of years Baha’is were permitted to document their religion on official documents. The Respondent State does not demonstrate that this disrupted public order. (iii) On the effect of intervening changes to the domestic law 121. Complainants contend that the amendment to domestic law that came in the pendency of this communication before the Commission has not addressed the victims’ grievance. They state that the victims do not seek to have the religion column in official documents left blank or filled with a hyphen. Rather, they seek to have their religion recognised by being expressly indicated on official documents. 122. Further, the legal changes do not resolve the issue of discrimination against the Baha’is. Despite the legal changes allowing Baha’is to obtain official documents with the religion column left blank, the practice as at the date submitting the reply was that Baha’is have to prove that their parents were listed Baha’i for them to be issued with an official document bearing a hyphen in the religion column. This is a significant obstacle as it is rare that Baha’is’ parent have documents identifying them as such. Moreover after the year 2000 most of them were forced to bare one of the three recognised religions as their religious identity on official documents. 123. Additionally, even with the new legal developments, Baha’is cannot document their marriages in official documents as their marriage certificates are not recognised by the State. They are also still unable to make Powers of Attorney before authorities as basic information including religious affiliation needs to be available. Despite the changes to the law, government agencies refuse to conduct such transaction for Baha’is because of unavailability of information on their religious affiliation. In light of these challenges, the intervening changes to the law are still discriminatory and merely calculated to protect the recognised religions from being infiltrated by other nonrecognised religions such as Baha’i. The Commission’s Analysis on the Merits 124. A violation of a right or freedom guaranteed under international law entails breach by the State of obligations that it has undertaken under international law with respect to those rights or freedoms. A state breaches an international obligation when its conduct or conduct attributable it in the form of action or omission is not in conformity or is inconsistent with what is expected of it by the obligation in question.12 Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (Draft Articles on State Responsibility) ILC, adopted 2001, Art. 12 12 21