conviction and the commitment to religion or belief.5 According to the Committee, the right to freedom of religion or belief was not limited to traditional religions, but also protected newly established and minority religions and beliefs. The authors outline the teachings of the founder of the Church of Scientology, Ron Hubbard, and argue that the CDU declaration form requiring them to publicly denounce their affiliation with Scientology in order not to be excluded from the party operated as a restriction, based on their religion or belief, on their right under article 25 to participate in public affairs and, as such, constituted coercion designed to compel them to recant their beliefs, in violation of article 18, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. matter is not being and has not been examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. State party’s admissibility submission and authors’ comments 5.1 By note verbale of 21 January 2003, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication, arguing that it is inadmissible ratione temporis, on the basis of the German reservation concerning article 5, paragraph 2 (a), of the Optional Protocol, since the alleged violations of the authors’ rights had their origin in events occurring prior to the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for the Federal Republic of Germany on 25 November 1993. 4.4 By way of analogy, the authors refer to the Committee’s concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Germany, where the Committee expressed its concern “that membership in certain religious sects as such may in some Länder of the State party disqualify individuals from obtaining employment in the public service, which may in certain circumstances violate the rights guaranteed in articles 18 and 25 of the Covenant.”6 5.2 Although the decisions of the District Party Courts confirming the authors’ expulsion from the CDU dated from July and, respectively, December 1994, these decisions were based on resolution C 47, which had been adopted by the National Party Convention on 17 December 1991. The State party argues that, pursuant to its reservation, the decisive point of time for determining the applicability of the Optional Protocol was not the alleged violation as such but rather its origin “within the meaning of material or perhaps also indirect cause(s)”. This could be seen when comparing the German reservation with the different wording of reservations entered by other States parties to the Optional Protocol such as France, Malta and Slovenia, which explicitly referred to violations resulting from acts, omissions, developments or events which occurred after the entry into force of the Optional Protocol for these States or from related decisions. Furthermore, the authors’ claims essentially focused on resolution C 47, in the absence of any additional objections regarding the individual decisions on their exclusion from the CDU, which merely implemented that resolution. 4.5 The authors contend that their expulsion from the CDU amounts to discrimination within the meaning of articles 2, paragraph 1, and 26 of the Covenant, since no other religious group had been singled out for exclusion. Moreover, they submit that in a 1992 position paper justifying the adoption of resolution C 47, the CDU blatantly mischaracterized the Church of Scientology as being opposed to democracy and social outreach programmes, while in reality Scientology promoted such values. 4.6 The authors claim that their exclusion from the CDU caused them serious personal and economic injury. Thus, in the first author’s case, the District Administration of Euskirchen had denied him a business license on the ground that he was a Scientologist and therefore “unreliable”, whereas his bank had cancelled his business account without stating any reasons. As a consequence of the damage caused to his business, he had to sell his company to his son who was not affiliated to Scientology. In the case of the second author, the public campaign against him had severely injured his private dental practice, which had moreover been “S-marked” by the Federal Labour Office, thereby falsely identifying it as a “Scientology company”. 5.3 The State party submits that the communication is also inadmissible ratione personae under article 1 of the Optional Protocol, since it failed to address violations by a State party, and argues that it cannot be held responsible for expulsions of members from political parties, as these were freely organized associations under private law. By reference to the jurisprudence of the former European Commission of Human Rights,7 the State party submits that the only exception to this caveat would consist in a violation of its obligation to protect the authors’ rights under the Covenant against unlawful interference by a third party. 4.7 The authors claim that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies and that the same 5 The authors refer to the Committee’s General Comment 22, at para. 1. 7 See European Commission of Human Rights, Application No. 34614/1997, Church of Scientology v. Germany, decision of 7 April 1997. 6 Concluding Observations on the fourth report of Germany, CCPR/C/79/Add.73, at para. 16. 42