98. Thus, to make out a prima facie case of discrimination, a complainant must identify the group that is treated differently and show how the treatment complained of and that of the other identified group are comparable. In turn, the Respondent State bears a heavier burden of proving that the difference in treatment is objective and reasonably justified in that it pursues a legitimate goal or goals and the means employed are proportionate to that goal.10 99. The Complainants contend that the victims were treated differently based on their religious affiliation when the Respondent State: (a) confiscated their identity cards and their daughters’ birth certificates; (b) prohibited them from indicating “Baha’i” on their IDs; and (c) instructed their daughters’ school not to accept IDs that indicated “Baha’i” as their religion. They submit that this differential treatment is incompatible with Article 2 of the Charter. (iii) Alleged Violation of the Article 8 of the Charter 100. Article 8 of the Charter guarantees the “freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion.” It further provides that “no one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms.” The Complainants submit that freedom of religion comprises of two aspects: (a) the freedom to hold or not hold a religious belief, which is exercised in the individual’s forum internum, and cannot be limited; and (b) the freedom to manifest or practice one’s religion in the forum externum, which can be limited on grounds of law and order. They contend that Article 8 of the Charter is broad enough to encompass all religions regardless of whether the State recognises them or not. 101. The Complainants contend that by recognising only the three heavenly religions to the exclusion of all other religions or religious beliefs, the Respondent State is in breach of the undertaking to recognise the victims’ freedom of religion which is guaranteed under the Charter. 102. Further, the Complainants contend that the measures complained of engage the external manifestation of victims’ freedom of religion. Specifically, they aver that by preventing the victims from identifying themselves as “Baha’i" in official documents, the Respondent State prevents them from manifesting their religious beliefs. The Complainants also submit that instructing the school attended by the victims’ two children not to accept birth certificates unless they bore “Muslim” as religious identity Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom (1985) ECtHR, (Application Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81) para.72. Complainants cite further authorities from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights which is inspired by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. 10 16