INTRODUCTION

• The aim of this activity is to showcase real situations in a manner that strengthens participants’ understanding of the complexities of protecting religious pluralism. 
• The simulation is based on an individual complaint to the Human Rights Committee regarding a case of wearing religious symbols in the public sphere.
• Prior to this session, facilitator may point participants to the comprehensive OHCHR publication “Reporting to the United Nations Human Rights Treaty Bodies Training Guide” Manual and Notes for Facilitators, which can provide an overview of international human rights mechanisms.
• Questions under the Discussion Questions tab may guide participants through the simulation. 

ACTIVITY

• This simulation may require 1-2 hours, with participants being divided into three groups to simulate the committee session. 
• Facilitator may read this complaint in advance in order to provide an oral summary to the participants before they begin the simulation. Alternatively, the facilitator may make this document available to participants prior to the session so they can read and familiarize themselves with the main issues in the complaint.
• Participants may spend some time at the beginning of the session summarizing the complaint before participating in the simulation. 

CONCLUSION

• If time remains, participants may analyze their participation in the simulation to determine how they can address similar issues in their own communities. 
• This activity can be adapted and expanded into a day-long, full-fledged moot court exercise. (See scenarios G, H, I and J .) Participants could be divided into three groups to simulate applicants, respondents, and judges.

The following list of questions apply to a variety of situations applicable to Commitment IV. Some may be applicable to the case simulation:

• Should states constitutionally “adopt” a religion? 
• What are the benefits and limits of secularism? 
• What are the international standards in this area? Are these standards in harmony with religious thinking?  
• Can religious signs be worn in the public space in your respective countries?
• Does the State fund religious institutions, none of them, or only some? 
• Should the term “religion” be defined in the constitution? 
• What should be the reaction of religious actors when facing a situation of apparent discrimination on religious grounds against a group or an individual?
• What if the apparent discrimination was committed by a State agent?
  

Review the complaint here:

• Individual complaint to the Human Rights Committee

Review the Human Rights Treaty Bodies Training Guide: 

• Manual, Part I
• Notes for Facilitators, Part II

Other scenarios to consider for a moot-court exercise: 

• G, Price Media Law Moot Court Competition Case 2019/2020  
• H, Brazilian Center Studies in Law & Religion, International Law and Religion Moot Court 2020 Hypothetical Case
• I, European Academy of Religion International Moot Court CompetitionThird Edition
• J, Nelson Mandela World Human Rights Moot Court Competition 2020 Hypothetical Case 

• The #Faith4Rights modules are flexible and require adaptation by the facilitators before their use. Case studies related to peer-to-peer exercises in the 18 modules need to be selected by the facilitators from within the environment where the learning takes place. The #Faith4Rights toolkit is a prototype methodology that requires contextualization, based on the text of the 18 commitments, context, and additional supporting documents.
• Not all issues raised need to be resolved. This would be an impossible and even a counterproductive target. The aim is rather to enhance critical thinking and communication skills, admitting that some questions could receive many answers, depending on numerous factors.
• Tensions may occur during discussions related to “faith” and “rights.” Most of these tensions are due to human interpretations. Learning sessions are spaces for constructive dialogue in a dynamic process where tensions can be reduced with the help of clear methodologies, including pre-emptive situation analysis and evidence of positive results in areas of intersectionality between faith and rights.
• When preparing the sessions, facilitators need to factor in the profile, age, and backgrounds of participants. Focused attention on the learning objectives can transform tensions into constructive exploration of new ideas.
• Meaningful engagement requires democratically pre-established rules. Facilitators should dedicate time with participants to elaborate these rules together at the outset and act all along the training as their custodians.
• The time frames suggested in this #Faith4Rights toolkit are merely indicative. Facilitators may adapt them freely to suit the needs of their group of participants. The key balance is between respecting the overall time frame while not cutting short a positive exchange momentum.
• To ensure optimal and sustainable benefit, facilitators may create a “training notebook” for participants during their peer-to-peer learning sessions. It would contain a compilation of templates to help participants keep track of what they have learned throughout the program and eventually use this notebook as their personalized follow-up tool.
• When technically feasible, facilitators are also advised to project the module under discussion on screen in order to alternate between discussions thereon and showing the audio-visual materials listed in each module or any other items selected by the facilitator.

“Then Peter began to speak: ‘I now realize how true it is that God does not show favoritism.’” (Acts 10:34) ​