1 USCIRF Issue Update: RELIGIOUS GARB RESTRICTIONS | NOVEMBER 2023

ISSUE UPDATE: 

RELIGIOUS GARB RESTRICTIONS

UNITED STATES COMMISSION on

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

732 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite #A714

Washington, DC 20401

202-523-3240

November 2023

By Luke Wilson, Researcher

Religious Garb Restrictions and 

International Human Rights Law

Overview

Countries around the world restrict individuals’ freedom to wear garb expressing or 

in accordance with their religion or belief. Restrictions typically involve governments 

either prohibiting or mandating the wearing of religious garb. However, some 

restrictions also involve governments failing to protect individuals’ freedom to wear 

religious attire in private employment settings. Examples of dressing in accordance 

with one’s religion or belief include Muslim women wearing the hijab, Sikh men 

wearing the turban, Jewish men wearing the kippah, and Christians displaying the 

cross. One report found that 61 countries place restrictions on women’s head coverings. 

Dress in accordance with one’s religion or belief also includes individuals’ freedom to 

choose not to wear or display religious articles. 

This issue update provides a summary of international human rights law’s protections for

the right to freedom of religion or belief in the context of religious garb. It also examines

laws from countries that restrict the freedom of individuals to wear religious garb and

explains why those restrictions are inconsistent with international human rights law.

Religious Garb under International Human Rights Law

International human rights law protects the freedom of individuals to wear attire 

in accordance with their religion or belief. Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of

Human Rights (UDHR) protects an individual’s “freedom to manifest his religion or 

belief ” in “observance” and “practice.” Similarly, Article 18(1) of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) provides that the right to freedom of 

religion or belief includes the freedom, “in public or private,” to manifest religion or 

belief in “observance” and “practice.” General Comment 22, the United Nations Human 

Rights Committee’s (UNHRCtee) interpretative guidance to Article 18 of the ICCPR, 

provides that protections for the “observance and practice of religion or belief ” include 

the freedom to wear “distinctive clothing or head coverings.” 

Article 18(3) of the ICCPR provides that any limitation on the freedom to manifest 

one’s religion or belief, including prohibitions on wearing distinctive clothing or head 

coverings in public, must be “prescribed by law” and “necessary to protect public 

safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.” 

General Comment 22 further notes that limitations may be “applied only for 

Abraham Cooper

Chair

Frederick A. Davie

Vice Chair

Commissioners

David Curry

Susie Gelman 

Mohamed Magid 

Stephen Schneck

Nury Turkel 

Eric Ueland

Frank Wolf

Erin D. Singshinsuk

Executive Director

USCIRF’s Mission

To advance international 

freedom of religion or 

belief, by independently 

assessing and unflinchingly 

confronting threats to this 

fundamental right.

www.USCIRF.gov

@USCIRF

Media@USCIRF.gov
2 USCIRF Issue Update: RELIGIOUS GARB RESTRICTIONS | NOVEMBER 2023

those purposes for which they were prescribed and must 

be directly related and proportionate to the specific 

need on which they are predicated.” And, as the Special 

Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief notes, “the 

burden of proof always falls on those who argue on 

behalf of restrictions, not on those who defend a right to 

freedom.” 

Laws Prohibiting Religious 

Garb in Public Spaces

Many countries have laws prohibiting individuals from 

wearing religious garb, including the hijab, the burqa, 

and the niqab, in public spaces. In Uzbekistan, Article 

184 of the Administrative Code provides that Uzbek 

citizens who appear in public with religious attire 

are subject to a fine “five to ten times the minimum 

wage” or “administrative arrest for up to fifteen days.” 

Only government recognized ministers of religious 

organizations are excepted from this prohibition. In 

Tajikistan, the government banned Muslims from 

wearing black clothes to mourn the dead. In June 2022, 

Tajik police detained a woman for wearing a black dress 

to mourn her son’s death. While in their custody, police 

beat the woman to the point of unconsciousness.

In Austria, Article 2(1) of the Anti-Face Covering 

Act prohibits individuals from making themselves 

unrecognizable in public by covering their facial 

features “with clothing or other objects.” Article 2(2) 

allows for exceptions to the prohibition when “covering 

or hiding” facial features is in the context of artistic, 

cultural, sporting, or traditional events, or for health or 

professional reasons. Violations are punishable with a 

fine of up to 150 Euros ($160). 

In France, Article 1 of the Law on Prohibiting the 

Concealment of the Face in Public Space prohibits 

individuals from wearing outfits intended to conceal 

their faces in public. Article 2(2) allows for exceptions 

if an outfit is “prescribed or authorized by legislative 

or regulatory provisions, if it is justified by health or 

professional reasons, or if it is...within the framework of 

sports practices, festivals or artistic or traditional events.” 

Violations are punishable with a fine of up to 150 Euros 

($160). 

In Hebbadj v. France, the UNHRCtee held that 

prosecuting and convicting a Muslim woman for wearing 

a niqab under the Law on Prohibiting the Concealment of 

the Face in Public Space violates Article 18’s protections 

for the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief. 

France’s prohibition on face coverings is prescribed by 

law. However, the government failed to show that the 

ban is necessary to achieve one or both of France’s stated 

objectives of protecting “public safety and order” and 

promoting “the minimum level of trust required to live 

together in an open and egalitarian society.” 

France did not provide an example of a threat to public 

safety and order “that would justify such a blanket ban 

on the full-face veil.” Nor did France articulate “the 

existence of such a threat” in the Act or in the “National 

Assembly resolution of 11 May 2010, which preceded the 

adoption of the law.” France also failed to explain why the 

Act prohibits wearing the niqab on the grounds of public 

safety and order but allows face coverings for sporting, 

artistic, and other traditional purposes. 

The UNHRCtee was equally skeptical that the prohibition 

on face coverings is necessary to promote “the minimum 

level of trust required to live together in an open and 

egalitarian society.” The French legislature “did not 

clearly define such an objective, either in the Act itself 

or in a statement of purpose.” Further, the ICCPR does 

not protect the “right to interact with any person in a 

public space” or the “right not to be disturbed by the fact 

that someone is wearing the full-face veil.” As such, the 

limitations on wearing religious garb are inconsistent 

with international human rights law. 

Even if the prohibition on face coverings were necessary 

to achieve either of France’s stated objectives, the 

UNHRCtee found that the government did not show 

that a ban on face coverings is proportionate to those 

objectives nor that it is the least restrictive means of 

achieving them. This is particularly relevant given that 

criminalizing face coverings is “a significant restriction 

of the rights and freedoms” of the Muslim women 

challenging France’s prohibition. Although the opinion 

stopped short of stating that all prohibitions on face 

coverings are impermissible limitations on Article 18’s 

freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, its reasoning 

strongly suggests that criminalizing wearing religious 

garb in public that covers the face is an impermissible 

limitation of Article 18’s protections. 

Laws Mandating Religious 

Garb in Public Spaces

Some countries have legal regimes impermissibly 

mandating individuals to wear religious garb in public. 

In Afghanistan, the Taliban has made a series of ad hoc

announcements and decrees forcing individuals to dress 

in accordance with the group’s interpretation of Islam. 

The Taliban’s acting minister for the “promotion of 

virtue and prevention of vice” announced a rule directing 

women to wear “all-encompassing loose clothing that 

only reveals their eyes” in public. If a woman does 

not follow the directive, her “male guardians” may be 
USCIRF Issue Update: RELIGIOUS GARB RESTRICTIONS | NOVEMBER 2023 3

punished with imprisonment and loss of employment. 

The Taliban established “morality police” who harass and 

threaten women who are out of compliance with this 

religiously-inspired restriction. 

In Iran, Article 638 of the Penal Code criminalizes 

violating “any religious taboo in public.” One such 

taboo is “women who appear in public without a proper 

hijab.” Violations are punishable by up to two months’ 

imprisonment or a fine. In September 2022, Iran’s 

morality police detained and beat 22-year-old Mahsa 

Zhina Amini into a coma for wearing a hijab improperly. 

She later died in a hospital because of her injuries. 

Amini’s death sparked widespread protests against her 

murder and the hijab law. Protesters faced extreme

human rights violations at the hands of the government, 

including execution, rape, torture, and mass arrests. In 

October 2023, 16-year-old Armita Geravand fell into a 

coma, reportedly after Iran’s morality police beat her for 

wearing an improper hijab. Geravand died in a hospital 

shortly thereafter. At Geravand’s funeral, government 

officials arrested Iranian human rights activist Nasrin 

Sotoudeh.

The Taliban and Iran enforce religious garb mandates 

based on their own religious principles, thereby imposing a 

limitation on individuals’ freedom to wear garb consistent 

with their own religion or belief. Article 18(3) of the ICCPR 

does permit limitations on the “freedom to manifest one’s 

religion or belief.” However, General Comment 22 notes 

that “limitations...for the purpose of protecting morals 

must be based on principles not deriving exclusively 

from a single tradition.” The religious garb mandates the 

Taliban and Iran impose are designed to protect “morals.” 

And they derive from the Taliban’s and Iran’s respective 

interpretations of Islam. As such, the mandates are 

impermissible limitations on Article 18’s protections for the 

freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief. 

Government’s Obligation to Protect 

Individuals from Impermissible 

Limitations on Wearing Religious 

Garb in Employment Settings

In employment settings, individuals are sometimes 

subject to impermissible limitations on their freedom to 

wear religious garb, including prohibitions on wearing 

certain religious clothing. Although the precise contours 

of an individual’s freedom to wear religious garb in 

employment settings is not fully resolved, international 

human rights law does provide some guidance. 

In F.A. v. France, the UNHRCtee found that firing a 

Muslim woman for wearing a headscarf while working 

at a private daycare facility was an impermissible 

limitation on her freedom to manifest her religion or 

belief. Pursuant to its internal regulations, the daycare 

facility informed a female Muslim employee that she 

was not permitted to wear a headscarf during work. The 

female employee continued to wear her headscarf and 

shortly thereafter was terminated from her position. The 

applicable provisions of the French Labor Code, Articles 

L1121-1 and L1321-3, provide that employer restrictions 

or internal regulations may not limit the “rights of 

persons and individual and collective freedoms” unless 

those limitations are justified by the nature of the task to 

be performed or proportionate to the aim sought. 

The UNHRCtee found that the daycare facility’s 

limitation on the Muslim employee’s freedom to wear 

religious garb was prescribed by law, given that the 

French Labor Code governs private internal regulations. 

However, the body rejected France’s argument that 

the limitation was necessary to “protect the rights and 

freedoms of the children and their parents.” Recall that 

under international human rights law, France, as the 

party seeking to impose the limitations, must meet the 

burden of justification for the prohibition on religious 

garb. The UNHRCtee, without elaborating, found that 

France did not meet its burden to provide a sufficient 

justification for the daycare facility’s prohibition of 

religious garb. The case importantly shows that Article 

18’s protections for individuals who wear religious 

garb extends to employment settings. As the Special 

Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief noted, “there 

can be no reasonable doubt that the right to freedom of 

thought, conscience, religion or belief also applies in the 

workplace.”

Conclusion

Government mandates or restrictions on wearing 

religious garb violate international human rights law’s 

protections for the right to freedom of religion or belief. 

They impermissibly prohibit and punish individuals’ 

freedom to dress in accordance with their religion 

or belief. These regulations and restrictions also tend 

to target women, including in Afghanistan, France, 

and Iran. Repealing legislation restricting individuals’ 

freedom to wear garb in accordance with their religion or 

belief is necessary to comply with international human 

rights law. 
UNITED STATES COMMISSION on INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan federal government entity established by the 

U.S. Congress to monitor, analyze, and report on religious freedom abroad. USCIRF makes foreign policy recommendations to the President, 

the Secretary of State, and Congress intended to deter religious persecution and promote freedom of religion and belief.

Professional Staff

Michael Ardovino

Policy Analyst 

Danielle Ashbahian

Chief of Public Affairs

Keely Bakken

Supervisory Policy Analyst

Susan Bishai

Policy Analyst

Mollie Blum

Researcher

Elizabeth K. Cassidy

Director of Research & Policy

Mingzhi Chen

Senior Policy Analyst

Patrick Greenwalt

Policy Analyst

Sema Hasan

Policy Analyst

Thomas Kraemer

Chief Administrative Officer

Veronica McCarthy

Public Affairs Associate

Hilary Miller

Researcher

Nora Morton

Operations Specialist

Dylan Schexnaydre

Researcher

Jamie Staley

Supervisory Policy Advisor

Scott Weiner

Supervisory Policy Analyst

Luke Wilson

Researcher

732 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite #A714

Washington, DC 20401

202-523-3240 

www.USCIRF.gov

@USCIRF

Media@USCIRF.gov