Wakilii

Ezzat and Another v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 355 of 2007)

African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights · [2018] ACHPR 132 · 2018 Petition Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Communication to the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights following exhaustion of domestic remedies in Egypt
Decision
Communication declared admissible and found partly in favour of complainants; Egypt to adopt remedial measures and pay compensation

Observed later treatment

No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The African Commission found Egypt violated Articles 2, 3, and 8 of the African Charter by requiring Baha'is to falsely declare adherence to recognised religions on official documents. Egypt's reservation to Article 8 was held valid, permitting non-recognition of Baha'i as a religion, but the coercive disclosure requirement and confiscation of documents violated freedom of conscience. The Commission ordered Egypt to adopt neutral marriage recognition laws and pay US$10,000 compensation.

Outcome

Communication declared admissible and found partly in favour of complainants; Egypt to adopt remedial measures and pay compensation

Facts

Hossam Ezzat and Rania Enayet, Egyptian Baha'is, were unable to register their faith on official documents. Egypt recognises only Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. In 2004, their identity cards were confiscated after they added their daughters to a passport using a dash for religion. Security services instructed their daughters' school to confiscate birth certificates and accept only documents listing them as Muslim. Egyptian courts initially ruled in their favour in 2006, but the Supreme Administrative Court reversed this in December 2006, finding the state had no obligation to recognise Baha'i faith on documents. Subsequently, domestic law was amended to permit a blank religion column, but Baha'is still could not record their actual faith. The Commission also examined Egypt's refusal to recognise or document Baha'i marriages.

Issues

  1. Whether the refusal to recognise and record the Baha'i faith on official documents violates the complainants' freedom of religion under Article 8 of the African Charter.
  2. Whether the requirement to declare one of three recognised religions (Islam, Christianity, or Judaism) or face denial of official documents constitutes discrimination under Articles 2 and 3 of the African Charter.
  3. Whether Egypt's reservation to Article 8 of the African Charter based on Islamic Sharia is valid and precludes liability for refusing to recognise the Baha'i faith.
  4. Whether the subsequent amendment to Egyptian law permitting a blank religion column on official documents provides an adequate remedy for the violations alleged.
  5. Whether the refusal to recognise and document Baha'i marriages constitutes unlawful discrimination.

Orders

  • Commission finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 2 as read together with Article 3 of the African Charter.
  • Commission finds the Respondent State in violation of Article 8 of the African Charter in respect of freedom of religion reserved to the forum internum.
  • Commission finds no violation of Article 8 of the African Charter in respect of freedom of religion reserved to the forum externum in light of the reservation.
  • Respondent State to adopt necessary measures for neutral recognition of marriages of Baha'is and other persons not identifying with the three recognised religions.
  • Respondent State to provide the victims with US$10,000 as compensation for prejudice suffered prior to the amendment to domestic civil status law.
  • Respondent State to report to the Commission within 180 days on measures adopted to implement the decision.

Rules and key headnotes

Freedom of Religion — Forum Internum — Coercion to Declare False Religious Identity
A requirement to disclose one's religious affiliation under pain of being denied critical official documents, coupled with a requirement to falsely declare adherence to a recognised religion, constitutes coercion that infringes the forum internum and violates the unconditional freedom of conscience and religion.
Freedom of Religion — Forum Internum versus Forum Externum — Distinction and Limitations
Freedom of religion comprises two aspects: the freedom to adopt or hold a religion (forum internum), which is absolute and cannot be restricted, and the freedom to manifest or practice religion (forum externum), which may be subject to lawful limitations based on law and order.
Reservations to Human Rights Treaties — Validity and Compatibility with Object and Purpose
A reservation to a human rights treaty that is specifically directed at a particular article, even if general in its reference to domestic law (such as Islamic Sharia), is not ipso jure incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Reservations are incompatible only if they affect an essential element necessary to the treaty's general tenor in such a way that they impair the treaty's raison d'être.
Remedies — Effectiveness — Exemptions from Coercive Schemes
Where a compulsory legal scheme that engages the individual's forum internum permits genuine exemptions, the individual has the freedom to opt out of the scheme and exercise the exemption. The availability of an opt-out takes away the compulsion and the scheme no longer violates the individual's conscience or forum internum.
Non-Discrimination — Equality Before the Law — Access to Official Documents
Refusal to issue official identification documents to members of a religious minority, and confiscation of such documents, solely because of their religious affiliation and in circumstances where religion is irrelevant to the issuance of the documents, constitutes unreasonable, disproportionate, and discriminatory treatment in violation of the right to equality and non-discrimination.
Marriage — Recognition and Documentation — Religious Minorities
Where a state applies religious personal laws to govern marriage and other personal status matters, it has a duty to ensure equal protection of marriages of persons who do not subscribe to any recognised religion by adopting and maintaining a neutral civil law that provides for formal recognition and documentation of such marriages. Failure to do so while affording recognition to marriages under recognised religions constitutes unlawful discrimination.
Remedies — Compensation — Lump Sum Awards
Where a violation of rights has been remedied prospectively by a change in law but victims suffered prejudice prior to the amendment, monetary compensation is due. In the absence of any other remedy to address prior prejudice, a lump sum award at large based on the Commission's impression of the circumstances is appropriate.

Legislation cited (11)

  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 1
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 2
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 3
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 8
  • African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights Article 56
  • Civil Status Law No.143/1994 (Egypt)
  • Egyptian Constitution 1971 Article 46
  • Egyptian Constitution 2012 Article 43
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 2(1)(d)
  • Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties Article 19
  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 18

Cases cited (17)

  • Jawara v The Gambia (Communication 147/95)
  • SERAC and CESR v Nigeria (Communication 155/96)
  • Legal Resources Foundation v Zambia (Communication 211/98)
  • Zimbabwe Human Rights NGO Forum v Zimbabwe (Communication 245/02)
  • Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom (1985) ECtHR, (Application Nos. 9214/80, 9473/81 and 9474/81) para.72
  • Carlos Garcia Saccone v Argentina, Case 11.671, Report Nº 8/98, Inter-Am. C. H. R., OEA/Ser.L/V/II.95 Doc. 7 rev. at 193 (1997)
  • Sofianopoulos and other v Greece (2002-X) ECtHR (Application Nos. 1977/02, 1988/02 and 1997/02)
  • Reformed Church of X. v. The Netherlands (1962) E. Comm. HR (App. No. 1497/62)
  • X. v. The Netherlands (1965) E. Comm. HR (App. No. 2065/63)
  • E.&G.R. v. Austria (1984) E. Comm. HR (App. No. 9781/82)
  • Belilos v. Switzerland (1988) ECtHR, (Application no. 10328/83) para. 48
  • Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo (2010) AHRLR 3 (ICJ 2010)
  • Bousroual v Algeria (Communication 1085/2002)
  • Free Legal Assistance Group and Others v Zaire (Communications 25/89, 47/90, 56/91, 89/93)
  • Amnesty International and Others v Sudan (Communications 48/90, 50/91, 52/91, 89/93)
  • Article 19 v Eritrea (Communication 275/03)
  • Chinhamo v Zimbabwe (Communication 307/05)

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Ezzat and Another v Arab Republic of Egypt (Communication 355 of 2007) [2018] ACHPR 132 (28 April 2018)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.