Fundamento destacado: 31. Como se consagra en el artículo 9 (art. 9), la libertad de pensamiento, de conciencia y de religión es uno de los fundamentos de una «sociedad democrática» en el sentido de la Convención. Es, en su dimensión religiosa, uno de los elementos más vitales que conforman la identidad de los creyentes y su concepción de la vida, pero también es un bien precioso para ateos, agnósticos, escépticos y despreocupados. De ella depende el pluralismo indisociable de una sociedad democrática, que ha sido duramente conquistado a lo largo de los siglos.
Si bien la libertad religiosa es principalmente una cuestión de conciencia individual, también implica, entre otras cosas, la libertad de «manifestar la propia religión». Dar testimonio con palabras y obras está ligado a la existencia de convicciones religiosas.
De conformidad con el artículo 9 (art. 9), la libertad de manifestar la propia religión no sólo puede ejercerse en comunidad con los demás, «en público» y dentro del círculo de aquellos cuya fe se comparte, sino que también puede afirmarse «individualmente» y «en privado»; además, incluye en principio el derecho a tratar de convencer al prójimo, por ejemplo, mediante la «enseñanza», de lo contrario, la «libertad de cambiar de religión o de creencias», consagrada en el artículo 9 (art. 9), probablemente quedaría en letra muerta.
[Traducción de LP]
31. As enshrined in Article 9 (art. 9), freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a «democratic society» within the meaning of the Convention. It is, in its religious dimension, one of the most vital elements that go to make up the identity of believers and their conception of life, but it is also a precious asset for atheists, agnostics, sceptics and the unconcerned. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it.
While religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, it also implies, inter alia, freedom to «manifest [one’s] religion». Bearing witness in words and deeds is bound up with the existence of religious convictions.
According to Article 9 (art. 9), freedom to manifest one’s religion is not only exercisable in community with others, «in public» and within the circle of those whose faith one shares, but can also be asserted «alone» and «in private»; furthermore, it includes in principle the right to try to convince one’s neighbour, for example through «teaching», failing which, moreover, «freedom to change [one’s] religion or belief», enshrined in Article 9 (art. 9), would be likely to remain a dead letter.
[Idioma original]
CASE OF KOKKINAKIS v. GREECE
(Application no. 14307/88)
In the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece*,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms («the Convention»)** and the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
Mr R. RYSSDAL, President,
Mr R. BERNHARDT,
Mr L.-E. PETTITI,
Mr J. DE MEYER,
Mr N. VALTICOS,
Mr S.K. MARTENS,
Mr I. FOIGHEL,
Mr A.N. LOIZOU,
Mr M.A. LOPES ROCHA,
and also of Mr M.-A. EISSEN, Registrar, and Mr H. PETZOLD, Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 27 November 1992 and 19 April 1993, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the lastmentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights («the Commission») on 21 February 1992, within the threemonth period laid down in Article 32 para. 1 and Article 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47) of the Convention. It originated in an application (no. 14307/88) against the Hellenic Republic lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) by a Greek national, Mr Minos Kokkinakis, on 22 August 1988. The Commission’s request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration whereby Greece recognised the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).
The object of the request was to obtain a decision as to whether the facts of the case disclosed a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Articles 7, 9 and 10 (art. 7, art. 9, art. 10).
[Continúa…]
Descargue la resolución aquí
*The case is numbered 3/1992/348/421. The first number is the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case’s position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.
**As amended by Article 11 of Protocol No. 8 (P8-11), which came into force on 1 January 1990
, la libertad de manifestar la propia religión no sólo puede ejercerse en comunidad...){kind=link}