ABSTRACT
This chapter presents possible explanations for the detected divergence between the HRC’s and the ECtHR’s case law regarding new minorities’ religious freedom. Thus, considering institutional differences, it is suggested that the divergence might be due to the greater distance to the respondent states as well as the increased religious diversity of the members of the HRC as opposed to the ECtHR. The key factor is however located in conceptual differences which become obvious when the two bodies deal with cases in which they expect a certain resistance from states. In these situations, which include the issues raised in the case law regarding new minorities, the ECtHR seems to make use of the concept of the margin of appreciation in order to abstain from exercising its control function. This leads to a very state-centric model of international supervision. Contrary to this, the HRC exercises an individual-centred control, aiming at providing guidance to states in controversial matters, thus offering a more meaningful protection to members of new minorities. Such conceptual difference appears to be linked to a different perception of members of new minorities.
