A/CONF.189/PC.2/22 page 16 they may relate to the teachers recruited to provide this type of instruction, or the teaching manuals and tools, or again the class time reserved for such instruction. Secondly, the liberty enjoyed by the parents entails for the State the obligation to protect the denominational pluralism of individuals and groups against any domination by one specific religion such as would compel them “to receive religious instruction inconsistent with … their convictions”.54 52. In its General Comment No. 13 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights presents some very useful further considerations already formulated in 1993 by the Human Rights Committee in its General Comment No. 22 on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion). 53. First, as to the scope of the obligation “to ensure the religious and moral education of … children in conformity with their [parents’] convictions” contained in article 13, paragraph 3, of the Covenant, the Committee makes it clear that this obligation applies to public establishments and permits, for instance, “instruction in subjects such as the general history of religion and ethics if it is given in an unbiased and objective way, respectful of the freedoms of opinion, conscience and expression”.55 The qualitative criteria for absence of bias and for objectivity are not indicated, but it is respect for plurality of convictions in classes and schools, as also the dictates of scientific neutrality inherent in any educative function, which constitute the essential guarantees of such instruction. Thus, if the instruction conveys a historically negative image of a religion, or transmits a biased and scientifically unfounded interpretation of historical facts, or resorts to “invidious distinctions”56 or “value judgements”57 with regard to a people or a minority on the grounds of its beliefs or traditional religious practices, that instruction is neither impartial nor objective. It will not always be easy, of course, to say where non-objective reporting of a historical fact begins. Some facts may be the subject of controversy among those who have written the history of a people or a religion. The educational context and, the teacher’s personality, origin, training and culture are as important in this respect as the content of the message addressed to the pupils. Whatever the ethnic or religious mix at the school, the teacher must maintain strict neutrality and refrain from putting forward any philosophical or religious opinion that might be detrimental to the freedom of conscience of the children and the educational role of the parents.58 54. At the quantitative level, General Comment No. 13 is more useful. The Committee “notes that public education that includes instruction in a particular religion or belief is inconsistent with article 13 (3) unless provision is made for non-discriminatory exemptions or alternatives that would accommodate the wishes of parents and guardians” (E/C.12/1999/10, para. 28).59 This protection is not always easy to put into effect, for it may be in competition with other principles laid down in international law or constituting the very foundations of education in some States. Two examples relating to a particular notion of religion and religious freedom may serve to illustrate this difficulty. 55. The first, reported by Katarina Tomaševski, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, concerns the attitude of certain parents adhering to minority religions who consider the prohibition by the host State of corporal punishment of schoolchildren as an infringement of their right to provide for their children’s education according to their religious convictions and as amounting to a threat of indoctrination of children against their parents’ convictions (E/CN.4/1999/49, para. 68). In their decisions on the case the European Commission of Human