Compendium of Standards, Good Practices and Recommendations or belief in employment will need to be justified. Where such restrictions occur, the employers’ and the employees’ interests should be balanced, such as where a civilian airline prohibits the wearing of all religious symbols, including a small cross.351 In an earlier case, however, the Court held that the dismissal of a senior legal adviser in the Turkish air force did not violate Article 9 of the ECHR.352 The Turkish government had argued that the complainant had manifested a lack of commitment to the secularist foundation of the Turkish state by taking part in the activities of the Süleyman sect, known to have unlawful fundamentalist tendencies. The Court held that the complainant had voluntarily accepted limitations on the manifestation of his beliefs in embracing a system of military discipline. Within these limitations, he was permitted to pray five times daily, to observe Ramadan and to attend Friday prayers. The dismissal was found to be based on his conduct and attitude rather than the way in which he manifested his religion. Restrictions on certain aspects of freedom of religion or belief of more senior members of the armed forces might be justified on account of the vulnerable position of junior military personnel. In a case against Greece, the European Court of Human Rights found that the conviction of senior service personnel, who were Pentecostal, for proselytizing to other (subordinate) personnel did not contravene Article 9. The Court noted that things in the civilian world would be seen as an innocuous exchange of ideas, which recipients are free to accept or reject, may, within the confines of military life, be viewed as a form of harassment or the application of undue pressure in abuse of power. It was thus permissible for the Greek authorities to protect subordinates in this way from the unwanted religious attentions of their superiors. The measures were also not considered disproportionate, since they were “not particularly severe and were more preventative than punitive in nature”.353 Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief The major human rights treaties prohibit discrimination in the enjoyment of human rights on grounds of religion. Article 2(1) of the ICCPR obliges States Parties to respect and ensure to all individuals within their territories and under their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Convention, without distinction of any kind, such as “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”. Article 26 of the ICCPR likewise prohibits discrimination on religious grounds. These provisions are supplemented by the UN General Assembly’s 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. 351 European Court for Human Rights, Eweida and others v. the United Kingdom, op. cit., note 348, paras. 83-84. The Court held that the employer’s commercial interests did not outweigh the employee’s rights. 352 European Court for Human Rights, Kalaç v. Turkey (Application no. 20704/92, judgment of 1 July 1997). 353 European Court for Human Rights, Larissis v. Greece, (Application no. 23372/94, judgment of 24 February 1998), paras. 50-55. In those cases where the applicants had proselytized to civilians, the Court found that there had been a violation of the applicants’ rights under Article 9. Thus, the Court attached decisive significance to the fact that the civilians whom the applicants had attempted to convert were not subject to pressures and constraints of the same kind as the service personnel. 151