pressures of religious groups.369 This ban was examined by the ECHR in the case of Leyla Şahin v Turkey.370 The Court stated that article 9 of the European Convention does not always guarantee the right to behave in the public sphere in a religious way371 and that educational bodies have a margin of appreciation for regulations.372 The Court saw the role of States as the neutral and impartial organiser of the exercise of various religions.373 It confirmed that the secular approach was consistent with the freedom of religion and held that Turkey’s ban on religious symbols in universities was within the State’s margin of appreciation. Therefore the ban on wearing the headscarf (the hijab) was held not to be a violation of the student’s right to education under article 2 of Protocol I of the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the Grand Chamber made this assessment on the basis of article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and held that article 2 of Protocol I did not change the assessment. In our opinion, article 2 of Protocol I is different in that it provides a more concrete basis for the right to wear religious symbols or garb as it refers to the right to receive education and the right of parents to ensure that such education is in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. The dissenting opinion of Judge Tulkens found that article 9 of the European Convention (freedom of religion) and article I of the Protocol 2 of the European Convention (right to education) were violated, since, in the Judge’s view, young adults in universities were less amenable to pressure and therefore did not need the protection of a totally secular environment.374 In her opinion the regulation in universities was out of the State’s margin of appreciation.375 The HRC has considered the compatibility of a Muslim headscarf ban at universities in Uzbekistan with the ICCPR.376 It concluded that the ban violated students’ freedom of thought, conscience and religion as guaranteed in article 18(2) of the ICCPR due to lack of 368 Secularism is widely understood as the exclusion of religion in public forums and institutions. McGoldrick Human Rights and Religion: The Islamic Headscarf Debate in Europe at 149. 370 ECHR Chamber, Fourth Section Leyla Şahin v Turkey [2004] ELR 520 (29 June 2004); and ECHR Grand Chamber Leyla Şahin v Turkey [2006] ELR 73 (10 November 2005). 371 ECHR Grand Chamber Leyla Şahin v Turkey [2006] ELR 73 (10 November 2005) at para 105. 372 ECHR Grand Chamber Leyla Şahin v Turkey [2006] ELR 73 (10 November 2005) at para 122. 373 ECHR Grand Chamber Leyla Şahin v Turkey [2006] ELR 73 (10 November 2005) at para 107. 374 ECHR Grand Chamber Leyla Şahin v Turkey [2006] ELR 73 (10 November 2005) Judge Tulkens at para 3. 375 ECHR Grand Chamber Leyla Şahin v Turkey [2006] ELR 73 (10 November 2005) Judge Tulkens at para 3. 376 HRC Communication No. 931/2000: Uzbekistan CCPR/C/82/D/931/2000 18 January 2005. 369 122