141. The Commission is inspired in this regard by the views of the defunct European Human Rights Commission. In Reformed Church of X. v. The Netherlands (1962) E. Comm. HR (App. No. 1497/62) a pastor of the church objected to the compulsory pension scheme under the Old Age Pensions Act of The Netherlands because it was in conflict with the imperative prescriptions of the bible by which old people like him are supposed to be provided for by members of the church. He claimed that compulsory pension contributions contravened this biblical prescription which forms part of his religious faith. The Act provided for an exemption for conscientious objectors not to make direct contributions to the scheme.24 The European Commission on Human Rights found that there had been no violation of freedom of religion in light of the exemption.25 142. Similarly in the present case, the exemption introduced by the amendment to the Civil Registry Act No 143/1994 eliminated the coercion which constituted violation of freedom of conscience and religion. Thus, whereas the impugned measures were violative of Article 8 of the Charter, there is as from the time of the amendment no more violation of the freedom of conscience and religion reserved to the forum internum on the basis of compulsion to disclose religion or to bear false religious identity. 143. The foregoing analysis on freedom of religion within the forum internum has proceeded without paying any regard to the Respondent State’s submissions concerning its reservation to the Charter and the imperative of public order. The Commission does not consider that those two points are applicable to the freedom of religion within the forum internum, particularly the core freedoms within that forum. Indeed the Respondent State confirms as much in its submissions when it states its domestic law including judicial pronouncements accentuating that the core freedoms of religion within the forum internum are absolute. The Commission accordingly considers that the reservation to Article 8 of the Charter and the imperatives of public order are only applicable with respect to the freedom to practice or manifest religion. Specifically, this relates to the issue of recording ‘Bahá’í’ in official documents. 144. The Respondent State’s refuses to recognise and acknowledge the Bahá’í religion by recording it in its official documents. It is apparent that the refusal to record Bahá’í in official documents is part of a broader policy not to recognise Bahá’í as religion pursuant to the consensus of Islamic scholars which forms part of Islamic sharia. The Complainants’ initially contended that the refusal to record Baha’i in Parliament made provisions for this exemption because it was aware of the position of the church on compulsory pension contributions. 25 The case was later followed in the case of X. v. The Netherlands (1965) E. Comm. HR (App. No. 2065/63), E.&G.R. v. Austria (1984) E. Comm. HR (App. No. 9781/82) (right of election to leave church to avoid compulsory obligation to pay church tax) 24 27