I United Nations
| DOI | 10.1177/016934410802600204 |
| Author | Ineke Boerefijn |
| Date | 01 June 2008 |
| Published date | 01 June 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Part B: Human Rights News |
Netherlands Q uarterly of Human R ights, Vol. 26/2, 235–269, 2008.
© Netherlands I nstitute of Human Rig hts (SIM), Printed in the Net herlands. 235
PART B: HUMAN RIGHTS NEWS
I UNITED NATIONS
I B
1. HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE, 91st SESSION
CONTINUED
Activities under the Ind ividual Complaints Procedure: Select ion of View s and
Decisions1
Communication No. 1474/2006, Prince vs South Africa, Views of 31 October 2007 (no
violation of Articles 18, 26 and 27)
e case of Prince is the rst case against South Africa, that ratied the ICCPR on
10 December 1998 and the Optional Protocol on 28 August 2002. e communication
concerns the question whether the criminalis ation of the use of cannabis constitutes a
legitimate lim itation of the manifestation of the right to freedom of religion. e use
of cann abis is central to the R astafari relig ion, of which P rince is a follower. Prince
was convicted twic e for pos sessing cann abis, which constituted a n obstacle for his
legal career. He claimed a v iolation of Articles 18, 26 and 27.
e Human R ights Committee rst examined the a lleged violation of Ar ticle 18.
It observed that the prohibition of t he possession a nd use of cannabis constitute s a
limitation of Mr Prince’s right to freedom of religion, that was prescribed by law. With
reference to the State part y’s submission that the aim of the law wa s to protect public
safety, order, hea lth, morals or the fu ndamental rights and freedoms of others, and
was based on the harmf ul eects of cannabis. e State party had fu rther argued that
an e xemption allowing a system of importation, transportation and distribution to
Rastafar ians could constitute a th reat to the public at large, were any of the cannabis
to enter into genera l circulation. e Commit tee considered that it ‘cannot conclude
that t he prohibition of the possession and use of drugs, without any exemption for
specic religious g roups, is not proportionate and necessary to achieve this purpose’.
It concluded that the failure of the State pa rty to grant Ras tafarians an exempt ion to
its general prohibition of possession and u se of can nabis was, i n the circ umstances
1 is supplements the selec tion of views a nd decisions included in NQHR, Vol. 26, No. 1, 20 08, pp.
109–1 24.
To continue reading
Request your trial