E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4 page 14 65. While CFCM was unable to reach a unified position on Law 2004-228 UOIF openly denounced the adoption of the law, although it did ask Muslim girls to comply with it. 66. Another religious minority that has been seriously affected by the adoption of the law is the Sikh community. Their members reported to the Special Rapporteur that displaying religious symbols was an essential part of their faith. They described the painful experiences they endured when their children had to cut their hair, as a result of the rigid application of the law by some educational institutions. 67. The law also appears to have sent the wrong message to a certain portion of the population which has come to believe that the wearing of religious symbols per se, and in particular headscarves, is generally unlawful. As a result of the new law, a portion of the population has come to associate the headscarf solely with gender inequality and oppression. The Special Rapporteur was informed about instances where women were refused access to shops or were insulted in the street because they wore the headscarf. For the same reasons, some women were dismissed from their employment, while others found it difficult to find employment. 68. More generally, some interlocutors criticized the law because, in their opinions it was meant to solve a problem of a more social than religious nature. They consider that the law has had a negative impact on social cohesion and that, instead of prohibiting religious symbols, the school system should teach the peaceful cohabitation of communities and universal values. D. Human rights law 69. With regard to the compatibility of Law 2004-228 with human rights law and, in particular, the right to freedom of religion or belief, the Special Rapporteur notes that the law constitutes a limitation of the right to manifest a religion or a belief. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur draws attention to the section on religious symbols of her report to the sixty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief (E/CN.4/2006/5, paras. 36-60). 70. Paragraph 3 of article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides for certain such limitations under restrictive conditions. General comment No. 22 (1993) of the Human Rights Committee emphasizes that paragraph 3 of article 18 “ … is to be strictly interpreted: restrictions are not allowed on grounds not specified there, even if they would be allowed as restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant, such as national security. Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. Restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner … ” (para. 8). So far, there has not been an assessment of the compatibility of this legislation with relevant international standards protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief by a judicial or quasi-judicial international human rights body.8