluntary displays or religious symbols are in certain situations not easy to resolve, even from a human rights perspective, as they often reveal situations where human rights other than freedom of religion or belief may be at stake. Moreover, she notes that international human rights bodies have sometimes come to different conclusions on this issue. 68. Certain United Nations mechanisms have recently addressed the question of religious symbols. In its concluding observations adopted on 4 June 2004 on the second periodic report of France (CRC/C/15/Add.240), the Committee on the Rights of the Child expressed its concern that “the new legislation (Law No. 2004-228 of 15 March 2004) on wearing religious signs in public schools may be counterproductive, by neglecting the principle of the best interests of the child and the right of the child to access to education … the Committee recommends that the State party … consider alternative means, including mediation, of ensuring the secular character of public schools, while guaranteeing that individual rights are not infringed upon and that children are not excluded or marginalized from the school system … . The dress code in schools may be better addressed within the public schools themselves, encouraging participation of children”.8 69. In its decision in the Hudoyberganova v. Uzbekistan case, the Human Rights Committee considered, with one dissenting and one partly dissenting opinion, that “to prevent a person from wearing religious clothing in public or private may constitute a violation of article 18, paragraph 2, which prohibits any coercion that would impair the individual’s freedom to have or adopt a religion. As reflected in the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (para. 5), policies or practices that have the same intention or effect as direct coercion, such as those restricting access to education, are inconsistent with article 18, paragraph 2. It recalls, however, that the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs is not absolute and may be subject to limitations, which are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others (article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant)”.9 70. Without giving her evaluation of the above findings, the Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize that those situations have to be considered on a case-by-case basis and take into account the other human rights aspects that may be at stake in the situation concerned. She intends to further elaborate on this question in her next report.