Judgment No. CCZ 7/16 30 Const. Application No. CCZ 17/15 On the freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the majority adopted the earlier decision of the Commission and opined, at paras. 36-38: “The Commission considered that Article 9 (art. 9) did not confer a right to exemption from disciplinary rules which applied generally and in a neutral manner and that in the instant case there had been no interference with the applicant’s right to freedom to manifest her religion or belief. The Court notes at the outset that Miss Valsamis was exempted from religious education and the Orthodox Mass, as she had requested on the grounds of her own religious beliefs. It has already held, in paragraphs 31-33 above, that the obligation to take part in the school parade was not such as to offend her parents’ religious convictions. The impugned measure therefore did not amount to an interference with her right to freedom of religion either. …. There has consequently not been a breach of Article 9 of the Convention (art. 9)”. Disposition Before balancing the respective rights and freedoms of the parties, it is necessary to consider the waiver of constitutionally entrenched rights. Adv. Mafukidze argues that it is possible to waive certain rights, depending upon the right in question, for example, the right to trade which can be subjected to restraint by agreement. However, the right to entertain and manifest religious beliefs cannot be waived because it is characterised by the absence of compulsion or coercion, including indirect control. Accordingly, clauses 4 and 5 of the School’s admission form must be regarded as being contra bonos mores and therefore unlawful. Adv. de Bourbon accepts that public policy enables the scrutiny of private contracts in order to ensure their constitutionality. Nevertheless, it is possible to contractually waive one’s religious precepts in order to