A/63/161 2. European Commission/Court of Human Rights 62. Mr. Aurik and Mr. Coeriel had also submitted a complaint to the European Commission on Human Rights. The Commission declared the complaint under articles 9 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded since the complainants had not established that their religious studies would be impeded by the refusal to modify their surnames. 59 63. The European Court of Human Rights has also dealt with the wording of oaths for elected members of national legislatures. In the case of Buscarini and others v. San Marino, the Court found that freedom of thought, conscience and religion “entails, inter alia, freedom to hold or not to hold religious beliefs and to practise or not to practise a religion”. 60 The applicants in this case had been elected to the General Grand Council of the Republic of San Marino whose members have to swear an oath “on the Holy Gospels” before taking office. The Court indicated that the requirement to swear allegiance to a particular religion on pain of forfeiting parliamentary seats would be contrary to the freedom of thought, conscience and religion unless it was prescribed by law, pursued one or more of the legitimate aims set out in article 9 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights and was necessary in a democratic society. The Court ultimately found that “requiring the applicants to take the oath on the Gospels was tantamount to requiring two elected representatives of the people to swear allegiance to a particular religion, a requirement which is not compatible with article 9 of the Convention. As the Commission rightly stated in its report, it would be contradictory to make the exercise of a mandate intended to represent different views of society within Parliament subject to a prior declaration of commitment to a particular set of beliefs.” 61 64. In McGuinness v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights further developed its case law on this matter. Martin McGuinness, an elected Member of Parliament of Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland, was required to take an oath of allegiance to the British monarchy 62 before taking his seat in Parliament. He alleged that to take the prescribed oath would offend his religious beliefs as they are enshrined in article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as he was a Roman Catholic and that under the law of the United Kingdom, Roman Catholics are barred from acceding to the throne. The Court referred to its judgement in Buscarini and others; however, in this case it found that since the applicant was not required to swear or affirm allegiance to a particular religion on pain of forfeiting his parliamentary seat or as a condition of taking up his seat, the applicant’s complaint under article 9 of the European Convention was manifestly ill-founded. 63 65. In Buscarini and others v. San Marino, the European Court of Human Rights referred to another leading case, Kokkinakis v. Greece, where the Court had stated that “[a]s enshrined in Article 9 (art. 9), freedom of thought, conscience and religion __________________ 59 60 61 62 63 20 European Commission on Human Rights, inadmissibility decision of 2 July 1992, application No. 18050/91; see also the reference in CCPR/C/48/D/453/1991, para. 2.4. European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 18 February 1999, application No. 24645/94, para. 34. Ibid., para. 39. “I [name] do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors, according to the law. So help me God.” European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 8 June 1999, application No. 39511/98, para. 2. 08-43442