that in these respects the reservation is incompatible with the object and purpose of the Charter and cannot absolve it from international responsibility. 116. Moreover Respondent State has not entered any reservation to Article 2 of the Charter. In its submissions on the merits, it has not offered any justification for the discriminatory treatment exacted on the victims, and therefore should be found in violation of that provision. (ii) Alleged violation of freedom of religion 117. The Complainants contend that the present case concerns the freedom to hold a religious belief or faith within the forum internum. It does not concern the external manifestation and practice of religion which may be subject to restrictions. They submit that manifestation or practice of religion must be limited to the individual’s voluntary acts. 118. By contrast, the Respondent State compels the Complainants and all Egyptian citizens to declare their religious affiliation on official documents. Complying with a compulsory requirement of the State should do not amount to manifestation or practice as they are at the behest of the State, and not vluntary. Accordingly, the issue is not whether the Bahá’ís should enjoy unrestricted freedom to manifest or practice their religion. Rather, it is whether Baha’is should enjoy unrestricted freedom in upholding their religion when the State forces them to declare it. They submit that freedom of religion within the forum internum should mean that when individuals are compelled to declare their religion, they must be permitted to declare the religion they truly adhere to. 119. The Complainants refer to HRC General Comment No 22 in which the HRC states that “no one can be compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief”, and that such freedom is “protected unconditionally”. They submit that by compelling citizens to identify their religious affiliation on official documents, the Respondent State violates this principle which protects freedom of religion within the individual’s forum internum. Additionally, if it is deemed necessary for individuals to declare their religious affiliations, then they must be unconditionally permitted to declare the religion they truly hold. 120. Alternatively, the Complainants submit that the Respondent State’s restrictions on Article 8 are not in accordance with the permitted limitations based on law and order as they negate the essence of freedom of religion. Further, they observe that the Respondent State does not provide any logical explanation of how recording “Baha’i” on official documents harms public order. The Complainants state that for a number 20