new certificates that listed their religion as ‘Muslim’ and not to accept any birth
certificates where religion is registered as Baha’i as this would be in violation of public
order.
7.
The Complainants submit that, according to Egypt’s Civil Status Law
(No.143/1994), every Egyptian upon attaining the age of 16 must obtain a national
identification document. They submit that the Respondent State recognises only three
religions, what it refers to as the three ‘heavenly’ or ‘revealed’ religions, that is; Islam,
Christianity and Judaism. Every Egyptian is required to choose from among these
three for their identification documents.
8.
According to the Complainants, this limited choice is indicated in court briefs,
and the Ministry of Interior’s interpretation of Sharia or Islamic Law. They allege that
at least since 2004, an Egyptian citizen has no option to identify him or herself as
having a religion or request a religious identification different from the three ‘revealed’
religions.
9.
The Complainants submit that this limitation mainly affects the small Baha’i
community in Egypt which happens to be the largest and perhaps only unrecognised
religious community in Egypt. This has caused Baha’i Egyptians to be unable to obtain
necessary documents and consequently faced difficulties in conducting the most basic
financial and administrative transactions.
10.
The Complainants further state that, they filed a law suit before the Court of
Administrative Justice against the Minister of Interior and the President of the Civil
Status Department (CSD) on 10 June 2004. In the law suit, they asked the Minister and
the CSD to issue ID cards to the victims and new birth certificates for the three
daughters and requested that their Baha’i faith be recognised on these documents.
11.
A decision was issued in favour of the Complainants on 4 April 2006 that
ordered the CSD to grant their requests. However, on 15 May 2006, the Appeals
Inspection Chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) declared the
Government’s appeal admissible against the decision and granted the Government’s
request to suspend the implementation of the lower court’s ruling pending the appeal.
12.
The Complainants submit that the SAC held a hearing on 2 December 2006 on
the merits of the appeal and on 16 December of the same year and it overturned the
lower court’s decision finding that the state is under no obligation to issue ID cards or
birth certificates recognising the Baha’i faith.
13.
The SAC reasoned in its decision that while freedom of religion was absolute
and could not be subject to limitation, the Government could restrict the freedom of
2