protect the free practice of the religion from third parties. The Respondent State’s refusal to recognise “Baha’i” generally as a religion or in official documents specifically must be considered in light of its implications for the free practice or manifestation of the Bahái religion. The State’s refusal to recognise or acknowledge a given religion and the possible consequent refusal to respect or protect its manifestation would constitute breaches of the duties to respect and protect and in turn, constitute violation of the freedom to practice one’s religion. However, the State would be held internationally responsible only if it is has undertaken these obligations under international law. It is in this vein that the Respondent State invokes its reservation to Article 8 of the Charter and the imperative of public order. The reservation is invoked to exclude the obligation to recognise the Baha’i religion. 149. The Commission notes the Complainants’ arguments in the rejoinder contesting the compatibility of the reservation in question and the imperative of public order. These matters merits detailed consideration. In matters of this nature, the Commission reckons the importance of appropriate characterisation of an instrument of ratification. As the International Law Commission notes in the Guidelines on Reservations to Treaties, it is only once a particular instrument of ratification has been characterised as a reservation that one can decide on the appropriate legal regime for assessing its validity, legal scope, and determine its effects.27 150. A reservation as understood under international law means “a unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or to modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State.”28 The intention of the State Party29 authoring such an instrument of ratification is to exclude or modify, the legal effect of the provisions to which the reservation applies. 151. In the present case, the Respondent State’s instrument of ratification of the Charter declares in the relevant parts that:Having accepted all the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights with the approval of the People's Assembly and with International Law Commission (ILC), Guidelines on Reservations to Treaties, (ILC Guidelines on Reservations) (2011) p.329 28 VCLT, Art. 2(1)(d), emphasis supplied 29 Guideline 1.3.1 of the ILC Guideline on Reservations states that to determine “… whether a unilateral statement formulated by a State in respect of a treaty is a reservation, the statement should be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms, with a view to identifying therefrom the intention of its author, in light of the treaty to which it refers.” See similar emphasis on intention of the State by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Reservation to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion (1951) ICJ p. 9; GC No. 24, para. 3; Belilos v. Switzerland (1988) ECtHR, (Application no. 10328/83) para. 48 27 29