limitations are of general application, without singling out the complainant and his fellow Rastafari but applying to all across the board, they cannot be said discriminatory so as to curtail the Complainant's free exercise of his religious rights. Violation of the right to occupational choice: Article 15 of the African Charter 45. The Complainant has alleged that because of his religious beliefs, the Law Society refused to register his contract of community service, thereby violating his right to occupational choice. He argued that the effect of the legal restrictions on cannabis in effect denied the Rastafari access to a profession. 46. One purpose of this Charter provision is to ensure that States respect and protect the right of everyone to have access to the labour market without discrimination. The protection should be construed to allow certain restrictions depending on the type of employment and the requirements thereof. Given the legitimate interest the State has in restricting the use and possession of cannabis as shown above, it is held that the Complainant's occupational challenge can be done away with should he chose to accommodate these restrictions. Although he has the right to choose his occupational call, the Commission should not give him or anyone a leeway to bypass restrictions legitimately laid down for the interest of the whole society. There is no violation, thus, of his right to choose his occupation as he himself chose instead to disqualify himself from inclusion by choosing to confront the legitimate restrictions. Violation of the right to dignity and cultural life: Articles 5 and 17(2) of the Charter 47. The Complainant lists down the main characteristics for identifying the Rastafari way of life (culture): hairstyle, dress code, dietary code, usage of cannabis, the worship of Jah Rastafari, the Living God and others. He further states that the critical form of social interaction amongst the followers of this religion is the worship of the Creator, which is not possible without cannabis, and to which the Respondent State argues to the contrary. 48. The Commission notes that the participation in one's culture should not be at the expense of the overall good of the society. Minorities like the Rastafari may freely choose to exercise their culture, yet, that should not grant them unfettered power to violate the norms that keep the whole nation together. Otherwise, as the Respondent State alleged, the result would be anarchy, which may defeat everything altogether. Given the outweighing balance in favour of the whole society as opposed to a restricted practice of Rastafari culture, the Commission should hold that the Respondent State violated no cultural rights of the Complainant. 49. With respect to the alleged violation of the right to human dignity, the Commission holds that the Complainant's treatment by the Respondent State does not constitute unfair treatment so as to result in his loss of self-worth and integrity. As he or his fellow Rastafari are not the only one's being proscribed from the use or possession of cannabis, the Complainant has no grounds to feel devalued, marginalised, and ignored. Thus, the Commission should find no violation of the right to dignity. With respect to the arguments of the Respondent State invoking the inter-related Principle of Subsidiarity and the Margin of Appreciation doctrine: 50. The African Commission notes the meaning attached to these doctrines by the Respondent State as outlined in its submissions to the former. The principle of subsidiarity indeed informs the African Charter, like any other international and/or regional human rights instrument does to its respective supervisory body established under it, in that the African Commission could not substitute itself for internal/domestic procedures found in the Respondent State that strive to give effect to the promotion and protection of human and peoples' rights enshrined under the African Charter. 51. Similarly, the margin of appreciation doctrine informs the African Charter in that it recognises the Respondent State in being better disposed in adopting national rules, policies and guidelines in promoting and protecting human and peoples' rights as it indeed has direct and continuous knowledge of its society, its needs, resources, economic and political situation, legal practices, and the fine balance that need to be struck between the competing and sometimes conflicting forces that shape its society. 52. Both doctrines establish the primary competence and duty of the Respondent State to promote and protect human and peoples' rights within its domestic order. That is why, for instance, the African Charter, among others, requires Complainants to exhaust local remedies under its Article 56. It also gives Member States the required latitude under specific Articles in allowing them to introduce limitations. The African Commission is aware of the fact that it is a regional body and cannot, in all fairness, claim to be better 6