internum to adopt or not adopt, have, hold or maintain or indeed recant or denounce a religion cannot, by their very absolute nature, be subject to restriction. Article 18 must be read to guarantee the core freedoms within the forum internum unconditionally. In this regard, any measure that invades the individual’s forum internum and overrides the individual’s volition to adopt or not adopt, to have/hold, to maintain or to recant or denounce a religion is absolutely prohibited. Coercion or duress in particular is such a measure. Thus, any coercion to adopt; to hold or maintain, or to recant; or to prevent someone from adopting a religion of their choice is unequivocally prohibited.19 The primary duty of States parties to the Charter is to respect these core freedoms by desisting from adopting and applying any measures that would invade the individual’s forum internum and override his or her volition. 132. On the other hand, the freedom to practice one’s religion entails all outward manifestations or observance of religious faith or belief, privately or in community with others. An act of practice or manifestation of a religion is one that in the adherent’s perception is required or prescribed by the precepts of the religion that form part of the belief freely held in the forum internum. In contrast with the aspect of freedom of religion reserved to the forum internum, the freedom to practice one’s religion is exercised in the forum externum. Owing to the inevitable interaction with the rights of others and the general interests of community, the State may adopt and apply measures which restrict the free practice of religion with a view to maintain legitimate law and order. The limitation according to law and order permitted under Article 8 of the Charter must be read to apply only to the freedom to practice one’s religion. 133. The Complainants initially advanced the case that the measures complained of implicate the external manifestation of religion.20 In their initial submissions, the Complainants make only a fleeting reference to coercion to change religion.21 However, even this ephemeral reference is not made to advance the case that the impugned measures engage the aspect of freedom of religion reserved to the forum internum. It is mentioned as part of the case that the conduct complained of constitutes a violation of the freedom of Baha’is to manifestation their religion. The upshot of a case based on freedom of religion within the forum externum is that such freedom is subject to law and order, which necessitates a limitations analysis. 134. However, in their rejoinder to the Respondent State’s submissions, the Complainants shift the basi of the case and contend that the measures complained of engage the Baha’is’ freedom of religion reserved to the forum internum which cannot The Commission is inspired in this interpretation by Article 18(2) of the ICCPR which singles out the “freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice” and absolutely prohibits coercion that would impair these freedoms of religion reserved to the forum internum. 20 See paras. 101 - 102 above 21 See para. 102 above 19 24