Case Of S.A.S v. France(Application no. 43835/11)FactThis case concerns the issue of Article 8, 9 and 10, being considered alone and separately with Article 14, which comes from the European Convention on Human Rights. Moreover, the case was decided by the European Court of Human Rights. This is the case of the rights guaranteed in those articles being violated by the Law of 11 October 2010.MeritsThe applicantThe applicant was born in Pakistan and her family belongs to a Sunni cultural tradition in which it is customary and respectful for women to wear a full-face veil in public. She claimed that her rights under Article 9 was interfered by the Law of 11 October 2010 which was enacted by France, as the Law sought to prohibit Muslim women from wearing the full-face veil in public places. As a result, she felt that she couldn’t manifest her religious belief. She also complained that although the restriction is prescribed by law, but it’s not in accordance with legitimate aims provided in the second paragraph of Article 9 and it’s unnecessary in a democratic society of France. She had the notion that public safety, which was claimed by the government as the legitimate aims, was ill-founded as it didn’t address specific safety concerning in particular places of high risk area such as airport, but It’s actually enforceable throughout the territory. The applicant also found that the claim made by the government – to ensure respect for the minimum requirements of life in society – unreasonable, because she thought that the minorities as herself didn’t necessarily share this notion. She argued in response that there were various replaceable modes of communication . The criminal sanction for wearing the full-face veil was also inconsistent with the reason behind the prevention of veiling their face in public. She also rebutted in return to the Government’s assertion that the covering of women face was against the principle of gender equality, as she came with the notion that women were free to choose whether to wear the veil or not. Furthermore, she had an opposite perspective over an abstract idea of gender equality that women should be freely able to make a decision of wearing the veil.Regarding the “necessity”, the applicant argued that the restriction could also be accomplished by less restrictive means such as identity checking at high-risk locations. The fact also appeared that the applicant would be willing to proof her identity.whenever she’s required to do so.The applicant also complained that her private life under Article 8 of the Convention was interfered by the Law of 11 October 2010. It affected her private life for three reasons: her ability to wear the full-face veil was essential for her social and cultural identity, the ability to interact with others, and the risk of hostility and criminal sanction when she wears the veil in public. In her view, she argued that the band of wearing the veil generated indirect discrimination to to the Muslim whose belief requires them to wear such veil. In addition, she claimed that the exception prescribed by the Law of 11 October 2010, the ban was inapplicable if the clothing was worn in the context of festivities or artistic or traditional events, was also unfair to her as it treated the Muslim and the Cristiant differently in term of fairness. Therefore, it generated discrimination under Article 14.The Government The Government rebutted that the restriction was satisfied in accordance with the limitation under paragraph 2 of Article 9, the exception, as it’s pursuance with legitimate aims and it was necessary, in democratic society, for the fulfilments of those aims.They concerned about public safety. The government came with notion to deprive danger from people and property of people in public places and to combat identity fraud by prohibiting the veil through the law. Also, they raised the issue of the protection of the rights and freedoms of others on the ground of respect for the minimum set of values within the scope of a democratic society: the observance of the minimum requirements of life in society, gender equality, and human dignity.The government argued that face is one of the very crucial element to have social interaction with others, and it also reflects your unique character to interlocutor. Regardless of showing face, the definition of living together will not be fulfilled. Also, the Government raised the issue of gender equality to be justified. They claimed that the way the women must conceal their face in public is against the right to exist as individual as well as the expression of their personality, despite the fact that they voluntarily to do it.The Court Judgement The Court emphasized the issue relating to Article 8 together with Article 9, accepting that the matter of wearing the veil under her wish falls within the scope of private life. The Court provides the reasons that it’s understandable that public safety is crucial to society, but it should not restrict her rights to manifest her beliefs, unless the restriction is made in particular places such as security checkpoint. Moreover, the Government was able to conduct less restrictive measure. Regarding the second aim provided by the Government, the Court found that the ban was justified with the protection of freedom of rights and freedoms of others – living together. In this sense, it can be seen that the Court gave value on social interaction of individuals as it’s essential for a democratic society, France. Furthermore, it seems as the Court emphasized the exception provided in paragraph 2 of Article 9, saying that where several religions coexist in a society, in a democratic society, the rights and freedoms should be subject to limitation in order to protect the rights of everyone equally. Therefore, the State was able to restrict certain rights since the rights of other must be balance under the scope of a democratic society, comprising of pluralism, tolerance, and broadmindedness. With respect to violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8 and 9, the Court pointed it out that there was no violation because the Law of 11 October 2010 had an objective and reasonable goals to maintain the perception of the French society, living together. Also, the Court found that there’s no issue of Article 10, alone or in conjunction with Article 14. Contribution to International Human Rights or International Law in General It is worth to take a look at a departed judgement of the court in this case. It decided differently from the case of Dahlab v Switzerland Since the judgment is distinct, it can possibly set as a precedent for subsequent cases which share the similar facts. At least, it can be seen that the Court was open-minded to evaluate the facts in this case, which can possibly contribute some development to the International Human Right Law. According to the Dahlab v Switzerland case, the Court found that hijab appears to be imposed on women by a precept which is laid down in the Koran’ 31. On the other hand, the Court recognised in the case of S.A.S v France that it involves with Islam in a general sense, not only the expression of individual freedom as the previous case. As a result, it can be assumed that the scope of the protection of human rights in this case was opened wider that it did before.