Communication No. 40/1978 Submitted by: Erkki Hartikainen on 30 September 1978 Alleged victims: The author and other members of the Union of Free Thinkers State party: Finland Date of adoption of views: 9 April 1981 (twelfth session) 3. On 27 October 1978, the Human Rights Commit­ tee decided: (a) to transmit the communication to the State party, under rule 91 of the provisional rules of procedure, requesting information and observations relevant to the question of admissibihty of the com­ munication in so far as it related to the author in his per­ sonal capacity, and to request the State party, if it con­ tended that domestic remedies had not been exhausted, to give details of the effective remedies available to the alleged victim in the particular circumstances of his case, and ф) to inform the author that it could not con­ sider the communication in so far as it had been submit­ ted by him in his capacity as General Secretary of the Union of Free Thinkers in Finland, unless he furnished the names and addresses of the persons he claimed to represent together with information as to his authority for acting on their behalf. Concept of victim—Competence of Committee —Religious education—Atheism—Parental rights Article of Covenant: 18 Articles of Optional Protocol: 1 and 2 Views under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol 1. The author of this communication (initial letter dated 30 September 1978 and several further letters received between December 1978 and January 1981) is Erkki Juhani Hartikainen, a Finnish school teacher residing in Finland. He submitted the communication on his own behalf and also in his capacity as General Secretary of the Union of Free Thinkers in Finland and on behalf of other alleged victims, members of the Union. 2.1 The author claims that the School System Act of 26 July 1968, paragraph 6, of Finland is in violation of article 18 (4) of the Covenant inasmuch as it stipulates obligatory attendance in Finnish schools, by children whose parents are atheists, in classes on the history of rehgion and ethics. He alleges that since the textbooks on the basis of which the classes have been taught were written by Christians, the teaching has unavoidably been rehgious in nature. He contends that there is no prospect of remedying this situation under the existing law. He states that letters seeking a remedy have been written, in vain, to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Education and members of Parliament. He argues that it would be of no avail to institute court proceedings, as the subject matter of the complaint is a law which creates the situation of which he and others are the vic­ tims. 2.2 A copy of the law in question (in Finnish) is at­ tached to the communication. This, in translation, reads as follows: 4. In December 1978 and January 1979, the author submitted the signatures and other details of 56 in­ dividuals, authorizing him to act on their behalf as aUeged victims. 5. In its reply dated 17 January 1979, the State party admitted that the Finnish legal system did not contain any binding method for solving a possible conflict be­ tween two rules of law enacted by Parhament in ac­ cordance with the Constitution, i.e., the School System Act of 26 July 1968 and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which had been brought into force by Decree No. 108 of 30 January 1976. The State party stated further that "thus it could be said that there were no binding local remedies for such a case". 6. On 14 August 1979, the Human Rights Commit­ tee noted that, as regards the question of exhaustion of local remedies, the State party had admitted in its reply that no such remedies were available and the Committee found therefore that the communication was not inad­ missible under article 5 (2) ф) of the Optional Protocol. The Human Rights Committee therefore decided: 1. That the communication was admissible; 2. That, in accordance with article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, the State party be requested to submit to the Committee, within six months of the date of the transmittal to it of this decision, written explanations or statements clarifying the matter and the remedy, if any, that may have been taken by it. The curriculum of a comprehensive school shall, as provided for by decree, include religious instruction, social studies, mother tongue, one foreign language, study of the second domestic language, history, civics, mathematics, physics, chemistry, natural history, geography, physical education, art, music, crafts, home economics as well as studies and practical exercises closely related to the economy and facilitating the choice of occupation. Five or more students who by virtue of the Religious Freedom Act have been exempted from religious instruction and who do not receive any comparable instruction outside of school, shall instead of religious instruction receive instruction in the study of the history of religions and ethics. Where five or more students of the same religious denomination have by virtue of the Religious Freedom Act been exempted from the general religious instruction of a school and the guardians of those students demand religious instruction of that denomination, such instruction shall be given in that school. 7.1 In its submission under article 4 (2) of the Op­ tional Protocol, dated 7 March 1980, the State party refutes the allegation that there has been a violation of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Finland. It affirms that the Finnish legislation concerning religious freedom, including the School System Act, para­ graph 6, was scrutinized in connection with the process 2.3 The author seeks amendment of the law so as to make the classes (teaching) complained of, neutral or non-compulsory in Finnish schools. 74