PETITIONERS

THAT THE ALPHALAND’S BAN OF THE HENNIN FOR SIGMA WOMEN AND
GIRLS VIOLATES THEIR RIGHTS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW

I. ALPHALAND’S HENNIN BAN CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OF

FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS UNDER ICCPR AND CEDAW.

It is humbly submitted that the prohibition imposed by Alphaland on the Hennin for Sigma
women and girls constitutes a severe infringement of fundamental human rights protected
under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention
on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

It is further contended that the right to wear a head or face covering is unequivocally
safeguarded under UN human rights jurisprudence, particularly under Article 18 of the
ICCPR. The interpretation of Article 18, as elucidated in the UN Human Rights Committee’s
General Comment No. 22 (1993), expressly encompasses the wearing of distinctive clothing
or head coverings as a manifestation of religious beliefs. This interpretation has been
consistently upheld by subsequent decisions of the Committee.

Moreover, the Petitioner asserts that the ban imposed by Alphaland parallels previous cases
adjudicated by international bodies. For instance, in the case of Raihon Hudoyberganova v.
Uzbekistan, the UNHRC found a similar prohibition on religious clothing to be in violation
of Article 18(2) of the ICCPR. The Committee emphasized the necessity for restrictions to be
reasonable and proportionate, a standard that Alphaland's ban fails to meet.

It is submitted that the UNHRC's authoritative decisions in Sonia Yaker v. France and
Miriana Hebbadj v. France further validate the contention that such bans contravene
international human rights law. In these landmark cases, the UNHRC determined that
France's blanket ban on face coverings infringed upon the rights guaranteed under both
Article 18 and Article 26 of the ICCPR, emphasizing the necessity for restrictions to be
strictly construed and non-discriminatory.

Furthermore, it is contended that Alphaland's purported justifications for the ban, including
promoting "the values of the Republic" and ensuring public safety, are insufficient to warrant
such a sweeping restriction on religious expression. The failure to demonstrate a clear and
pressing necessity for the ban renders it disproportionate and discriminatory, as observed by
the UNHRC.

In light of the foregoing, the Petitioner prays that this Hon'ble Court recognizes the egregious
violation of fundamental human rights perpetrated by Alphaland through its ban on the
Hennin for Sigma women and girls. It is imperative that Alphaland be held accountable for its
actions and compelled to revoke the ban to ensure the protection of religious freedom and
gender equality as enshrined in international law.

II. ALPHALAND’S HENNIN BAN INFRINGES THE CULTURAL RIGHTS OF

SIGMA COMMUNITIES.

It is humbly submitted that Alphaland's imposition of a blanket restriction on the wearing of

Hennin upon Sigma women and girls constitutes a grave infringement of their cultural rights
under international law.

It is further contended that the cultural significance of the Hennin within Sigma communities
is deeply rooted in their traditions and religious beliefs, symbolizing their identity, heritage,
and communal belonging.

It is humbly submitted that the proposition highlights the ethnic composition of Alphaland's
Northern Provinces, where Sigma women and girls form the majority population. This
demographic reality underscores the cultural significance of the Hennin within Sigma
communities, as it is an integral aspect of their way of life, passed down through generations.

It is further contended that Article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)
protects individuals’ right to participate in cultural life, enjoy art, and benefit from scientific
advancement. The UDHR's recognition of cultural rights emphasizes the importance of
preserving and respecting diverse cultural traditions, including those practiced by minority
communities such as the Sigma population in Alphaland's Northern Provinces.

It is humbly submitted that both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)
affirm the rights of individuals to freely profess and practice their culture without
discrimination. Article 27 of the ICCPR explicitly recognizes the right of minorities,
including ethnic and linguistic minorities, to maintain their cultural traditions, which
encompasses the wearing of cultural attire such as the Hennin.

It is humbly submitted that Article 15(1) of the ICESCR recognizes the right of individuals to
take part in cultural life and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. By prohibiting Sigma
women and girls from freely expressing their cultural identity through the wearing of Hennin,
Alphaland denies them the opportunity to participate fully in their cultural heritage, thereby
undermining their cultural rights as guaranteed under international law.

It is further contended that the conservation, development, and diffusion of culture, as

mandated by Article 15(2) of the ICESCR, require states to take proactive measures to
safeguard cultural diversity and promote cultural expression. Alphaland's imposition of a ban
on the Hennin undermines these objectives by suppressing the cultural practices of Sigma
communities and imposing homogeneity.

Hence, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court recognize the fundamental cultural
rights of Sigma communities and declare Alphaland’s Hennin ban as incompatible with
international law, thereby affirming the right of Sigma women and girls to freely profess and
practice their cultural traditions without discrimination.

RESPONDENTS

I. THAT THE ALPHALAND’S LIMITED BAN OF THE HENNIN FOR SIGMA

WOMEN AND GIRLS IS CONSISTENT WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW

It is most humbly contended before this Hon’ble Court that the Alphaland’s limited ban of
the hennin for Sigma women and girls is consistent with the International Law as firstly,
compulsory wearing of hennin violates right to freedom of expression and to non-
discrimination based on gender under ICCPR and CEDAW and lastly, ban on hennin is
justified by legitimate concerns for public safety and security
1. BAN ON HENNIN IS JUSTIFIED BY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS FOR PUBLIC
SAFETY AND SECURITY.

The Republic of Alphaland, as Respondent in the present case, respectfully submits to this
Honorable Court that the ban on the Hennin, enforced upon Sigma women and girls, is a
justified and proportionate measure founded on legitimate concerns for public safety and
security. This submission is grounded in both established international legal principles and
the factual circumstances as presented in the proposition.

It is humbly submitted that the proposition reveals a volatile situation within Alphaland,
characterized by escalating violence perpetrated by the Sigma Democratic Party (SDP) and
its supporters. Incidents of bombings resulting in civilian casualties underscore the grave
threat posed by the SDP to the safety and security of Alphaland's population. It is further
contended that an attack on a public school occurred when a terrorist escaped detection by
wearing a Hennin. This demonstrates the exploitation of the Hennin as a means to evade
detection and carry out terrorist activities, thereby exacerbating the security risks faced by the
Alphaland government and its citizens.

It is humbly submitted that in response to these security challenges, the Alphaland

government, under President Khutai, enacted a limited ban on the Hennin, particularly aimed
at Sigma women and girls, as a proactive measure to mitigate the risks posed by the SDP and
to ensure the safety of its citizens.

This ban finds support in both comparative legal precedents and international legal
frameworks. Various nations, including the Netherlands and several African countries, have
instituted bans or restrictions on religious attire in public spaces in response to security
threats posed by extremist groups. Cameroon has banned the wearing of full-face Islamic
veil, including the burka, in the Far North region, following two suicide bomb attacks. Such
measures are consistent with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and
ICCPR Article 18(3), which permit limitations on religious practices when necessary to
protect public safety, order, and morals.

Moreover, it is imperative for states to take appropriate measures to safeguard public safety
and security, especially in the face of imminent threats. The imposition of the Hennin ban is a
necessary and proportionate response to the security challenges posed by the SDP, aimed at
preventing further acts of violence and ensuring the protection of Alphaland's citizens.
In light of the foregoing, the Republic of Alphaland respectfully urges this Honorable Court
to recognize the legitimacy of the ban on the Hennin as a lawful and justified measure
undertaken in the interests of public safety and security. It is imperative for the Court to
uphold Alphaland's sovereign right to protect its citizens and maintain law and order within
its territory.

2. COMPULSORY WEARING OF HENNIN VIOLATES RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

EXPRESSION AND TO NON-DISCRIMINATION BASED ON GENDER UNDER
ICCPR AND CEDAW.

It is most humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the imposition of compulsory
wearing of the Traditional Gear Hennin upon Sigma women and girls represents a flagrant
violation of their fundamental rights under international law. This imposition stands in stark
contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

2.1. Violation of the Right to Non-Discrimination (CEDAW Article 1, ICCPR Article

26):

It is submitted before this Hon’ble Court that the mandatory wearing of Hennin by Sigma
women and girls flagrantly violates the principles of non-discrimination enshrined in
CEDAW Article 1 and ICCPR Article 26. These provisions condemn any distinction,
exclusion, or restriction made on the basis of sex that impairs or nullifies women's enjoyment
of their human rights on an equal basis with men. By mandating the wearing of Hennin
exclusively for Sigma women and girls, the tribal councils and state authorities in the
Northern Provinces of Alphaland perpetuate systemic discrimination solely based on gender.

Additionally, CEDAW Article 2 obligates States Parties to pursue a policy of eliminating

discrimination against women, including through legislative and other measures, and to
establish legal protection of women's rights on an equal basis with men. Moreover, ICCPR
Article 2 mandates States to prohibit discrimination and guarantee equal and effective
protection against discrimination on various grounds, including sex.

It is further contended that in the decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union
(CJEU) in the Brussels case illustrates the latitude afforded to member states in regulating
religious symbols in public spaces. The CJEU upheld the right of public authorities to impose
restrictions on religious attire, such as the Islamic headscarf, in the interest of maintaining
neutrality in the public service sector. Similarly, Alphaland's limited ban on the compulsory
wearing of Hennin aligns with the objective of promoting neutrality and equality within its
jurisdiction. Just as the CJEU acknowledged the discretion of member states in designing
policies to uphold secularism, this Hon’ble Court should recognize Alphaland's prerogative to
implement measures aimed at fostering gender equality and safeguarding human rights.

2.2. Violation of the Right to Freedom of Expression (ICCPR Article 19):

The mandatory imposition of Hennin suppresses the right to freedom of expression, thereby
stifling dissenting voices and perpetuating gender-based oppression. ICCPR Article 19
protects the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart
information and ideas of all kinds, without interference. The enforcement of Hennin restricts
Sigma women and girls from expressing themselves freely, thereby curtailing their ability to
challenge oppressive norms and practices.

2.3. State Responsibility to Eliminate Discrimination and Protect Women's Rights

(CEDAW Articles 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16; ICCPR Article 2):

It is contended that in accordance with CEDAW Articles 2, 7, 10, 11, 13, 16, and ICCPR
Article 2, Alphaland is obligated to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination
against women, ensure their equal rights with men, and protect their rights in various spheres
of life.

It is further contended that CEDAW Article 2 mandates States Parties to condemn

discrimination against women in all its forms and to pursue a policy of eliminating
discrimination through legislative and other measures. CEDAW Article 10 stipulates the right
of women to equal access to education and equal opportunities in career development,
vocational training, and sports. Moreover, CEDAW Article 11 guarantees women's rights in
the field of employment, including protection against dismissal on the grounds of pregnancy
or marital status and the right to social security and health protection.

ICCPR Article 2 reinforces the obligation of States to prohibit discrimination and ensure
equal protection against discrimination on various grounds, including sex.
In response to these egregious violations of human rights, Alphaland has taken a
commendable step by enacting a limited ban on the compulsory wearing of Hennin for Sigma
women and girls. This measure reflects Alphaland's commitment to upholding international
human rights standards, particularly those enshrined in ICCPR and CEDAW. By prohibiting
the enforcement of oppressive dress codes, Alphaland aims to protect the rights and dignity
of Sigma women and girls, ensuring their freedom of expression and safeguarding them
against discrimination.

Therefore, it is submitted that Alphaland’s limited ban of the Hennin for Sigma women and
girls not only aligns with international law but also serves as a vital mechanism for promoting
gender equality and upholding human rights within its jurisdiction. The ban represents a
necessary intervention to combat systemic discrimination and oppressive practices, consistent
with the principles of ICCPR and CEDAW, and thus should be upheld by this Hon’ble Court.