It is therefore important to establish the alleged conduct of the State with sufficient
certainty and identify the concomitant obligations which such conduct implicates.13
125. The facts as initially submitted by the Complainants are neither complex nor in
dispute. “Baha’i”, the victims’ religion is not recognised as such by the Respondent
State. Only Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are recognised as religions. The law
governing civil status data requires everyone to indicate his or her religion on official
documents such as birth certificates and national identification documents. Because
Baha’i is not recognised as a religion, the ‘relevant State agencies could not record it
on official documents or for purposes of issuing such documents. Initially, they could
not also leave the column for religion blank. As a result, to be issued with official
documents, Baha’is were required to indicate one of the three recognised religions.
Baha’is found this obnoxious and had/have difficulties obtaining official documents
or conducting basic transactions which require data on one’s religion to be recorded.
As will be noted below, during the period this Communication has been pending
before the Commission there have been some changes in domestic law which have to
an extent impacted these facts and consequently the focus of the complaint.
126. Regarding obligations undertaken by the Respondent State under the Charter,
Article 1 of the Charter is critical. It provides in the material parts that State Parties to
the Charter “shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and shall
undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them.” Article 1 of the
Charter embodies the overarching obligations undertaken by State Parties to the
Charter. The Commission has expounded that the general obligations under Article 1
of the Charter generate the obligations: to respect, protect, promote and fulfil the rights
and freedoms.14
127. These obligations are affiliated to each right and freedom guaranteed under the
Charter. It follows that violation of any right or freedom under the Charter entails a
breach of any or several of these obligations, and in turn entails a breach of Article 1
of the Charter. In this regard, a breach of Article 1 is a material and inextricable part of
any established violation of every right or freedom under the Charter.15 It is
accordingly unnecessary to consider violation of Article 1 of the Charter independent
of the rights or freedoms, or indeed at all, where alleged violation of such rights or
freedoms is also due to be considered. For this reason, the alleged violation of Article
Communication 155/96 – Social Economic Rights Action Centre (SERAC) and Center for Economic and
Social Rights (CESR) v Nigeria (SERAC Case) (2001) ACHPR para. 43
14 Id, para. 44
15 Communications 147/95-149/96 - Sir Dawda K. Jawara v Gambia (2000) ACHPR para. 46;
Communication 279/03-296/05 - Sudan Human Rights Organisation &Centre on Housing Rights and
Evictions (COHRE) v Sudan (2010) ACHPR, para 227; Communication 368/09 - Abdel Hadi, Ali Radi &
Others v Sudan (2013) ACHPR para.91, 92
13
22