not provided. The scope and meaning of the reservation cannot be determined in this regard. To this latter extent and this extent only, the reservation is, on its terms, general in its reference to the domestic law (Islamic law). 160. However, as noted above and unlike the position under the European Convention on Human Rights(ECHR),34 this generality does not ipso jure mean that the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Charter, or indeed that it is impermissible.35 The generality simply poses the difficulty of evaluating the compatibility of the reservation with the object and purpose of the Charter. As suggested by the ILC, this type of difficult necessitates a reservations dialogue. The Commission will treat the occasion of this communication as a reservations dialogue, and give due consideration to the submissions of the Respondent State concerning the content of the Islamic Law and the purpose or intention for formulating the reservation to Article 8 of the Charter. 161. It is stated that under Islamic law in Egypt, “Baha’i” cannot be recognised as a religion. The Islamic law in question is the consensus of Islamic scholars which is to the effect that Baha’i is not a “revealed or heavenly” religion as is believed to the case with Islam, Christianity and Judaism which are recognised by the State. The consensus of Islamic Scholars forms part of the Islamic law of the Respondent State. With these details, it becomes clear that the reservation was authored to exclude the obligation to recognise religions other than Islam, Christianity, and Judaism in any form for purposes of implementing Article 8 of the Charter. These details in turn make it possible to evaluate the compatibility of the reservation with the object and purpose of the Charter. Article 57 of the ECHR expressly stipulates the consequence of the generality of a reservation: reservations of a general character shall not be permitted. By contrast, this is not the case under the VCLT which applies as the default regime in the absence of a specific regime under the Charter. 35 Guideline 3.1.5.2 of the International Law Commission’s Guidelines on Reservations states the rule regarding general and vague reservations not in terms of the consequences of the generality or vagueness, but to underscore that reservations must be couched in terms that make it possible to evaluate their compatibility with the object and purpose of the treaty. In concluding its commentary of the rule as lex ferenda, the ILC states that “it would seem difficult, a priori, to maintain that they [vague and general reservations] are invalid ipso jure: the main criticism that can be levelled against them is that they make it impossible to assess whether or not they satisfy the conditions for permissibility. For that reason, they should lend themselves particularly well to a “reservations dialogue”.” The reservations dialogue is the ILC’s innovative proposal for dealing with general and vague reservations. The suggestion is that a vague or general reservations should be put to dialogue between the authoring State and other State Parties, or indeed the monitoring body, e.g. during the state reporting mechanism. 34 32