A/HRC/13/40/Add.2 instruction to the scope of religious communities and confessional groups, within the limits of the freedom to establish religious schools for that end. During the Special Rapporteur’s meeting with the President of the Constitutional Court, the latter also confirmed that the judgement of 15 April 2009 only referred to religious instruction at the primary school level, and he emphasized that the content of history of religions could be taught as part of history classes. 27. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that numerous models are being followed throughout the world regarding the teaching of history of religions as well as religious instruction. The Human Rights Committee noted that article 18, paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights permits public school instruction in subjects, such as the general history of religions and ethics if it is given in a neutral and objective way.13 The Committee also emphasized that public education, which includes instruction in a particular religion or belief, would be inconsistent with international human rights standards unless provision is made for non-discriminatory exemptions or alternatives accommodating the wishes of parents and legal guardians. Consequently, the judgement of the Constitutional Court of 15 April 2009 is in line with international human rights standards and seeks to protect parents’ and children’s rights to freedom of religion or belief. 28. Against this background, the Special Rapporteur was astonished by the outrage expressed publicly by certain religious leaders and politicians against the judgement of the Constitutional Court of 15 April 2009. One political party, for example, in a public announcement accused the judges of the Court of delivering verdicts only to the detriment of the government and of acting as “law-makers in the shade”, allegedly “abolishing all the laws that they dislike for ideological, political or other reasons”. Furthermore, some judges of the Court were described in that announcement as “puppets, who are anonymous for the wider public and who have never appeared before the citizens to get their trust”. The Special Rapporteur would like to stress the importance of fully respecting the judiciary’s independence and of providing accurate information, especially about contentious judgements regarding religious issues through the media to the public. 29. Several of the Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors confirmed that the Constitutional Court has had an important impact throughout the past decade on the interpretation of freedom of religion or belief and equal treatment of all believers. In 2000, the Court concluded that the State could not interfere in religious matters, whether to stimulate religious affiliation or to prevent the expression of a religious conviction.14 In another judgement, it emphasized that the State and its bodies, without any exception, must remain neutral in order to allow a citizen to choose freely whether or not to accept a certain religion, to profess it and to take part in religious rituals.15 The Special Rapporteur welcomes such clarifying decisions from bodies which are tasked to protect the constitutionality and legality at the domestic level. In the same line, the Human Rights Committee also emphasized, in its general comment no. 22, that freedom of religion or belief is not limited to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. Furthermore, the Committee stressed that article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights did not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice and that no one could be compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief. 13 14 15 10 Human Rights Committee, general comment no. 22 (1993) on freedom of thought, conscience or religion; see Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40), vol. I, annex VI, para. 6. Constitutional Court, judgement 195/1999-0-0 of 19 April 2000. Constitutional Court, judgement 42/2003-0-0 of 5 November 2003.