otherwise facially neutral laws. Art. 14 has been supplemented by Protocol No. 12 — a freestanding discrimination provision that includes religion among its prohibited grounds — which applies to all actions by public authorities, including the armed forces.171 More general provisions prohibiting discrimination on religious grounds also appear in the ICCPR.172 These are supplemented by the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief,173 which provides in Art. 2.1 that “No one shall be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons, or person on the grounds of religion or other belief.” By virtue of Art. 4, states are to take “effective measures” to enact protections against religious discrimination and to rescind discriminatory legislation. Within EU states, Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation requires that member states provide a legal remedy for discrimination in employment and training (whether direct, indirect, or constituting harassment) on grounds of religion. The prohibition of discrimination does not mean that every distinction on grounds of religion is impermissible, however. The directive recognizes that, in very limited circumstances, a difference of treatment may be justified where a characteristic related to religion constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement, when the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate.174 In the armed forces, this is only likely to apply to the posts of religious representatives, such as chaplains. In such cases, a requirement that the person appointed be of the religion concerned may, if the other conditions are met, be legally defensible.175 176 177 Box 11.5 The Netherlands: Courts and Religious Holidays/Diet The judiciary can play an important role in pressurizing the armed forces to respect religious freedom, as developments in the Netherlands demonstrate.175 One example was the decision in 1990 of the Central Appeals Tribunal that Art. 6 of the constitution required facilities to be created for observing Ramadan, with regard to working hours and occasional exemption from service duties.176 In a second decision in 1991, the Central Appeals Tribunal found that a Navy corporal had been discriminated against because of the failure to compensate him for the additional costs of preparing kosher food to meet his religious dietary requirements.177 171  Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 1 – General prohibition of discrimination: 1. The enjoyment of any right set forth by law shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status; 2. No one shall be discriminated against by any public authority on any ground such as those mentioned in paragraph 1. 172  Art. 26. 173  This, however, does not have the status of a binding international agreement. 174  Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, Official Journal of the European Communities, L 303, 2 December 2000, p. 16, Art. 4, para. 1. 175  L. Besselink, “Military Law in the Netherlands”, in Nolte, op. cit., note 6, pp. 594-595. 176  Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep), 25 October 1990, Tijdschrift voor Ambtenarenrecht, p. 245. 177  Central Appeals Tribunal (Centrale Raad van Beroep), 14 March 1991, Tijdschrift voor Ambtenarenrecht, p. 105. 92 Handbook on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Armed Forces Personnel