aspect of the freedom of religion) which is circumscribed by the Respondent State’s reservation. 166. For these reasons, the Commission is disinclined to find the Respondent State’s reservation to Article 8 of the Charter to be incompatible with the object and purpose of the Charter. The Commission will accordingly proceed on the basis that the reservation is compatible with the object and purpose of the Charter, and therefore is permissible on the terms stated above. 167. The upshot of the reservation is that the Respondent State has excluded the obligation generally concomitant to freedom of religion to recognise religions other than Islam, Judaism and Christianity for purpose of respecting and according protection for the free practice or manifestation of such other religions. It follows that the refusal to recognise “Baha’i” by indicating it in official documents does not and cannot expose the Respondent State to international responsibility for breach of an obligation under Article 8 of the Charter. With this result it is unnecessary to consider the imperative of public order. Alleged violation of Articles 2 and 3 of the Charter 168. Concerning Article 2 of the Charter, which must invariably be read together with Article 3 on equality, it is important to note that in their initial submissions, the Complainants pinpointed three aspects of the Respondent State’s conduct. They submitted that the victims were treated differently when the Respondent State’s agencies (i) confiscated the victims’ identity cards and their daughters’ birth certificates; (ii) refused to allow the victims to indicate their religion on official documents; and (iii) instructed the school attended by the victims’ daughters not to accept birth certificates bearing “Bahá’í”.40 169. In their rejoinder, the Complainants introduce new elements as part of the basis of the complaint of discrimination. Firstly, they state that as at December 2013 when they submitted their rejoinder, the practice was that Bahá’ís have to provide official documents proving that their parents were listed as Bahá’í for them to be issued with official documents with the religions column left blank. Secondly, Bahá’ís cannot also document their marriages in official documents because the Respondent State does not recognise their religion. Thirdly, they cannot make powers of attorney before authorities because basic information including religious affiliation is not available since their IDs contain no information on religion. 40 See above paragraph 99 34