possibly attested to such experiences. Alternatively, one would expect that the Complainants came across some authentic report documenting such experiences by the Bahá’í. The very nature of the allegation they make about the administrative practices presupposes that one has some evidence that is indicative of a practice that is prevalent. 173. The Complainants have not offered any evidence symptomatic of the alleged practice. Neither do they assert that it was impossible to obtain such evidence and produce it to the Commission. Moreover, the Respondent State has had no opportunity to respond with facts and evidence regarding these two new allegations. In the circumstances, the Commission is unable to consider (for purpose of the claim of discrimination) the alleged practice of requiring applicants for documents to produce official documentation listing their parents as Bahá’í or indeed the alleged refusal to facilitate the making of powers of attorney. 174. On the other hand, by contrast, the issue of refusal to document Bahá’í marriages appears to be corroborated by the Respondent State. The Respondent State affirms that issues of personal status are governed by personal law. It recognised three personal laws based on the three recognised religions. It is clear that because the Respondent State does not recognise Bahá’í as a religion, it does not also recognise personal law based on the Bahá’í faith. Where personal law based on Christianity or Judaism is not applicable, Islamic Sharia applies as a default legal regime. Moreover, because it does not recognise Bahá’í as a religion, it cannot document or recognise marriages that are contracted based on the Bahá’í faith. There does not appear to be any neutral legal regime that governs personal matters such as contracting or dissolution of marriages. Having been so corroborated, the allegation of refusal to document marriages will be considered in respect of the claim of discrimination together with the allegations advanced by the Complainant in their initial submissions on the merits. 175. Further, among the initial basis for the complaint of discrimination is the fact that the Respondent State refuses to permit Bahá’ís to indicate their religion in official documents while it permits adherents of the recognised religions to do so. The Complainants contend that this is differential treatment and amounts to discrimination. This can be disposed of briefly. Article 2 of the Charter guarantees the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms under the Charter without discrimination. The indication of one’s religion on official documents does not constitute exercise of any right or freedom under the Charter, including in particular the practice of religion. The official documents still serve their purposes when religion is not indicated on them. The insistence on official documents bearing “Bahá’í” appears to be for the political purpose of securing recognition by the State, an obligation the Respondent State has 36