Violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to education-{general};Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Javier Borrego Borrego;Jean-Paul Costa;Khanlar Hajiyev;Loukis Loucaides;Luzius Wildhaber;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Peer Lorenzen;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The present application was lodged by parents , who are members of ORG ) , and their children , who were primary - school pupils at the time of the events complained of in the present case : PERSON ( born in DATE ) , Mr PERSON ( born in DATE ) and their son , PERSON ( born in DATE ) ; PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON ( born in DATE ) and their CARDINAL sons , PERSON ( born in DATE ) and PERSON ( born in DATE ) ; PERSON ( born in DATE ) and her son , PERSON ( born in DATE ) . Initially the ORG had also joined the application , but it subsequently withdrew .

On DATE the ORG struck the application out in so far as it concerned the ORG and declared the application inadmissible on grounds of non - exhaustion in respect of the applicant children ( for which reason , the term “ applicants ” used elsewhere in the present judgment refers to the applicant parents ) . The ORG moreover observed that , while the applicant parents had complained under the LAW in particular about the absence of a right to full exemption from the ORG subject ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they had also challenged before the ORG the limited possibilities and the modalities for obtaining partial exemption . However , as can be seen from ORG judgment , the applicant GPE lawsuit and appeal to ORG had been directed against the ORG subject and its implementation generally . ORG found no ground for determining whether the teaching of the NORP children had occurred in a manner which violated the relevant human rights treaties . In the light of the foregoing , the ORG found that the applicant parents had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by LAW in respect of their complaint about the possibilities and modalities for obtaining partial exemption from the ORG subject and declared this part of the GPE application inadmissible .

In its subsequent decision on admissibility of DATE , the ORG held that , in its examination of the issue regarding full exemption , the above limitations on the scope of the case that followed from the decision of CARDINAL DATE did not prevent it from considering the general aspects of the partial - exemption arrangement , notably in the context of the GPE complaint under LAW .

GPE has a State religion and ORG , of which PERCENT of the population are members . LAW provides :

“ Everyone residing in the GPE shall enjoy freedom of religion .

ORG remains the ORG ’s official religion . Residents who subscribe to it are obliged to educate their children likewise . ”

Instruction in the NORP faith has been part of the NORP school curriculum since DATE . From DATE members of religious communities other than ORG were entitled to be exempted in whole or in part from the teaching of the NORP faith .

In connection with the enactment of the former LAW DATE ( lov om grunnskolen , CARDINAL DATE , no . DATE , hereafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) , ORG decided that teaching of the NORP faith should be dissociated from the baptismal instruction of the ORG and aimed at teaching the main content of the history of the Bible , the principal events in NORP history and basic knowledge of ORG Faith for children ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ) .

NORP Under the “ NORP object clause ” ( den kristne formålsparagraf ) in LAW :

“ Primary school shall , with the understanding and cooperation of the home , assist in giving pupils a NORP and moral education and in developing their abilities , spiritual as well as physical , and giving them good general knowledge so that they can become useful and independent human beings at home and in society .

School shall promote spiritual freedom and tolerance , and place emphasis on creating good conditions for cooperation between teachers and pupils and between the school and the home . ”

Teachers were required to teach in accordance with ORG faith ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , added in DATE ) .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act , children of parents who were not members of ORG were entitled , upon the GPE request , to be exempted in whole or in part from lessons on the NORP faith . Pupils who had been exempted could be offered alternative lessons in philosophy .

DATE a process of reform of compulsory primary and secondary school took place . In DATE ORG decided to bring the school starting age forward from DATE it extended compulsory school attendance from DATE . A new curriculum was presented to ORG . The majority of ORG , ORG and ORG proposed that NORP , other religions and philosophy be taught together . It emphasised the importance of ensuring an open and inclusive school environment , irrespective of the ORG social background , religious creed , nationality , sex , ethnic group or functional ability . School should be a meeting place for all views . Pupils having different religious and philosophical convictions should meet others and gain knowledge about each other ’s thoughts and traditions . School should not be an arena for preaching or missionary activities . It was noted that since DATE teaching of the NORP faith had been dissociated from ORG baptismal instruction . The subject should give knowledge and insight but should not be a tool for religious preaching . The ORG ’s majority further considered that guidelines for exemptions should be worked out in order to achieve a uniform practice and that minority groups should be consulted . Exemptions should be limited to parts of the subject , especially material of a confessional character and participation in rituals .

Subsequently , a white paper ( St.meld . nr . CARDINAL for DATE ) on NORP , religion and philosophy ( kristendomskunnskap med religions- og livssynsorientering , hereafter referred to as “ the ORG subject ” ) was presented , in which ORG , ORG and ORG ( Kirke- , utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet ; as from DATE ORG ( Utdannings- og forskningsdepartementet ) – hereafter “ the Ministry ” ) indicated the following guidelines for making exemptions :

“ No pupil should feel that being exempted is unpleasant or a stigma ;

No pupil should be pressurised to stand out as a representative of a specific philosophy of life and the school should therefore display great caution in class or at the school in its handling of a request for exemption ;

It should not be automatic for certain pupils to be exempted from certain parts of the syllabus ;

If the circumstances lend themselves to it and the parents / pupil so wish , the background and reasons for an exemption can be taken up in the lessons .

An exemption does not mean a freedom to be ignorant ... ”

The majority of the above - mentioned parliamentary committee endorsed the curriculum in the main and pointed out that NORP should form the central part of the ORG subject ( Innst.s.nr CARDINAL for DATE ) . It further stated :

“ The majority would also underline that the teaching should not be value - neutral . The aim that the teaching should not be preaching should never be interpreted to mean that it should occur in a religious / ethical vacuum . All teaching and education in our primary schools shall take the school ’s object clause as a starting point and , within this subject , NORP , other religions and philosophy shall be presented according to their own special features . The subject should place emphasis on the teaching of NORP . ”

A minority of CARDINAL proposed that , for all primary - school pupils , there should be a right to full exemption from the ORG subject and to alternative teaching .

In the course of preparing the amendments to the law , the ORG commissioned PERSON , then a ORG Judge , to make an assessment of compulsory education in the ORG subject from the angle of GPE ’s obligations under public international law . In his report of DATE , he concluded :

“ The object clause of LAW , whether taken alone or together with LAW and other special rules on the ORG and schools , does not provide a basis for establishing that the teaching of NORP under the new syllabus will of legal necessity become preaching , educative or influential in favour of ORG . The legislature may choose to make provision for education in the form of preaching to pupils who are of this creed , but not to others . That would be inconsistent with our international obligations and LAW on the protection of human rights .

What emerges , from a legal point of view , from the somewhat unclear concept of ‘ confessional basis’ , is that a natural consequence of the ORG system is that the legislator lets instruction in religion or philosophy include ORG thoughts , not other forms of NORP . The law on the new subject , which includes a part on NORP , has opted for this . ... The solution has been opted for because the majority of the population in GPE is affiliated to this creed . It is evidently motivated by objective reasons . It can not be ruled out by human rights treaties , provided that the teaching is otherwise pluralistic , neutral and objective . ”

As regards the issue of exemption from the ORG subject , PERSON stated :

“ In the situation as it emerges I find that a general right of exemption would be the safest option . This would mean that international review bodies would not undertake a closer examination of thorny questions that compulsory education raises . However , I can not say that a partial exemption would violate the conventions , provided that the operation of the system falls within the framework of the relevant treaty obligations . A lot would depend on the further legislative process and the manner of implementation of the subject . ”

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act were amended by LAW of DATE ( no . DATE ) , which came into effect on DATE . The new provisions , plus an object clause similar to section CARDINAL of the former GPE , were subsequently included in sections DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL respectively of LAW ( PERSON om grunnskolen og den videregående opplæring av CARDINAL . DATE nr . DATE “ LAW DATE ” ) , which came into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided :

“ The object of primary and lower secondary education shall be , in agreement and cooperation with the home , to help give pupils a NORP and moral upbringing , to develop their mental and physical abilities , and to give them good general knowledge so that they may become useful and independent human beings at home and in society . ”

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL read :

“ Instruction in NORP , religion and philosophy shall

( i ) transmit thorough knowledge of the Bible and NORP in the form of cultural heritage and ORG Faith ;

( ii ) transmit knowledge of other NORP communities ;

( iii ) transmit knowledge of other world religions and philosophies , and ethical and philosophical subjects ;

( iv ) promote understanding and respect for NORP and humanist values ; and

( v ) promote understanding , respect and the ability to maintain a dialogue between people with different perceptions of beliefs and convictions .

Instruction in NORP , religion and philosophy is an ordinary school subject , which should normally bring together all pupils . The subject shall not be taught in a preaching manner .

A person who teaches NORP , religion and philosophy shall take as a starting point the object clause in section CARDINAL - CARDINAL and should present NORP , the different religions and philosophy from the standpoint of their particular characteristics . The same pedagogical principles shall apply to the teaching of the different topics .

A pupil shall , on the submission of a written parental note , be granted exemption from those parts of the teaching in the particular school concerned that they , from the point of view of their own religion or philosophy of life , consider as amounting to the practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life . This may concern , inter alia , religious activities within or outside the classroom . In the event of a parental note requesting exemption , the school shall as far as possible seek to find solutions by facilitating differentiated teaching within the school curriculum . ”

From the travaux préparatoires it can be seen that the expression “ religious activities ” was meant to cover , for example , prayers , psalms , the learning of religious texts by heart and the participation in plays of a religious nature .

In accordance with a circular by ORG ( ORG ) , a parental note to the school requesting exemption should contain reasons setting out what they considered amounted to practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life . The pupil should be granted an exemption after the parents had specified the reasons . If the request was rejected , the parents had a right of appeal to ORG in the county concerned . The appeal was sent via the school , which then had an opportunity to alter its decision .

The requirement of giving reasons was further specified in a ministerial circular of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG ) , according to which no reasons were required for making an exemption from clearly religious activities . Beyond that , with regard to matters falling outside the main rule for making exemptions , stricter requirements applied in respect of reasons .

In connection with the preparation of the ORG subject , associations representing minority convictions expressed strong objections , notably that the subject was dominated by ORG NORP and contained elements of preaching . ORG commented , inter alia , that the subject had a confessional basis ( konfesjonsforankring ) and that the possibility foreseen for obtaining exemption from only parts of the subject was inadequate . At its national congress in DATE the ORG decided to invite ORG to reject the government ’s proposal to limit the right of exemption .

From DATE the ORG subject was gradually introduced into the primary - school curriculum , replacing the subject of NORP and philosophy of life . During DATE , the subject was introduced at all levels .

On DATE the ORG issued a press release about the completion of CARDINAL evaluation reports on the ORG subject , one entitled “ GPE , ORG and ORG experiences with the ORG subject ” ( Foreldres , elevers og læreres erfaringer med GPE - faget ) , provided by PERSON , the other entitled “ A subject for every taste ? An evaluation of the GPE subject ” ( Et fag for enhever smak ? En evaluering av GPE - faget ) by the PERSON i ORG and PERSON . ORG had requested that a survey of the implementation of the exemption rules be prepared after a DATE period . Both reports concluded that the partial - exemption arrangement was not working as intended and should therefore be thoroughly reviewed . The second report listed the following “ Main conclusions ” :

“ In this part of our report we have discussed whether there is concordance between ORG ’s intentions , principles and exemption schemes on the one hand and its practical implementation in schools nationwide on the other , and whether parental rights can be said to be ensured when the teaching and exemption scheme are organised the way they are . The perspective of parental rights , which is central to the project ’s mandate , has made it necessary to focus especially on the experiences various groups of parents have had with the subject and with the exemption scheme .

All things considered it should be said that the great majority of the parents we have been in contact with , who belong to ORG , are satisfied with the subject or have no strong opinions about it . However we have found powerful resistance to important aspects of the subject among other groups of parents . The lasting antipathy to the subject from parents belonging to religious / faith minorities means that ORG can hardly be said to integrate and include as intended .

The principal and empirical surveys provide grounds for the following main conclusions :

There is broad agreement among parents that it is important to have some common teaching in the subject concerning different religions and beliefs , but there is no agreement about

• what the contents and objectives of the common teaching should be ;

• in DATE the pupils should be taught about religions other than their own .

NORP In practice some of the subject ’s intentions are ensured at all surveyed schools , but at none of them are all the fundamental intentions ensured . Deficient implementation of the central intentions underlying the subject can be explained by

• tensions in the subject description itself and between the various intentions underlying the subject , making it difficult to implement ;

• lack of resources and problems with implementation presuppose changes at schools .

NORP The current exemption scheme does not work so that parental rights are ensured in practice . This is due to the following reasons among others :

• the information schools give about the exemption scheme is in many ways not suited to safeguarding the possibility of exemption ;

• the information given about ORG classes is of too general a nature for parents to be able to notify their intention regarding an exemption . For example , information about working methods is hardly ever given . Besides , the lesson plans generally come too late for parents to have a practical opportunity of asking for an exemption ;

• schools interpret LAW too strictly compared with the clarifications given both by ORG and ORG . For instance , an exemption is often granted only in respect of those activities which are ‘ clearly religious GPE . Furthermore several schools report attitudes which give the impression that it is practically impossible to be granted an exemption ;

• schools offer very little differentiated teaching to pupils who are to be exempted from parts of the subject , and pupils with an exemption mostly sit passively in the classroom ;

• in addition , a number of parents from minority - language backgrounds do not have the language competence necessary to exercise their rights even though they would like an exemption . In many cases this causes distrust in school / home relations . A considerable number of parents from minority backgrounds say they want full exemption but will not apply because they are afraid of a conflict with the school that may harm their children ;

• the integration of themes and subjects helps ORG become invisible in the timetable so that in practice it is very difficult to ask for an exemption .

Changes should be made which still ensure some teaching for the whole class , while ensuring parental rights in practice . This only seems possible under certain conditions .

• Arrangements should be made in order to facilitate teaching about the different religions and beliefs and promote dialogue and mutual respect in some tuition for the whole class . Efforts should probably be made to have flexible models that can be adjusted to the special conditions prevailing for lower primary , upper primary and lower secondary levels respectively in different parts of the country and for different groups of pupils ;

• Considering the problems we can now see at several schools , it should be possible to provide for full exemption . This would be the safest solution in respect of international conventions and probably also the one that in the long run would be best suited to ensuring support and legitimacy for a subject that is focused on religion and belief .

We have established that the variations we have found in teaching in different parts of the country , at some schools and in different classes , give us reason to ask if ORG is one or CARDINAL new subject . ”

In the meantime , on DATE ORG , together with CARDINAL sets of parents who were members of the ORG and whose children went to primary school , brought proceedings before ORG ( byrett ) on account of administrative refusals of the GPE applications for full exemption from the teaching of the ORG subject . They claimed that the refusal of full exemption violated the GPE and the children ’s rights under LAW No . CARDINAL , taken on their own or in conjunction with LAW . They also relied on , amongst other provisions , Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the DATE United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and LAW .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the ORG ’s objection that the ORG lacked a legal interest and hence did not have legal standing . However , on the substantive issues ORG found for the ORG and rejected the claim .

The ORG and the parents appealed to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) , which by a judgment of DATE upheld ORG judgment .

On a further appeal by the applicants , ORG ( PERSON ) , by a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , unanimously dismissed the appeal in so far as it concerned the ORG on the ground that it lacked a legal interest sufficient to have standing in the case . In so far as it concerned the other appellants , it unanimously dismissed their appeal and upheld ORG judgment .

In his reasoning , approved in the main by the other four Justices sitting in the case , the first voting judge , Mr Justice PERSON , stated from the outset that “ [ the ] case concerns the validity of the administrative decisions rejecting the GPE applications for full exemption for their children from the primary and secondary school ( GPE ) subject ” . He defined the issue to be determined as being “ whether instruction in the [ GPE ] subject with a limited right to exemption [ was ] contrary to GPE ’s international legal obligations to protect , inter alia , freedom of religion and belief ” .

Thereafter , Mr Justice PERSON undertook an extensive analysis of the legislative history and the position under international human rights law , notably the relevant provisions and case - law of ORG and the DATE LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) . Dealing in turn with each of the relevant provisions of LAW DATE , Mr Justice PERSON made the following observations about the NORP object clause in section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .

“ The object clause applies to all teaching in primary and lower secondary schools . The provision is a general one , and its scope may be difficult to determine . It may raise questions relating to the ORG provisions regarding freedom of religion and parental rights ; see Judge PERSON , pages CARDINAL et seq . of Proposition No . DATE ) to the PERSON [ the larger division of ORG ] . As far as the ORG subject is concerned , the provision must be viewed in conjunction with section LOC ) , which establishes that this subject is an ordinary school subject for all pupils , and that instruction in the subject shall not involve preaching . The object clause must be interpreted and applied in such a way that it does not conflict with the conventions that have been incorporated pursuant to section CARDINAL ( see also section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

As a result of changes and amendments in subject syllabuses and national standard curricula over time , the expression ‘ NORP and moral NORP must be interpreted as meaning that NORP and humanist values are to be viewed in conjunction with each other . Both the NORP and the humanist traditions underscore the importance of truth , human dignity , charity , democracy and human rights . These are values common to almost everyone in GPE , regardless of religion or philosophy of life . The conventions do not require that teaching in schools must be value neutral ; see the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A no . CARDINAL ) .

The object clause establishes that all school education shall take place in cooperation and agreement with the home . Any effort by primary and lower secondary school teachers to help give pupils a NORP upbringing can only be made with the GPE consent and in cooperation with the home . Interpreted in this way , the provision is not incompatible with LAW ORG regarding freedom of thought , conscience and religion or with LAW No . CARDINAL to LAW and LAW ORG regarding parents . The reference to the object clause in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) which prescribes that teachers of the ORG subject shall take the NORP object clause of the primary and lower secondary school as their point of departure thus has no independent significance for the issue of whether there is a violation of the conventions . ”

As regards section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Mr Justice PERSON stated as follows .

“ The appellants have emphasised that the LAW requires the teaching to give pupils a thorough knowledge of the Bible and of NORP in the form of cultural heritage and ORG Faith , while it merely requires knowledge of other world religions , beliefs and ethical and philosophical topics .

I refer to the fact that it may be inferred from the practice of ORG that the GPE Parties themselves decide the scope and content of teaching ; see PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § DATE , and NORP v. GPE , DATE , § CARDINAL , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINALVI . Thus , LAW ORG and LAW No . CARDINAL do not preclude compulsory instruction in the content of various religions and beliefs and in the history of religions and ethics , provided that such instruction is given in an objective , critical and pluralistic manner . In this respect , I refer to my earlier review and summary of the decisions and comments of the convention bodies . The compulsory instruction must cover different religions and beliefs . The greater emphasis placed in section DATE ) on knowledge of NORP than on knowledge of other religions and beliefs is , in my opinion , within the limit of the discretion accorded by the conventions to GPE Parties . The requirement that compulsory instruction must be objective , critical and pluralistic can not be interpreted as meaning that there must be a specific , proportional division of instruction between different religions and different philosophies of life . In the light of the history , culture and traditions of the individual ORG , it must be acceptable for certain religions or beliefs to be more dominant than others .

Indoctrination or other preaching of a specific religion or a specific philosophy of life will be contrary to LAW and the ORG ; see PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , cited above , § DATE , and GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL , and point CARDINAL of the comment of ORG of DATE . Accordingly , section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW prescribes that instruction in the GPE subject shall not involve preaching .

The appellants , supported , inter alia , by Judge PERSON ’s report ( page CARDINAL of Proposition no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) to the PERSON ) , have argued that instruction that communicates a specific religious view in a way that is liable to influence pupils to adopt a specific faith is also a violation of the convention provisions regarding freedom of religion and parental rights . I agree that such communication might involve a violation . However , the expression ‘ liable to’ may be interpreted in such a way as to give it greater scope than that which it derives from the decisions of ORG . I shall therefore keep to the criteria that have been developed in the ORG ’s practice . In connection with the introduction of the ORG subject , the travaux préparatoires show that the Ministry and the majority of ORG were extremely concerned to emphasise that the subject was to be an ordinary school subject for all pupils . This has been expressly stated in the wording of the LAW ; see section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , first sentence . The legislator has also stated that the ORG subject shall be a subject designed to provide knowledge ; see , for instance , page CARDINAL , second column , and page CARDINAL of Proposition no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) to the PERSON . Section DATE ) provides that NORP , other religions and philosophies of life shall be presented on the basis of their distinctive characteristics . On the other hand , ORG stated that instruction shall not be value neutral ; see page CARDINAL of Recommendation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) to ORG . This in itself can not be contrary to the conventions since , as I have established earlier , neither the ORG nor the ORG is interpreted as meaning that instruction shall be neutral as regards values . ”

As to section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Mr Justice PERSON held that , if interpreted against the background of the relevant provisions of the LAW and the ORG and CARDINAL of LAW , it must be understood to the effect that pupils had a right to be exempted and that their parents had no obligation to let their children follow lessons on religion and philosophy regarded as preaching or indoctrinating in the sense of those treaties . The children could therefore be absent from such classes . The question as to how large a part of the syllabus would be affected in this way would have to be decided in each concrete case depending on how the teaching was planned and implemented . In the view of Mr Justice PERSON , the provision on exemption was not contrary to any requirements pertaining to religious freedom and parental rights . The Convention requirement that the teaching should be objective , critical and pluralistic did not preclude compulsory education in the content of the different religions and philosophies of life or giving a particular religion or philosophy , in view of ORG history , culture and traditions , a more prominent place than others . As already mentioned , LAW DATE provided that the subject should be an ordinary school subject . According to the preparatory documents , it was to be a knowledge - based subject . The LAW required that the teaching be neutral and not preaching . Therefore it did not appear that the provisions in section CARDINAL regarding the contents of the teaching were contrary to the Convention .

Mr Justice PERSON further considered the parts of the school curriculum ( the Ten - Year Compulsory Schooling Curriculum , issued by ORG in DATE , referred to below as “ the Curriculum ” ) that , in the appellants’ submission , gave preference to the NORP faith and influenced pupils to opt for NORP . In relation to GPE ’s international obligations , the ORG , which had its legal basis in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW DATE and the relevant regulation of DATE , had the same legal status as other regulations . However , he observed , what mattered was that pupils gained understanding of the plurality of convictions and thoughts , and that the teaching did not present one faith as being superior to others . It ought to be acceptable , in the light of a Contracting ORG ’s history , culture and traditions , that one or more religions or philosophies of life be given a more prominent place than others .

As to the appellants’ objections to influencing pupils through the use of pictures , songs , drama , music and stories from the Bible and religious texts , PERSON Justice PERSON found that it ought to be possible to impart neutrally to pupils the traditions and “ means of transmitting knowledge ” ( måte å formidle på ) of the various religions without running counter to international human rights law . The ORG placed emphasis on openness , insight , respect and dialogue and on the promotion of understanding and tolerance in discussion of religious and moral issues and forbade preaching . Within the framework of the ORG , the teaching of the ORG subject could be carried out without any conflict with the relevant provisions of international human rights law .

As to the appellants’ argument that the school manuals , notably volumes CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of PERSON , amounted to preaching and were capable of influencing the pupils , Mr Justice PERSON observed that , while several definitions of problems and formulations used in PERSON could be understood as if the NORP faith provided the answer to ethical and moral questions , no further information had been submitted to ORG as to how the teaching in relation to this material had been planned and implemented .

In this context Mr Justice PERSON noted that the appellants’ lawsuit and appeal to ORG had been directed against the ORG subject and its implementation generally . The arguments and evidence adduced in relation to each decision to refuse full exemption had been aimed at highlighting how the subject functioned in general . The appellants had not gone deeply into the validity of the individual decision . Because of the way the case had been presented , there was no ground for determining whether the teaching of the NORP children had occurred in a manner which violated the relevant human rights treaties . The case concerned the validity of the decisions refusing full exemption from the ORG subject . The appellants had not shown it to be probable that the teaching had been planned and carried out in a manner that , in accordance with these conventions , warranted exemption from all teaching of the subject in question .

Finally , Mr Justice PERSON went on to review the argument of discrimination .

“ Pursuant to section DATE of LAW , parents must send written notification in order for their child to be exempted from parts of the instruction at the individual school . Even if applications for exemption are most likely to concern parts of the GPE subject , a limited right to exemption applies to all subjects and activities . The LAW does not stipulate that grounds must be given for the application . Practice as regards requiring grounds has varied to date .

The ORG has argued that instruction in primary and lower secondary schools is to a considerable extent divided up into topics that cut across subject boundaries . In so far as parts of the ORG subject are integrated with other subjects , full exemption from instruction in the ORG subject will not be sufficient . It is also the view of the ORG that the ORG subject covers many topics which do not give grounds for exemption , pursuant either to the conventions or to section CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . The exemption system is designed and practised in such a way that the content of the instruction is the decisive factor . In the ORG ’s view , therefore , the prohibition against discrimination imposed by conventions can not apply to requirements regarding the provision of grounds for applications for exemption .

The ORG has explained the requirement as regards grounds and the guidelines for exemption in CARDINAL circulars . In Circular F-CARDINAL - CARDINAL dated DATE , page CARDINAL , the ORG stated :

‘ When parents request an exemption , written notification to this effect shall be sent to the school . The notification must contain grounds supporting what they perceive to be the practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life in the instruction .

If the parents apply for an exemption from parts of the instruction which they perceive to be the practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life , the pupils shall be granted exemption after the parents have explained what it is they consider to have such an effect in the instruction . Parents whose notification to the school regarding exemption is not upheld are entitled to appeal against the municipal administrative decision to ORG in the county concerned . The appeal shall be sent through the school , which is thereby given the opportunity to reverse its administrative decision.’

The Ministry enlarged on the requirement of grounds in Circular F-CARDINAL - CARDINAL dated DATE , page CARDINAL :

‘ The ORG ’s basic rule is that when parents apply for an exemption from activities that are clearly religious , exemption ( partial exemption ) shall be granted . In such cases , the parents are not required to give any grounds . In the case of applications for exemption from activities that are not clearly religious , more must be required as regards the GPE grounds . Such cases are not covered by the main rule as to what exemptions may be applied for . Moreover , the travaux préparatoires make provision for an assessment of whether there are reasonable grounds on which to request an exemption . Reference is made to Recommendation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) to the Lagting [ smaller division of ORG ] in which it is stated : “ The majority is of the opinion that pupils shall be exempted from such parts of the instruction at the individual school as , on the basis of their own religion or own philosophy of life , it is reasonable to perceive as the practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life . ” However , account must be taken of the fact that many parents consider issues relating to faith and philosophies of life to lie within the realm of private life . The right to private life is also protected by international conventions.’

The ORG then reviews examples of areas from which pupils may be exempted and states on page CARDINAL :

‘ The religious and philosophical convictions of parents shall be respected in the entire ORG provided by the school . This means that the rules for exemption apply to all compulsory education . In general , the issue that must be assessed by the school is whether the ORG in practice is liable to influence pupils to adopt a specific faith or philosophy of life , or may otherwise be perceived as participation in religious activity or adherence to a philosophy of life .

In specific terms , this may , for instance , have significance with regard to dance classes organised as part of ORG ; dancing with a partner is incompatible with the faith of some persons , while movement to music is acceptable . In the Arts and Handicraft subject , it will be necessary to exercise caution as regards illustrations of God and the prophets ; see the discussion of “ Illustrations – ban on images ” in the Guide to the ORG subject ( p. CARDINAL

I will add that in connection with the evaluation of the ORG subject , the Ministry emphasised the importance of changing the content , methodology and organisation of the subject to ensure that as many children and young people as possible could participate in the whole subject . The reason the Ministry nevertheless decided to maintain the limited right of exemption was to be certain that the rights of parents and freedom of religion were safeguarded satisfactorily , and that they were exercised in a way that found understanding ; see page CARDINAL , first column , of Report no . DATE ) to ORG .

I note that the right to exemption from all or parts of the compulsory Curriculum in the ORG subject in primary and lower secondary schools will result in a difference between parents in relation to the school system . Parents and pupils who wish to apply for an exemption must follow the ORG closely and apply for an exemption when they consider exemption to be necessary in order to safeguard the rights of the child and their own rights . The school initially decides whether to grant an exemption . The question is whether this difference in treatment is in pursuit of a legitimate aim and whether the aim is proportionate to the means employed .

According to the practice of ORG , as mentioned earlier , LAW , second sentence , of LAW No . CARDINAL has been interpreted as meaning that the convictions must attain a certain level of cogency , seriousness , cohesion and importance ( see the ORG ’s judgments in ORG and NORP v. GPE ( DATE , § DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and Valsamis [ ( cited above ] , § CARDINAL ) ) . The statements in these judgments support the requirement by the GPE Parties that parents provide somewhat more detailed grounds when the activity from which they are applying for an exemption does not immediately appear to be practice of a specific religion or adherence to a different philosophy of life .

If an applicant must give detailed information about his or her own religion or philosophy of life , however , this may be a violation of LAW ORG regarding the right to respect for private life and possibly also LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG regarding freedom of religion . I underscore that differential treatment on the ground of religion and political or other opinions is the core of the prohibition against discrimination .

As I have explained , the basic reason for introducing compulsory lessons in the ORG subject was that the government and a majority of ORG considered it to be significant for the communication of a common foundation of knowledge , values and culture in primary and lower secondary school . The importance of an open , inclusive school environment was emphasised . Implementation of compulsory primary and lower secondary education must include a right to notify a desire to exercise the right to exemption , and in any event the application must state in general terms the parts of the ORG from which exemption is desired . It is clear to me that the common curriculum in the ORG subject and the requirement of a written application to exercise the right to an exemption are means of pursuing legitimate aims , and that it is not a disproportionate measure to require that parents who wish to apply for an exemption from parts of the subject must follow the ORG and give notification when they desire an exemption . I will add that this is contingent on the school authorities taking the necessary steps to enable parents to follow the Curriculum . The common , compulsory ORG requires that parents be kept well informed about the ORG subject and the programme and methods of the Curriculum at all times , and if appropriate be informed of other activities with a religious content .

The parties have not gone into detail concerning the specific requirements regarding grounds and the grounds that are given in the various applications for exemption from the ORG subject . I shall therefore confine myself to declaring that there is no ground for assuming that a possible violation of the prohibition against discrimination in this case may have the consequence of invalidating the administrative decisions to deny full exemption from lessons in the ORG subject . ”

On DATE the applicant parents and children lodged their application under the Convention with the ORG .

Subsequently , on DATE , CARDINAL other sets of parents who had also been parties to the above - mentioned domestic proceedings lodged together with their respective children a communication ( no . CARDINAL ) with ORG under LAW to the DATE LAW .

On DATE the ORG rejected the respondent ORG ’s objection that , as CARDINAL other sets of parents had lodged a similar complaint before the ORG , “ the same matter ” was already being examined by the latter . The ORG declared the communication admissible in so far as it concerned issues raised under Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW . As to the merits , the ORG expressed the view that the present framework of the ORG subject , including the regime of exemptions , as it had been implemented in respect of the complainants ( “ authors ” ) , constituted a violation of LAW . The ORG reasoned as follows .

“ CARDINAL . The main issue before the ORG is whether the compulsory instruction of the CKREE [ ] subject in NORP schools , with only limited possibility of exemption , violates the ORG right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion under LAW and more specifically the right of parents to secure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions , pursuant to LAW , paragraph CARDINAL . The scope of Article CARDINAL covers not only protection of traditional religions , but also philosophies of life , such as those held by the authors . Instruction in religion and ethics may in the ORG ’s view be in compliance with LAW , if carried out under the terms expressed in the ORG ’s General Comment No . CARDINAL on LAW ‘ [ A]rticle CARDINAL permits public school instruction in subjects such as the general history of religions and ethics if it is given in a neutral and objective way’ , and ‘ public education that includes instruction in a particular religion or belief is inconsistent with Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , unless provision is made for non - discriminatory exemptions or alternatives that would accommodate the wishes of parents or GPE . ORG also recalls its Views in PERSON . v. GPE , where it concluded that instruction in a religious context should respect the convictions of parents and guardians who do not believe in any religion . It is within this legal context that the ORG will examine the claim .

Firstly , the ORG will examine the question of whether or not the instruction of the ORG subject is imparted in a neutral and objective way . On this issue , LAW , section DATE , stipulates that : ‘ Teaching on the subject shall not involve preaching . Teachers of ORG and Religious and Ethical Education shall take as their point of departure the object clause of the primary and lower secondary school laid down in section CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and present NORP , other religions and philosophies of life on the basis of their distinctive characteristics . Teaching of the different topics shall be founded on the same educational PERSON In the object clause in question it is prescribed that the object of primary and lower secondary education shall be ‘ in agreement and cooperation with the home , to help to give pupils a NORP and moral PERSON . Some of the travaux préparatoires of the LAW referred to above make it clear that the subject gives priority to tenets of NORP over other religions and philosophies of life . In that context , ORG concluded , in its majority , that : the tuition was not neutral in value , and that the main emphasis of the subject was instruction on NORP . ORG acknowledges that the subject has elements that may be perceived as being of a religious nature , these being the activities exemption from which is granted without the parents having to give reasons . Indeed , at least some of the activities in question involve , on their face , not just education in religious knowledge , but the actual practice of a particular religion ( see para . CARDINAL ) . It also transpires from the research results invoked by the authors , and from their personal experience , that the subject has elements that are not perceived by them as being imparted in a neutral and objective way . The ORG concludes that the teaching of ORG can not be said to meet the requirement of being delivered in a neutral and objective way , unless the system of exemption in fact leads to a situation where the teaching provided to those children and families opting for such exemption will be neutral and objective .

The second question to be examined thus is whether the partial - exemption arrangements and other avenues provide ‘ for non - discriminatory exemptions or alternatives that would accommodate the wishes of parents or GPE . ORG notes the ORG contention that the partial - exemption arrangements do not satisfy their needs , since teaching of the ORG subject leans too heavily towards religious instruction , and that partial exemption is impossible to implement in practice . Furthermore , the ORG notes that the NORP LAW provides that ‘ on the basis of written notification from parents , pupils shall be exempted from attending those parts of the teaching at the individual school that they , on the basis of their own religion or philosophy of life , perceive as being the practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life’ .

The ORG notes that the existing normative framework related to the teaching of the ORG subject contains internal tensions or even contradictions . On the one hand , the LAW and the object clause in LAW contain a clear preference for NORP as compared to the role of other religions and worldviews in the educational system . On the other hand , the specific clause on exemptions in section CARDINAL of LAW is formulated in a way that in theory appears to give a full right of exemption from any part of the ORG subject that individual pupils or parents perceive as being the practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life . If this clause could be implemented in a way that addresses the preference reflected in the LAW and the object clause of LAW , this could arguably be considered as complying with LAW .

The ORG considers , however , that even in the abstract , the present system of partial exemption imposes a considerable burden on persons in the position of the authors , in so far as it requires them to acquaint themselves with those aspects of the subject which are clearly of a religious nature , as well as with other aspects , with a view to determining which of the other aspects they may feel a need to seek DATE and justify – exemption from . Nor would it be implausible to expect that such persons would be deterred from exercising that right , in so far as a regime of partial exemption could create problems for children which are different from those that may be present in a total exemption scheme . Indeed as the experience of the authors demonstrates , the system of exemptions does not currently protect the liberty of parents to ensure that the religious and moral education of their children is in conformity with their own convictions . In this respect , the ORG notes that the ORG subject combines education on religious knowledge with practising a particular religious belief , e.g. learning by heart of prayers , singing religious hymns or attendance at religious services ( para . CARDINAL ) . While it is true that in these cases parents may claim exemption from these activities by ticking a box on a form , the ORG scheme does not ensure that education of religious knowledge and religious practice are separated in a way that makes the exemption scheme practicable .

In the ORG ’s view , the difficulties encountered by the authors , in particular the fact that PERSON and PERSON had to recite religious texts in the context of a DATE celebration although they were enrolled in the exemption scheme , as well as the loyalty conflicts experienced by the children , amply illustrate these difficulties . Furthermore , the requirement to give reasons for exempting children from lessons focusing on imparting religious knowledge and the absence of clear indications as to what kind of reasons would be accepted creates a further obstacle for parents who seek to ensure that their children are not exposed to certain religious ideas . In the ORG ’s view , the present framework of ORG , including the current regime of exemptions , as it has been implemented in respect of the authors , constitutes a violation of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW in their respect . ”

In view of this finding , the ORG was of the opinion that no additional issue arose under other parts of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW . It gave the respondent ORG DATE within which to provide “ information about the measures taken to give effect to the ORG ’s Views ” .

In the light of ORG “ Views ” , the NORP government decided to take measures to modify the ORG subject , and notably to propose changes to LAW and the Curriculum . According to Circular F-CARDINAL - CARDINAL , this included the following elements .

( i ) Deleting in section DATE ) the reference to the NORP object clause in CARDINAL .

( ii ) Giving the various religions and philosophies of life the same qualitative description in the aims of the subject , while maintaining the current proportions of various religions and philosophies of life in the central teaching material .

( iii ) Making the provision on partial exemption in current section DATE ) the subject of a separate provision , ensuring that the exemption arrangement take sufficient account of the GPE rights and the need to protect minorities ; simplifying the provisions on applications for exemption ; specifying in the LAW the obligation of schools to provide information and circulating information to schools about the practice of the exemption arrangement .

( iv ) Drawing up a new curriculum making a clear division between those elements that could be viewed as the practice of religions and those elements that could not , while maintaining the distribution between the different parts of the subject .

( v ) PERSON the choice of working methods in the introduction to the Curriculum and in the guidelines for the subject , in order to limit the possibility that parts of the teaching could be experienced as the practice of a religion .

Varied and engaging working methods should contribute to the dissemination of all aspects of the subject . It was emphasised that working methods that could be perceived as being close to the practice of a religion required special care on the part of teachers , including the provision of adapted teaching .

( vi ) The proposed changes would be implemented from DATE . The introduction of the measures from DATE generated the need for strengthening the skills and competence of the teachers . The government would commence the work of developing skills and competence as soon as a new curriculum had been finalised .

( vii ) A high degree of flexibility should be displayed in relation to GPE wishes for adapted teaching for their child / children . If necessary , the option of full exemption on a temporary basis should be available for those parents who so wished pending implementation of the proposed permanent arrangements .

On the basis of the government ’s decision , the ORG started reviewing the necessary changes . Following proposals by ORG on DATE , endorsed by the government on DATE ( Ot.prp.nr.CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) , on DATE ORG adopted certain amendments and additions to LAW DATE which came into force with immediate effect . As a result , a few adjustments were made to section DATE ) ( notably , the word “ faith ” was replaced by “ understanding of NORP ” ; the requirement of thoroughness was extended to knowledge of other NORP communities ) and the reference in section DATE ) to the object clause in section CARDINAL - CARDINAL was deleted ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , the provisions on partial exemption in section CARDINAL ) were moved to a new and separate section CARDINAL - CARDINALA , with some clarifying additions and changes . This included , inter alia , replacing the expression “ religious activities ” ( in former section DATE ) ) with the word “ activities ” and extending the ground for partial exemption to cover also activities that the parents , from the point of view of their own religion or philosophy of life , perceived as being offensive or insulting ( in addition to those that they perceived as amounting to the practice of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW DATE are cited above .

The requirement for parents to give reasons for an application for a partial exemption is described in the citations from Circulars F-CARDINAL - CARDINAL and ORG , reproduced in ORG judgment in paragraph CARDINAL above . The latter circular also contained the following passages , which are of relevance for the present case .

“ CARDINAL . Solution : differentiated teaching and local adjustment of the Curriculum

Adjusted teaching and local work on the ORG as an underlying principle

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that a school that receives notification concerning an exemption shall as far as possible , and especially at the primary - school level , seek solutions by providing for ‘ differentiated teaching within the Curriculum’ .

The differentiated teaching mentioned in the LAW is closely related to the adaptation of teaching principle that is generally emphasised in ORG [ PERSON , ORG ] and embodied in LAW . In the principles and guidelines , importance is attached to the principles of community and adjustment within the unified school system framework . Formulations there include the following :

Individual adjustment is necessary to ensure that equivalent provision is made for all pupils . For this purpose , all aspects of the school course – syllabus , working methods , organisation and teaching aids – must be adjusted in accordance with the pupils’ capabilities .

It is further stated that this opens up opportunities for different treatment and depth of study of the syllabus , and for variations in kinds of material , difficulty , quantity , speed and progression ( see LCARDINAL/LCARDINALS ) .

Differentiation within the ORG syllabus – differentiation of activities , not of knowledge

According to the statute , a school that receives notification concerning an exemption shall seek solutions in which provision is made for differentiated teaching within the ORG . The municipal obligation to provide differentiated teaching applies as extensively as possible and particularly at the primary - school stage . The reasons for the statute state that the differentiated teaching shall be provided according to the same curriculum , and is not to be differentiation of knowledge but differentiation of activities . Since there is no exemption from knowledge of the subject , pupils with an exemption shall receive instruction within the framework of the curriculum .

In cases to which partial exemption applies , the alternative is not another subject or another curriculum , but other activities and other ways of working with the ORG syllabus . The school must convey the knowledge in question to the pupils by means of a different methodological approach . Exemption can nevertheless be granted from certain main topics which entail specific activities . An example is the main topic in which pupils are required to learn the CARDINAL Commandments by heart ( NORP faith and ethics , sixth grade ) . One can not , however , be exempted from knowing about the CARDINAL Commandments .

The differentiated course of instruction must have regard for the pupils’ religious or philosophical background , and help as far as possible to ensure that all pupils have worked with the same areas of knowledge in the grade in question , but using adjusted working methods .

How great the need for differentiation is depends locally on

– which religious or philosophical groups the parents belong to , and

– what kinds of activity they request exemption from .

Differentiation in encounters with specific activities

The Guide to the ORG subject contains an introduction to ways of working with the subject , and also deals with the questions discussed below . Some of the questions are dealt with more exhaustively here however . See also the concrete examples for DATE given in the guide .

We give examples below of how to work with various activities , and take up other questions that may arise :

Prayers , creed , and other important religious texts

Some activities – such as learning by heart and reciting creeds , commandments and prayers ( LSCARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL and FAC , and LCARDINALS , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) may be perceived by some parents and guardians as the exercise of and/or adherence to a particular religion . When notification is given concerning an exemption from such activities , the school will offer differentiated instruction to enable the pupil to work with that kind of material in a different way .

If the parents find this satisfactory , they can choose to allow their children to be present when prayers or creeds from other religions are recited , provided the children are helped to maintain the necessary distance from the material and from what is taking place ( see in this connection the section above on the roles of participant and spectator ) . Such activities can also be scheduled for individual working periods and for work in groups in which different approaches to the material are adopted .

Hymn singing

While arrangements are made for pupils who belong to the NORP tradition to sing hymns and to gain insight through that activity into an important feature of their religious and cultural tradition , necessary regard must be had for pupils who do not belong to that tradition . Hymn singing can also take place outside the NORP knowledge and religious and ethical education periods , for instance in music periods . Hymns can be incorporated into song periods , when they are placed in their musical context and seen as an important part of our sung cultural heritage .

Pupils who have been granted an exemption for hymn singing must be given other ways of working with hymns , as the case may be in separate groups . They can for instance listen to a hymn and be given such assignments as what is the hymn text about ? Can you relate the content of the hymn to a particular festival , and if so , why ? Why is this hymn important within the NORP tradition ? Another possibility would be to use hymns and songs as a theme for project work , involving looking more closely at songs , hymns and music and their functions in the different religions .

See also the Guide to the ORG subject , p. CARDINAL .

Attendance at rituals / visits to churches or other religious assembly buildings

Some parents may wish to have their children exempted from entering a church or other centre of divine worship whatever the connection . Others will distinguish between attending a divine service or the like , and being in a church or other religious assembly building on an excursion in a teaching situation . Whatever position the parents may take , cooperation between schools and homes is of major importance whenever such visits are scheduled .

Excursions

In the fourth grade , pupils are to be made acquainted with the lay - out , fixtures and furnishing of churches and with certain important NORP symbols ( programme item : NORP festivals , religious symbols , the life of the local NORP congregation ) . Most pupils will acquire this knowledge by means of pedagogically arranged excursions to the local church . The focus is on the informative and objective aims . Information may for instance be conveyed relating to the church building , church decoration , symbols , and the functions of various objects .

Some parents / guardians may request exemption for their children from participation in such excursions because a visit to a church is regarded as participation in a religious activity .

For pupils who can not visit a church , for instance , arrangements must be made for other activities and assignments at school . These should relate to the same area , so that the pupils are given access to parts of the same knowledge as they would have acquired on a church visit . Assignments can , for instance , be given relating to information booklets , if any , publications concerned with local history , or drawings , or pictures and posters showing or concerning the church in question .

See the example on p. CARDINAL of the Guide to the ORG subject .

School services

The description of the aims of the primary - school stage ( ORG , p. CARDINAL , and LCARDINALS , p. CARDINAL ) states that pupils should visit a church in the local community and attend a divine service . It is emphasised that such attendance is part of the school ’s teaching ( not an element of the church ’s baptismal preparation ) . Some pupils who belong to traditions other than the NORP tradition may seek exemption from participation , for instance in a school service and the related activities . Such pupils must be offered differentiated teaching . If the pupils are present at the service , this can be arranged by , for instance , assigning them to observe the functions of the various stages of the liturgy in relation to the whole , to note how the hymns relate to the main theme of the service , or to see whether / how images , colours , texts and music all help to shed light on the theme of the service .

Other parents may notify complete exemption from any attendance at a divine service . Those pupils must be made acquainted with the NORP service by means other than attendance , for instance through classroom teaching with a focus on pictures , music and texts .

What has been said here about church visits can also apply to visits to FAC , synagogues , temples or other houses of religious assembly .

Illustration and the prohibition of images

See the more detailed discussion on p. CARDINAL of the Guide to the ORG subject .

Especially challenging stories , parallel figures

See the more detailed discussion on pp . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Guide to the ORG subject .

Other areas

The ORG has received questions concerning other aspects of the course in NORP knowledge and religious and ethical education , including :

Dramatisations

Plays , mime and dramatisations can contribute to sympathetic insight into the teaching material and to unity among pupils . Such approaches can at the same time involve the kinds of activity from which some parents / guardians wish to have their children exempted . This could for instance apply to dramatisations which include holy persons , such as ORG plays .

Some may argue that it is the ‘ acting part of the work’ from which exemption is being sought . That problem can be solved by giving the pupils concerned other important tasks connected with the dramatisation . Sets have to be constructed ; lighting and sound need to be planned , set up and tested ; programmes need to be prepared . An announcer and narrators are needed . Journalists are needed to interview the active participants in the programme , to describe the activities , and to edit the class newspaper for publication after the performance . These are some of the important assignments that can be carried out by pupils who are not going to have tasks relating directly to the dramatisation . These are also means whereby they can be naturally integrated into the class community , while at the same time having the opportunity to adopt a spectator ’s stance with regard to the material being presented and its mode of presentation .

Other parents may say that their children are not to be included either in the dramatisation or in work connected with it . This must be respected , and other assignments must be prepared for those pupils .

Cooperation between schools and homes – openness and objectivity

If parents are to feel confident that teaching in the subject does not conflict with their own convictions , close cooperation between schools and homes is necessary .

On the basis of knowledge of the religious and philosophical backgrounds of parents , teachers can endeavour to plan their teaching so as to reduce the need for exemption to a minimum . A teaching plan for the subject should be drawn up as early as possible . In the plan the school should describe the offers of differentiation that are generally made in connection with different religious and philosophical backgrounds . When the plan is presented to the parents , it gives them the opportunity to consider the need , if any , for exemption from particular activities .

To request partial exemption , parents must send written notification to the school . They must state which activities in the school ’s teaching they perceive as the exercise of another religion or adherence to another philosophy of life . Parents should then decide whether to opt for the general offer of differentiation , if the school has made such an offer , or , in addition , if appropriate , ask for a more individually adapted offer of differentiation . By means of the dialogue established in this connection between homes and schools , the specific teaching provisions for the pupils can be determined .

If parents notify the school that they want an exemption from the distinctly religious activities , described in the reasons for the legislation as ‘ reciting creeds or prayers , learning religious texts by heart , taking part in hymn singing , and attending rituals or divine services in different congregations’ such notification will apply in general to that type of activity . A new notification for each individual religious activity is thus not necessary .

In the cooperation between schools and homes , school staff must show respect for the fact that pupils have different religious backgrounds . Special attention must be paid to this in contacts with linguistic and cultural minorities .

Administrative procedures

Municipal decisions concerning notifications of exemption are individual decisions under LAW , and can accordingly be appealed to ORG in accordance with section GPE ) of LAW . A municipality can delegate its decision - making authority to the school principal . Matters must be considered in sufficient depth before decisions are taken ; see section CARDINAL of LAW .

Textbooks as CARDINAL of several teaching aids in the subject

The ORG wishes to emphasise that it is the ORG that is binding on the teaching , not the textbooks . The textbooks on the subject are only one of several teaching aids that can be used to achieve the aims of the subject .

The textbooks used in compulsory school must be approved . Even if a textbook has been approved , there is a risk that it contains errors . When teachers have their attention called to possible errors in textbooks , they must look into the matter more closely so that the teaching given is correct .

Although the regulatory special review of books on the subject has been revoked ( section CARDINAL of the former textbook regulation ) , the Ministry notes that the arrangement for the review of textbooks will be continued . The textbooks will be considered by religious and philosophical communities , among others , to ensure that the religions and philosophies of life are presented in accordance with their distinguishing characteristics . ”

GPE ’s Ten - Year Compulsory Schooling Curriculum , issued by ORG in DATE ( referred to as “ the Curriculum ” ) stated :

“ The study of the subject is intended to give pupils a thorough insight into NORP and what the NORP view of life implies , as well as sound knowledge of other world religions and philosophies . Important items in the ORG are accordingly the classical Bible stories and other biblical material , the main lines of development and major personalities in the history of NORP , and the fundamentals of the NORP faith and NORP ethics . The subject also comprises the principal features of other living religions and philosophies of life and some of the major questions raised in philosophy and general ethics concerning the nature of man . The same pedagogical principles should be applied in the teaching of NORP and in that of the other religions and orientations . The subject must be approached openly and contribute to insight , respect and dialogue across the boundaries between faiths and philosophies , and promote understanding and tolerance in religious and moral questions . The classroom is no place for the preaching of any particular faith . The subject gives knowledge about a faith , not instruction in it . It must also sustain the individual pupil ’s sense of identity and cultural attachment , while at the same time furthering dialogue within a shared culture .

In order to meet different faiths and views of life with understanding , one needs to be able to place them in a context that is already familiar . The subject thus has various functions in compulsory school : to transmit a tradition , to maintain a sense of identity , and to build bridges which give insight and promote dialogue .

The structure of the subject

Because the subject is new and intended for all pupils , it is essential that parents and pupils of different persuasions are well acquainted with the syllabus and its contents . To reassure parents with regard to the contents of the syllabus , importance has been attached to formulating the syllabus so that parents will find it easy to see what subject matter pupils will be encountering at the various stages . ”

The Curriculum set out the general aims of the subject and listed the objectives and main subject elements for grades CARDINAL to CARDINAL , DATE to DATE and DATE to CARDINAL .

The general aims of the subject were described as :

“ • to make pupils thoroughly acquainted with the Bible and with NORP as cultural heritage and as a living source of faith , morality , and a view of life ;

• to make pupils familiar with the NORP and humanist values on which school education is based ;

• to acquaint pupils with other world religions and orientations as living sources of faith , morality , and views of life ;

• to promote understanding , respect and the capacity for dialogue between people with different views on questions of faith and ethical orientation of life ; and

• to stimulate pupils’ personal growth and development . ”

After setting out the objectives for grades CARDINAL to CARDINAL , the ORG listed the main subject elements for these grades , each of which comprised the following titles : “ Biblical narrative ” ; “ Narrative material from ORG history ” ; “ NORP festivals , religious symbols , and the life of the local NORP community ” ; “ Development of moral awareness : Me and others ” . As to “ Other religious and ethical orientations ” it included “ NORP ” , “ NORP ” , “ NORP ” , “ NORP ” , “ Humanism ” and “ NORP mythology ” .

The ORG further set out the subject - related objectives for grades CARDINAL to CARDINAL , which included this passage :

“ NORP faith and ethics

Pupils should learn the fundamentals of the NORP faith and NORP ethics in the light of the positions taken in ORG .

Other religions

Pupils should study the main features of and important narratives from ORG , NORP , NORP , and NORP .

Secular orientations

Pupils should know about secular orientations , the development of the humanist tradition , and the modern humanist view of life . ”

The main subject elements for grades CARDINAL to CARDINAL encompassed : “ Bible History ” , “ Early history of NORP ” ( “ the LOC ” for grade CARDINAL , and “ the Reformation period ” for grade CARDINAL ) , “ NORP faith and ethics ” . As to “ Other religions ” , the subject included “ NORP ” for grade CARDINAL , “ Judaism ” for grade CARDINAL , and “ NORP ” and “ NORP ” for grade CARDINAL . In addition , grades CARDINAL to CARDINAL contained elements for “ Development of moral awareness : Values and choices ” and “ Secular orientations ” .

For grade CARDINAL it was stated , inter alia :

“ NORP faith and ethics

Pupils should have the opportunity to

– learn the CARDINAL Commandments by heart and be acquainted with the ethical ideals underlying the Sermon on the LOC ;

– learn something of how these fundamental ethical texts have been used in the history of NORP and how they are applied DATE . ”

There was no equivalent in the list of items to “ become acquainted with ” in regard to “ Other religions , Judaism ” .

After indicating the subject - related objectives for grades CARDINAL , the ORG listed the main subject elements , namely , “ The history of the Bible , literary genres in the Bible ” ; “ The modern history of NORP ” ; “ Various contemporary interpretations of NORP ” ; “ Religious expressions in our time ” ; and “ Philosophical interpretations of man , values and norms ” .


Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is the father of Mr PERSON ( “ the applicant ’s son ” ) , a NORP national who was born on DATE and who died on DATE while he was serving his prison sentence .

On DATE the applicant ’s son had been arrested under suspicion of having committed theft ; he was taken into custody in FAC on DATE . At that time , a medical examination was carried out , the report stating that he was clinically healthy . A copy of the results of a medical examination dated DATE , with similar conclusions , was attached to the medical file . A subsequent medical examination carried out on DATE did not note any chronic or acute illness .

On DATE the applicant ’s son was transferred to PERSON , and on DATE he was transferred to ORG . He was placed in cell no . CARDINAL .

On DATE , a medical examination was carried out , stating that the applicant ’s son was clinically healthy and that he did not show symptoms of any medical condition . The medical record showed no indication as to the existence of any illness that would require treatment .

According to the same medical file , for the duration of his stay in ORG , the applicant ’s son never asked for any medical assistance .

In TIME of DATE , at CARDINAL , in answer to repeated calls by CARDINAL of the prisoners , the guards went to cell no . CARDINAL , where prisoner PERSON reported that the applicant ’s son needed to be taken to hospital urgently , as he had lost consciousness and had started to shake .

The supervising officers transported him to the consulting room of the penitentiary . Following an examination performed at CARDINAL , it was concluded that the detainee was in a generally altered state , disoriented in time and space ; a “ suspicion of ( medical ) intoxication ” was noted by the doctor , who also recommended that he be taken to ORG urgently . There , at CARDINAL he was diagnosed with “ convulsions / symptoms of grand mal seizures ” ( criza comitiala ) . A consultation by a specialist was recommended .

As the condition of the patient kept deteriorating , artificial respiration was applied . The applicant ’s son was then transported to the nearest emergency hospital , ORG , where he was hospitalised at TIME in a coma . The diagnosis upon arrival was “ intercerebral haemorrhage , left temporoparietal , with panventricular inundation ” . The doctors noted that there were no signs of trauma on the cranium or vertebra .

The patient underwent laboratory tests , tomography and surgical and neurosurgical tests . As there was no indication that neurosurgical intervention was necessary , he was moved to another ward , where his breathing was assisted with a mechanical ventilator and his heart beat maintained by perfusion .

In spite of the medical care provided , the applicant ’s son never came out of the coma . His hospital medical record stated that he died on DATE , at CARDINAL ,

“ due to a cardiac arrest , [ while ] under artificial respiration and perfusion with adrenaline . Severe damage to the cerebral trunk . Intercerebral haemorrhage , left temporoparietal , with panventricular inundation and compressive effects on the cerebral trunk . ”

The medical certificate attesting the death of the applicant ’s son was issued on DATE . It stated that the direct cause of death was an intraventricular haemorrhage and a haemorrhage of the cerebral meninges , with serious “ cranial and facial trauma due to an aggression ” .

The preliminary necropsy report issued on DATE by ORG “ PERSON ” contained the following conclusions :

“ The death of PERSON was violent . It was caused by an intraventricular haemorrhage and a haemorrhage of the cerebral meninges , consequences of a trauma – cranial - cerebral and facial , with fracture of the nasal bones , facial ecchymosis and left occipital excoriation .

The necropsy revealed excoriation and echhymosis in the left thoracic and pelvic areas .

The traumatic lesions could have been produced by a blow with a solid object to the facial area , followed by falling and hitting a hard surface , with impact to the occiput and the left hemicorp .

The traumatic lesions could have been inflicted DATE prior to DATE of hospitalisation .

There is a direct causal link between the cerebral traumatic lesions and the death of PERSON . ”

The final medical report issued on DATE confirmed the preliminary observations , stating in addition that the traumatic injuries could have been inflicted “ DATE prior to DATE of hospitalisation on DATE ” and concluded that “ the cerebral lesions necessitated medical care , to be provided immediately ” .

On DATE the prosecutor requested the forensic expert from ORG to answer , on the basis of statements given by the victim ’s cellmates describing the incident on TIME of CARDINALOctober CARDINAL , whether “ it was possible that during a seizure , the victim could have bashed against various objects around him and thus self inflicted all the injuries detected at autopsy ( including the facial lesions ) ” . The supplementary medical report issued stated that , “ considering the morphology and the topography of the traumatic lesions , it could not be excluded that all the injuries were sustained in the same context – by falling and hitting a hard surface , DATE before the date of death , possibly by hitting against a metal bed in the course of a grand mal seizure of epileptic aetiology , as it transpired from the investigation data forwarded by the prosecutor ” . No deficiencies in the medical care provided to the victim prior to his death were detected .

The applicant alleged that he had last seen his son on DATE , when the latter had attended a hearing before ORG and ORG . At that time , he had borne no visible signs of violence . Before his incarceration and upon his transfer to ORG , he had been healthy , as the medical examinations carried out in the penitentiary also confirmed .

The applicant was informed about his son ’s death on DATE ; he , his wife and other son were allowed to take the body from ORG on DATE . According to the applicant , none of the family members could recognise the body , as the face was disfigured , the hair had been shaved off , the hands bore the marks of handcuffs and the left hand had a lesion in the handcuffed area . The identity of the deceased was allegedly confirmed based on a particular mark on the left hand .

On DATE , ORG received a phone call from G.I. , an officer at ORG , informing it of the death of the detainee and asking the competent authority to establish the cause and the circumstances of his death .

A preliminary inquiry was carried out with respect to alleged criminal acts perpetrated by the CARDINAL penitentiary guards charged with the supervision of the detainees .

The military prosecutor in charge questioned the officers that had been on duty while the applicant ’s son was detained at ORG , in order to establish whether there had been any incidents between the detainee and his cellmates and whether there had been any incidents when force or other immobilizing methods were used with respect to the detainee . The guards reported that no incidents had occurred in cell no . CARDINAL and that they had not noticed any injuries on the detainee ’s face . Similar statements concerning the lack of any incidents in their cell were given by some of the applicant ’s son ’s cellmates .

CARDINAL of the cellmates , ORG , stated in his deposition given before the military prosecutor on DATE , that he had heard that PERSON had been beaten by “ mascati ” ( masked special intervention officers ) when he had returned from a visit or from the court because he had spoken disrespectfully to them .

On DATE , the military prosecutor decided not to indict the guards , as there were no suspicious circumstances regarding the applicant ’s son ’s death . The case was referred to a civilian prosecutor for a further investigation to be carried out with respect to his cellmates ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The decision was confirmed by the hierarchically superior prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE .

The decision was contested by the applicant before ORG of GPE . On DATE , the complaints were dismissed as inadmissible . However , that decision was quashed on DATE by ORG of GPE and the case was remitted to the first instance .

On DATE , the case was referred to the Bucharest ORG , which gave judgment on DATE , declining jurisdiction in favour of ORG .

The applicant ’s complaints were allowed on DATE by ORG , which ordered the case to be remitted to ORG for further investigation . The court held that the investigations had been improperly conducted throughout the proceedings .

Upon an appeal on points of law , the judgment was quashed on DATE by ORG , in so far as the first - instance court had not provided grounds for its decision and had not specified exactly what evidence should be added to the file . The case was consequently remitted back to the first instance .

ORG rendered judgment on DATE . Assessing the evidence before it , it held that the criminal investigation conducted has not proved to be effective within the meaning of ORG and CARDINAL of LAW . The court further allowed the applicant ’s claims and ordered the case to be remitted to ORG , as a further investigation needed to be carried out with respect to the criminal act of homicide as defined under section CARDINAL of LAW . The court summarised the facts for the timeframe of DATE ( day of incarceration ) to DATE , on the basis of the evidence adduced . It held that there was no proof of any altercation having occurred between the applicant ’s son and his cellmates during that time . In the official register of the penitentiary there was no record of any disciplinary measures having been applied to him .

The court criticised the fact that the prosecutors had discontinued the investigations in general , without making any reference to a specific criminal act , such as homicide , ill - treatment or torture – as defined respectively by sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL – CARDINAL of LAW . There was no concrete information on the circumstances of the applicant ’s son ’s death or on the persons to be held responsible for it in the evidence already adduced in the case , “ even though his death had undoubtedly been violent ” .

The court also mentioned that in assessing the adduced evidence , the fact that the investigation authorities were attached to the military , while ORG had repeatedly stated that such criminal inquiries conducted by a military prosecutor could not be regarded as effective , could not be overlooked .

It further held that

“ None of the accused who attended , together with PERSON , the hearing before ORG and Justice on DATE was questioned , in so far as they could have been witnesses to a conflict between PERSON and the guards of the Penitentiary ( especially the accused PERSON ) .

None of the guards belonging to ORG on duty on DATE and afterwards , until DATE , was ever questioned .

The contradictory conclusions of the numerous medical reports are to be clarified by ORG ” .

NORP This decision was upheld on an appeal on points of law lodged by the CARDINAL incriminated penitentiary guards . On DATE ORG held that the first - instance court ’s reasoning was exhaustive and legally sound .

The proceedings are currently pending before the judiciary police , delegated by ORG to carry out the investigation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE below ) .

Concerning the investigation carried out with respect to the applicant ’s son ’s cellmates , the prosecutor decided on DATE to discontinue the proceedings , as there was no indication of any criminal act having been committed in the file . The hierarchically superior prosecutor , however , quashed this decision on CARDINAL May CARDINAL , indicating that a further investigation should be conducted with respect to the offences listed under section CARDINAL of LAW , namely , hitting or causing injury to a person resulting in death .

NORP The prosecutor questioned the persons who had been detained in the same room as the applicant ’s son , and other individuals . They declared that the applicant ’s son had not been attacked by other prisoners or by the prison officers . Some of them also stated that on DATE the applicant ’s son had had a seizure and had hurt himself while falling between the beds and that he had immediately been taken to the consulting room .

On DATE the prosecutor decided not to indict , finding that “ the death was the consequence of [ the applicant ’s son ] accidentally injuring himself during a grand mal seizure of epileptic aetiology ” .

The decision was upheld on DATE by the hierarchically superior prosecutor . His decision was contested by the applicant before ORG , which gave judgment on DATE .

The court quashed the prosecutor ’s decision not to indict , holding that it was necessary to adduce more evidence in the case , namely , the video recordings from the place of detention for the relevant period of time .

The Prosecutor ’s Office appealed . In a judgment given on DATE , ORG held that the prosecutor needed to establish and clarify the circumstances in which the victim had died , as there was evidence of a homicide having been committed . To that end , the prosecutor was ordered to produce and assess certain pieces of evidence , namely , to identify and watch all video recordings from the hallways of the penitentiary and from the victim ’s cell ; to identify and question as a witness PERSON and a certain PERSON ( mentioned in the ORG report on PERSON death , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ; to identify other medical documents regarding the victim ’s state of health , prior and subsequent to incarceration .

The case was remitted to the prosecutor for further investigation .

On DATE , the prosecutor initiated the criminal investigation in rem with respect to the offences listed under section CARDINAL of LAW .

By CARDINAL consecutive decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE the prosecutor decided to delegate the competent police officers to conduct the criminal investigation in conformity with the courts’ requirements , as stated in their judgments of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs DATE and DATE above ) . He also concluded that at the time of the impugned events , ORG had not had a video surveillance system in place .

The prosecutor also mentioned the fact that ORG had validated the autopsy report of DATE , adding that :

“ [ ... ] the trauma could have been produced by hitting with or against ... a hard surface ( active blows to the facial area followed by DATE with cranial impact , the fatal lesions having been caused by the counter blow ) , with the following amendments : considering the type of the traumatic lesions , their morphology and their layout , including on an anterior and posterior plan , the possibility that they could have been sustained solely as the result of a fall during an epileptic seizure can be excluded ; the other trauma could have been produced by hitting with or against ... hard objects , in the same context as the fatal injuries to the cephalic extremity .

No deficiencies in the provision of medical care have been detected . ”

While delegating the judiciary police to carry out the criminal investigation , the prosecutor also decided that the case should be registered in the archives of ORG , under “ criminal cases with unidentified perpetrators ” .

With the exception of the proceedings lodged by him before the domestic courts contesting the ORG decisions not to indict , the applicant was not involved in the investigation and alleged that he was hence forced to go to considerable lengths to obtain any relevant information regarding the progress of the proceedings .

The criminal investigation is still pending .

In the report of CARDINAL March CARDINAL named “ Death in suspicious circumstances of PERSON , ORG summarily presented the circumstances of the applicant ’s son ’s death while in custody . The report also included the statements given to representatives of the NGO by the director of the ORG and by ORG , an alleged acquaintance of PERSON .

The relevant parts of this report read as follows :

“ PERSON , born on CARDINAL DATE , was arrested on DATE and sentenced to a prison term of DATE for stealing car radios and spare wheels [ ... ]

According to information from PERSON , PERSON ’s father , on DATE at around CARDINAL.CARDINALam CARDINAL police officers from LAW came to his home and asked him to go urgently to ORG . At ORG he was told by the doctor that his son had died and that his body was at ORG . He asked the doctor how it had happened and she reportedly replied that PERSON had slipped and had a brain concussion [ ... ]

On DATE at around CARDINAL.CARDINALam PERSON went to ORG ( Institutul de Medicină Legală – IML ) to inquire about the cause of death of his son and was told that his son ’s body had not yet arrived . On DATE Ion Predică returned to the hospital but was unable to obtain any information about the cause of death of his son . At ORG he was told that this information was confidential because PERSON had died in detention . Together with his sons , PERSON went back to IML where the forensic doctor reportedly told them that on his son ’s body there had been signs of injuries suffered as a result of some violent act . [ ... ]

On DATE a representative of ORG visited ORG and spoke to the director . [ ... ] When questioned whether PERSON hair had been shaved off as a disciplinary punishment , the director denied that such punishment is practical in the penitentiary . According to the director , his hair had been shaved in preparation for a brain scan at ORG . When the ORG representative questioned the director why the family had not been notified that PERSON had been hospitalized , her reply was that there is no legal obligation to notify them in such circumstances . Their only duty is to provide the medical treatment . [ ... ]

ORG representative also spoke to ORG who was arrested together with PERSON . They were initially held at PERSON and then in PERSON . [ ... ] . He is sure that PERSON was beaten by the special intervention unit in ORG after the hearing in ORG . The special intervention unit DATE also referred to as the masked unit – reportedly raids cells of detainees and beats anyone who complains . After the hearing on DATE PERSON had been playing in the waiting room with a piece of rope when CARDINAL masked officers handcuffed him and held him by the arms and the neck . He was then returned to prison where he was taken to the barber and had his hair shaved off . At the time of the interview in DATE , ORG hair was very short . This is reportedly a usual punishment [ ... ] ”

In a letter of DATE sent to ORG in his own case , PERSON , a detainee at ORG and applicant before the ORG in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , described what happened – to his knowledge – in DATE in the ORG , as follows :

“ In DATE in this penitentiary , the detainee PERSON was brutally beaten and killed [ ... ] by the special intervention forces ( mascaţi ) , who are criminals , beasts with human faces [ ... ] the following witnesses can confirm what I have just stated : ORG , GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON All these witnesses are , together with PERSON , parties in the same criminal proceedings ” .

The parties were invited to submit comments with regard to this statement .

In their observations on the merits , the Government expressed their view that the statement could not be included in the present file , in so far as the applicant had never mentioned G.I. or put him forward as a potential witness to be heard in the domestic trial .

Subsequently , in their letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Government informed the ORG that the statement had been sent to ORG responsible for the criminal investigation , in so far as the circumstances revealed therein should be taken into consideration .

The applicant considered that the statement should be included in the present file , as it was “ a protest statement sent to the ORG ” , seen by PERSON as the only authority able to help the victim ’s family . In reply to the Government ’s argument , the applicant held that he could not have known the names of detainees who had information on his son ’s death , and thus had not been able to put their names forward as witnesses ; moreover , the identification of potential witnesses was not his duty , but primarily the duty of the ORG .

Bearing in mind the particular circumstances in which the impugned statement was given and submitted by ORG sees no valid reason why it should not be included in the present file and considered together with all the other documents in the assessment of the present case .

Romanian Criminal Code , in its relevant parts , reads as follows :

Homicide shall be punished by detention from DATE and the loss of certain rights .

Should CARDINAL of the acts in sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( hitting or injuring ) result in the victim ’s death , the penalty shall be imprisonment from DATE .

Subjection to ill - treatment of a person being detained , in detention or in the execution of a security or correctional measure , shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE .

( CARDINAL ) An act deliberately causing a person pain or intense suffering , either physically or mentally , in order to obtain from that person or from a third party information or confessions , to punish him / her for an act committed by him / her or a third party or that he / she or a third party is suspected of having committed , to intimidate or exercise pressure on him / her or on a third party , or for any other reason based on a form of discrimination , regardless of its nature , when such pain or suffering is applied by an agent of public authority or by any other person acting in official capacity or upon instigation or with the express or tacit consent of such persons shall be punished by imprisonment from DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If the act in para . ( CARDINAL ) results in any of the consequences in CARDINAL or section CARDINAL , the penalty shall be imprisonment from DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Torture that results in the victim ’s death shall be punished by life imprisonment or by imprisonment from DATE .

( CARDINAL ) An attempt to commit the offences in the present section is punishable .

( CARDINAL ) No exceptional circumstance , whatever its nature may be , regardless of whether it is a state of war or the threat of war , internal political instability or any other exceptional state , can be invoked to justify torture ; the order of the law or command of legitimate authority can not be invoked either .

( CARDINAL ) The acts in para.(CARDINAL ) shall not constitute offences of torture if the pain or suffering are the exclusive result of legal sanctions and are inherent to these sanctions or caused by them . ”

The provisions of GPE prescribing civil actions lodged within criminal proceedings and the procedure for contesting a prosecutor ’s decision not to indict are summarized in the case of LAW GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .