CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016 euros for a category two offence, are moderate and proportionate to the aims pursued. The stipulated alternative penalty of attendance at a citizenship course is one that is typically applied in French criminal law and may concern various offences; it is designed to remind offenders of the republican values of tolerance and respect for human dignity and to make them aware of their criminal and civil liability and of the obligations that life as a member of society entails. 7.10 The Prime Minister’s circular of 31 March 2011, addressed to prefects, describes the procedures whereby the offence may be dealt with by the police or the gendarmerie, and indicates that under no circumstances does the Act grant officers the power to force an individual to uncover his or her face. Accordingly, there is no question of a disproportionate limitation of the right to religious freedom. 7.11 With regard to the author’s complaint of a violation of articles 12 and 26 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the author has not established that the prohibition introduced under the Act applies only to women who wear the full face veil and that persons who conceal their faces by other means are not subjected to checks. On the contrary, the Act provides for a general prohibition, is not aimed at any particular item of clothing and makes no distinction between men and women. Moreover, the ban established under the Act cannot in itself be discriminatory or prejudicial to freedom of movement because it has an objective and reasonable justification. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes the author’s claim that the criminal prohibition against concealing the face in public areas, introduced under Act No. 2010-1192, and her conviction for wearing the niqab violate her rights under article 18 of the Covenant. The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the Act imposes a general ban on any article of clothing intended to conceal the face in public spaces, regardless of the form it takes or the reason for wearing it, and that the Act does not specially treat religious clothing. The Committee notes, however, that article 2 (II) broadly exempts from the Act clothing worn for “health reasons” or on “professional grounds”, or that is “part of sporting, artistic or traditional festivities or events”, including “religious processions”, or clothing that is prescribed or legally authorized by legislative or regulatory provisions. The Committee further notes the author’s submission, not contested by the State party, that fewer than 2,000 women wear the full-face veil in France, and that the vast majority of checks under the Act have been performed on women wearing the full-face veil.17 8.3 The Committee recalls its general comment No. 22, in which it stated that the freedom to manifest religion or belief may be exercised either individually or in community with others and in public or private. The observance and practice of religion or belief may include not only ceremonial acts, but also such customs as the wearing of distinctive clothing or head coverings. 18 The author’s statement that the wearing of the full veil is customary for a segment of the Muslim faithful and that it concerns the performance of a rite and practice of a religion is not in question. It is also undisputed that Act No. 20101192, prohibiting garments intended to conceal the face in public, is applicable to the niqab worn by the author, who as a result is forced to renounce the clothing that corresponds to her religious approach or risk penalties. Accordingly, the Committee considers that the ban introduced under the Act constitutes a restriction or limitation of the author’s freedom to manifest her beliefs or religion — by wearing her niqab — within the meaning of article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 17 18 10 See the report of the Observatory of Secularism mentioned above. General comment No. 22, para. 4.