his Rastafari faith, he would never be admitted as an attorney. Accordingly, Mr Prince brought this complaint alleging violation of Articles 5, 8, 15 and 17(2) of the African Charter. In his prayers to the African Commission, the Complainant requested the African Commission to find the Respondent in violation of the said Articles, and that he be entitled to an exemption for the sacramental use of cannabis reasonably accommodating him to manifest his beliefs in accordance with his Rastafari religion. 30. In elucidating his claims, the Complainant cites two South African statutes as having an impact on the practice of the Rastafarian religion: the Drugs Act and the Medicines and Related Substances Act (the Medicines Act). The former lists cannabis as an undesirable dependence-producing substance and prohibits its use and possession, in line with the stated purpose of the Act: to prohibit the use and possession of dependence-producing substances and dealing in such substances. It, however, exempts the use or possession of this substance in certain circumstances such as for medicinal purposes, subject to the provisions of the Medicines Act, which in turn regulates the registration of medicines and substances. The latter Act, however, prohibits the use or possession of cannabis except for research and analytical purposes. The Complainant alleges that the purposes of the prohibitions contained in these two Acts coincided and hence both Statutes proscribed the sacramental use of cannabis and therefore impacted upon the religious practices of Rastafari. The proscriptions are unlimited in terms that they also encompassed the use or possession of cannabis by Rastafari for bona fide religious purposes failing to distinguish between Rastafari and drug abusers thereby grouping genuine religious observation with criminality. He alleges that the Respondent State thus violated his right to dignity [Article 5], his right to freedom of religion [Article 8], his right to occupational choice [Article15], and his right to a cultural life [Article 17.2]. 31. The Complainant, in requesting for an exemption for sacramental use of cannabis, further explains that he does not ask for the overall decriminalisation of cannabis, rather for a reasonable accommodation to manifest his beliefs in accordance with his Rastafari religion. Such reasonable accommodation ensures a religiously pluralistic society that is an important principle of any democratic society. He adds that Rastafari is a minority and vulnerable group, a political minority not able to use political power to secure favourable legislations for themselves. 32. In its initial response of 5th September 2003, the Respondent State argues that attorneys are obliged to uphold the law and wilful defiance of the law suggests that such a person is not fit and proper to be admitted as an attorney. This is so even if the person applying for admission believes that a law or a provision thereof contravenes his or her fundamental rights. Until such time that a law or a provision thereof has been declared unconstitutional or has been changed by legislative or other means, everyone has duty to obey the law or provision in question. 33. The Respondent State further argues that any religious practices must be conducted within the framework of the law and must, if necessary, be adapted to comply with the law as failure to do so will result in anarchy. Rastafari is a genuine religion protected by the South African Constitution. The recognition of and the right to practice a religion and engage in associated activities may not be exercised in a manner which is inconsistent with the Bill of Rights and the Rule of Law under which no one would be punished except for a distinct breach of law to which everyone is subject. Religious practices and the freedom to practice a religion must be conducted strictly in accordance with the law, which must be obeyed. 34. Contrary to the Complainant's allegation, the Respondent State avers that the fact that reasonable limitations are placed on the practice of a religion in the interests of society does not negate the essential right to freedom of religion. The Constitution permits limitation of rights without which the rights of others may be infringed with unintended consequences. The prohibition on the use of cannabis is a reasonable and permissible limitation on the freedom of religion. The legal restrictions placed on the use of cannabis do not erode the necessity to ensure religious pluralism, are rational and legitimate and do not invade the right any further than it needs. 35. The Respondent State further avers that lawyers have a duty, at all times, to uphold the Constitutions and the rule of law, which includes adhering to the law, adapting one's religious practices to confirm with the law and generally setting an example to others. The Complainant's professional difficulties are due to his refusal to accept and adhere to the relevant laws and that the worship of the Creator is possible without cannabis. The impugned provisions of the law do not compel Rastafari to desist from taking part in an aspect of the cultural life of their community. 36. In conclusion, the Respondent State admits that the impugned provisions do prohibit the use or possession of cannabis for bona fide religious purposes but they are not overbroad and that the Constitutional Court has upheld the restrictions placed on the use of cannabis. 3