just go about volunteering their religious identity.23 Similarly, the requirement to falsely declare allegiance on official documents to a religion one does not adhere to affronts the individual’s conscience. Moreover, bearing an ID or birth certificate which falsely identifies the holder as an adherent of a recognised religion meant that at each instance Bahá’ís were required to produce such IDs by state or private entities, they falsely self-identify as an adherent of the indicated religion. Compelling an individual to declare and perpetually bear a false identity also undoubtedly affronts the individual’s conscience, the forum internum. To the extent, the compulsion to disclose one’s religion coupled with the compulsory requirement to indicate and bear a false religious identity on IDs, birth certificates and similar official documents infringes the forum internum. In this regard, the Respondent State breached its duty to respect the individual’s forum internum when it failed to desist from adopting and applying the legal measures complained of. In this respect, the internal aspect of freedom of religion under Article 8 of the Charter was violated. 139. However, the Commission does not consider the instruction to the school attended by the victims’ children by itself, or coupled with the compulsion to disclose religion and to falsely identify with a recognised religion to amount to coercion to change religion. On the available material, it is clear that Bahá’ís had to indicate one of the recognised religions as a convenience arrangement to facilitate the computerised process for issuing IDs and other official documents to Bahá’ís. There is nothing more to suggest that the object of these measures was to necessarily compel Bahá’ís to denounce their religion within their forum internum and adopt Islam as their religion, which would violate the core absolute freedom of religion within the forum internum. 140. On the contrary as subsequent developments would show, the State amended the Civil Registry Act No 143/1994 to permit Bahá’ís to obtained official documents without indicating any other religion as ordered by the domestic court. This suggests that the State’s objective was really the non-appearance of “Bahá’í” on official documents as opposed to having Baha’is denounce their religion and adopt Islam. More importantly, the amendment to the law created an exemption from disclosing one’s religion, and consequently from indicating and bearing a false identity. By that amendment, Bahá’ís do not have to declare any religion or bear a false identity. The Commission considers that where a compulsory scheme that engages the individual’s forum internum permits genuine exemptions, the individual has the freedom to opt out of the scheme and exercise the exemption. The opt out practically takes away the compulsion and the scheme does not violate the individual’s conscience or forum internum. It is an assumption because in some circumstances individuals may actually wish to have their religion recorded in public documents for various reasons. The case of Sofianopoulos and other v Greece (2002-X) ECtHR (Application Nos. 1977/02, 1988/02 and 1997/02) concerned individuals voluntary and unsolicited demand to have their religion recorded on their IDs. 23 26