should be issued with identity documents with the religion column left blank. Administrative authorities have complied with these amendments without further recourse to courts. 112. From the developments stated above, the Respondent State submits that to the extent that Baha’i adherents can now be issued with identity documents with the religion column left blank, and taking into account the reservations to Article 8 of the Charter, the complaint about difficulty or impossibility of obtaining IDs has been resolved domestically. It has accordingly become a non-issue and must be dismissed. 113. On the other hand, to the extent that the word “Baha’i” cannot be recorded on IDs, the Respondent State invokes its reservation to Article 8 of the Charter. The particular reservation is to the effect that Article 8 of the Charter on freedom of religion shall be implemented in accordance with Islamic Sharia. It states further that in accordance with the consensus of Islamic scholars which is part of Islamic Sharia, “Baha’ism” is not a divinely revealed religion and therefore the State is under no obligation to recognise it, or record it in official documents such as IDs and birth certificates. 114. Lastly, the Respondent State challenges the prayer for compensation for nonexhaustion of local remedies. It states that domestic law and courts provide for compensation for criminal, civil and administrative wrongs and the victim proves damage suffered. When the victims approached domestic courts, they did not submit any claim for compensation for damage caused to them. There is no law preventing them from submitting such a claim. The claim for compensation should therefore not be admitted for non-compliance with the requirement to exhaust local remedies in terms of Article 56(5) of the Charter. C. Complainants’ Reply to Respondent State’s merit submissions (i) Reservation to the Charter cannot defy its object and purpose 115. Complainants state that a reservation to a treaty cannot defy the object and purpose of the treaty, and that it may not be general, but must refer to a particular provision and indicate its scope in precise terms.11 Complainants contend that the Respondent State’s reservation is general and does not clearly indicate its scope. It is also clear that the Respondent State interprets the reservation to permit discriminatory acts such as imposing Sharia on non-Muslims in personal status disputes and, as in the present case, to refuse to issue IDs to persons of non-Abrahamic faiths. They submit Referring to Article 19(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) 1969, and General Comment No 24 on “Issues relating to reservations made upon ratification or accession to the Covenant or the Optional Protocols thereto, or in relation to declarations under article 41 of the Covenant”, Human Rights Committee (HRC) (GC No. 24) (1994) para. 19 11 19