Aadel Collection
Civil and Political Rights, Including Religous Intolerance
UNIItL )
NATIONS
Economic and Social Distr.
Council
GENERAL
E/CN.4/2004/63
16 January 2004
ENGLISH
Original: FRENCH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sixtieth session
Item 11(e) of the provisional agenda
CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, INCLUDING RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE
Report submitted by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur
on freedom of religion or belief
C
GE.04-10343 (E) 230304 250304
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 2
Summary
The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief hereby submits to the
Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with its resolution 2003/54 of 24 April 2003,
a set of four documents: this report, two addenda - on his visit to Georgia, from 31 August
to 7 September 2003 (E/CN.4/2004/63/Add. 1), and his visit to Romania, from 7
to 13 September 2003 (E/CN.4/2004/63/Add.2) - and, for information purposes, the
interim report submitted to the General Assembly at its fifty-eighth session (A158/296).
This report describes the activities carried out since the issuance of the Special
Rapporteur's last report to the Commission and includes an assessment of his activities since
taking up his mandate in 1993.
In the first chapter, on management activities, the Special Rapporteur reports on his
in situ visits and follow-up to them and draws the Commission's attention to those States
that have not yet acted on his requests for a visit. He then reports on the communications sent to
States since the issuance of his last report to the Commission and provides an overall analysis of
the communications sent to States since he took up his mandate.
Chapter II reports on the Special Rapporteur's activities with regard to the prevention of
intolerance and discrimination.
Finally, chapter III reports on his cooperation with the Commission, United Nations
human rights mechanisms, specialized agencies of the United Nations system and
non-governmental organizations.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 3
CONTENTS
Paragraphs Page
Introduction 1 - 2 4
REPORT ON MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 3 - 122 4
A. In situ visits and follow-up 3 - 13 4
B. Communications and replies from States 14 - 122 7
II. REPORT ON PREVENTIVE ACTION 123 - 134 25
A. Education 124-131 25
B. Inter-religious dialogue 132 - 134 27
III. REPORT ON COOPERATION WITH THE COMMISSION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS, UNITED NATIONS HUMAN
RIGHTS MECHANISMS, SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
OF THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM AND
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 135 - 145 27
A. Follow-up to Commission on Human Rights
initiatives 135 - 141 27
B. Cooperation with United Nations human rights
mechanisms and the specialized agencies 142 - 144 28
C. Cooperation with non-governmental organizations 145 29
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 146 - 158 29
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 4
Introduction
1. Since 1987, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief of the Commission
on Human Rights has been examining incidents and government measures in all parts of the
world that are incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All
Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and has recommended
remedial measures for such situations. Since then, the Special Rapporteur has submitted to the
Commission 16 general reports and 17 reports on in situ visits; he has also submitted nine
interim reports to the General Assembly since 1994.
2. As his mandate draws to a close after 11 years, the Special Rapporteur has decided
to take stock of his activities since 1993, including his management and prevention activities
in the area of freedom of religion or belief and his cooperation with the Commission,
United Nations human rights mechanisms, the specialized agencies of the United Nations
system and non-governmental organizations (NGO5).
I. REPORT ON MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. In situ visits and follow-up
1. In situ visits
3. In situ visits have been an important part of the Special Rapporteur's work. In
accordance with the resolutions of the Commission and the General Assembly, the purpose of
these visits is to enable him to:
(a) Consider, on the spot, incidents and government measures that are incompatible
with freedom of religion or belief, as well as positive experiences and initiatives in this area;
(b) Formulate recommendations aimed not only at the State visited but also at the
international community.
4. Since taking up his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has paid 16 visits, or 2 visits a
year on average, to States in all regions of the world (see table 1). In September 2003, the
Special Rapporteur went to Georgia and Romania; the reports on these visits are contained in
the two addenda to this report.
5. In parallel with the visits undertaken, requests for permission to visit were sent to six
States (see table 2) but these remain unanswered, despite reminders in follow-up letters, in
general reports to the Commission and the General Assembly and in the resolutions of these
bodies, including Commission on Human Rights resolution 2003/54, in which the Commission
“urges all Governments ... to respond favourably to his [ the Special Rapporteur'sI request to
visit their countries so as to enable him to fulfil his mandate even more effectively”. The
Special Rapporteur regrets that the Governments approached have not cooperated with him in
the fulfilment of his mandate with a view to improving the protection and promotion of human
rights in general and freedom of religion or belief in particular.
Table 1
In situ visits
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 5
State visited
Date of visit
Document symbol
China
November 1994
E/CN.4/1 995/91
Pakistan
June 1995
E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1
Iran (Islamic
Republic of)
December 1995
E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.2
Greece
June 1996
AI51/542/Add.1
Sudan
September 1996
AI51/542/Add.2
India
December 1996
E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1
Australia
February-March 1997
E/CN.4/1 998/6/Add. 1
Germany
September 1997
E/CN.4/1 998/6/Add.2
United States
of America
January-February 1998
E/CN.4/1 999/58/Add. 1
Viet Nam
October 1998
E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.2
Turkey
December 1999
AI5 5/280/Add. 1
Bangladesh
May 2000
AI5 5/280/Add. 2
Argentina
May 2001
E/CN.4/2002/73/Add. 1
Algeria
September 2002
E/CN.4/2003/66/Add. 1
Georgia
August-September 2003
E/CN.4/2004/63/Add. 1
Romania
September 2003
E/CN.4/2004/63/Add.2
6. He wishes to point out that these requests in no way suggest preconceived views or any
negative judgement regarding the Governments concerned. Rather, the aim is to use such visits
to establish or to pursue a dialogue with the authorities and with all the parties concerned,
particularly with NGOs and all individuals having a particular interest in the mandate.
Moreover, regardless of whether the visit is made at the request of the General Assembly or the
Commission, like the one to the Sudan, at the initiative of the country concerned, like those to
China and Algeria, or at his own initiative, the Special Rapporteur has always tried to maintain a
balance both in the regions visited and in the religions involved. He therefore visited, for
example, Turkey as well as Greece, and Pakistan as well as India.
7. In accordance with resolution 5-5/1 of 19 October 2000, entitled “Grave and massive
violations of the human rights of the Palestinian people by Israel”, the Commission, in a special
session, decided inter alia to request the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance to carry out
an immediate mission to the occupied Palestinian territories and to report on his findings. In
response to a letter dated 18 December 2000 from the Special Rapporteur to the Permanent
Mission of Israel to the United Nations informing it of his intention to visit the occupied
territories and seeking the cooperation of the Israeli authorities for access to the territory, the
latter informed him, by letter of 2 January 2001, that Israel would “not cooperate in the
implementation of (...) this resolution”.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 6
Table 2
Unanswered requests for permission to visit
State
Date of initial request
Reaction
Indonesia
1996
No reply
Mauritius
1996
No reply
Israel
1997
No reply
Russian Federation
1998
No reply
Democratic People's
1999
No reply
Republic of Korea
Nigeria
2000
Acknowledged
Turkmenistan
2003
No reply
8. The Special Rapporteur was therefore unable to go to the occupied territories, despite the
gravity of the situation and the corroborating and disquieting information received in the context
of his mandate.
9. Pursuant to resolution 2001/7 of 18 April 2001, in which the Commission expressed deep
concern at this failure to cooperate, the Special Rapporteur reiterated his request for permission
to visit on 22 June 2001 and on 29 July 2002, but these requests were fruitless.
10. Aside from the so-called “traditional” in situ visits, the Special Rapporteur decided
in 1999 to begin visits to the major communities of religion or belief The purpose of such visits
was to establish a dialogue on the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief and on all issues relating to freedom of
religion or belief, and also to consider solutions to the problems of intolerance and
discrimination in that area. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur visited the Holy See in
September 1999 (E/CN.4/2000/65).
11. In a letter dated 13 January 2003 and received by fax on 10 November 2003, the
Government of China invited the Special Rapporteur to visit that country again. In addition,
on 11 November 2003, at the fifty-eighth session of the General Assembly, the representative of
the Islamic Republic of Iran also invited the Special Rapporteur to pay another visit to his
country.
2. Follow-up to in situ visits
12. Since 1996, the Special Rapporteur has established a follow-up procedure whereby
States which have received an in situ visit are asked to provide comments and any information
on measures the relevant authorities have taken or are considering taking to implement the
recommendations formulated in the mission reports (see table 3).
Table 3
Follow-up procedure
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 7
State visited
Date of submission of follow-up
procedure to State visited
Reaction of State (report)
(report)
China
1996 (AI51/542)
Reply 1996 (A/S 1/542)
Pakistan
1996 (AI51/542)
Reply 1997
(AI5 2/477/Add. 1)
Iran (Islamic
Republic of)
1996 (A/S 1/542)
No reply despite reminders
Greece
1997 (A152/477/Add. 1)
Reply 1997
(E/CN.4/1998/6)
Sudan
1997 (A152/477/Add. 1)
Reply 1997
(AI5 2/477/Add. 1)
India
1997 (A152/477/Add. 1)
Reply 1998 (A153/279)
Australia
1998 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply despite one
reminder
Germany
1998 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply despite one
reminder
United States
of America
2000 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply
Viet Nam
2000 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply
13. The Special Rapporteur calls on all the States concerned to cooperate fully with
the follow-up procedure and draws their attention to Commission resolution 2000/86
of 27 April 2000, on human rights and thematic procedures, in which the Commission invites
the Governments concerned to study carefully the recommendations addressed to them under
thematic procedures and to keep the relevant mechanisms informed without undue delay on the
progress made.
B. Communications and replies from States
1. Report on communications sent since the issuance
of the last report to the Conunission
14. Since the last report (E/CN.4/2003/66) was issued, 69 communications have been sent
to 42 States (see table 4).
15. The Special Rapporteur has received replies from 15 States. In this respect, in
accordance with his methods of work and the rules governing his mandate, he wishes to clarify
that the communications sent within the past two months are not covered in this report.
Moreover, he would like to thank the Governments of Azerbaijan, Egypt and Uzbekistan for
their replies, which cannot be reflected in this report for reasons to do with their translation.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 8
16. In order to avoid repeating information contained in previously issued documents, this
report simply refers the reader to the interim report submitted to the General Assembly at its
fifty-eighth session (A158/296).
17. The Special Rapporteur wishes to point out that the communications mentioned below
do not account for all incidents or government measures in all parts of the world that are
incompatible with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief
Afghanistan
18. See paragraphs 6 and 7 of the interim report to the General Assembly.
Saudi Arabia
19. See paragraph 8 of the interim report.
20. In a letter dated 8 August 2003, the Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the
Yemeni citizen in question had not been sentenced to death, but to two years' imprisonment “on
the basis of the charges brought against him”.
Armenia
21. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 9 to 15 of the interim report.
22. The second concerns reports that 10 Jehovah's Witnesses were given prison
sentences under article 327, paragraph 1, of the new Criminal Code, which entered into
force on 1 August 2003, for failure to do their military service.
Azerbaijan
23. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 16 and 17 of the interim report.
24. The second concerns reports that the leader of the Catholic community in Azerbaijan was
warned by the authorities responsible for religious affairs that he was producing “illegal religious
propaganda”, an offence punishable with expulsion.
Bangladesh
25. See paragraphs 18 to 22 of the interim report.
Belarus
26. The first two communications are dealt with in paragraphs 23 to 25 of the interim report.
27. In a letter dated 4 August 2003, the Government replied that the restrictions on the
exercise of the freedom of religion or belief that are set out in the Constitution, which prohibits
“any activity by religious organizations ... that is directed against the sovereignty of the
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 9
Republic of Belarus, its constitutional system or civic harmony, or that is likely to violate the law
or the civil liberties of citizens, and that prevents citizens from discharging their public, social or
family duties or is detrimental to their health or morality”, are compatible with article 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
28. With regard to the Belarusian Autocephalic Orthodox Church, the Government points out
that its representative has been defrocked and excommunicated by the Belarusian Orthodox
Church and that his application to have his church registered was rejected because the documents
submitted did not meet the legal requirements.
29. The decision to reject the registration of the parish of Saint-Jean de Kronstadt, which
claims to be part of the Crimean diocese of the Real Russian Orthodox Church - a decision that
was confirmed by the courts - was taken on the basis of an expert denominational study and the
conclusions of the Committee on Religious and Ethnic Affairs, in accordance with the legislation
on freedom of conscience and religious organizations.
30. With regard to the Hindu “Light of Kaylasa” community, the Government replied, by
letter of 26 September 2003, that the community had not submitted the documents required for
registration, that the events of 1 June 2003 stemmed from a neighbourhood disturbance and that
no member of the community had been prosecuted.
31. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Government of Belarus for its detailed
replies, while pointing out that freedom of religion or belief is itself boundless even though
certain restrictions may be applied to displays of that freedom.
32. The third communication concerns reports that religious communities experience many
difficulties in building places of worship or recovering those seized during the Soviet period. It
is reported that building permission for a social centre in which services could have been held
was withdrawn at the last minute from the leader of the Full Gospel Church in Minsk, whose
community is desperately short of places of worship. Lutherans and Calvinists are also said to
have great difficulty in obtaining the return of churches handed over to the Orthodox Church.
Bulgaria
33. See paragraphs 26 to 28 of the interim report.
China
34. The first two communications are dealt with in paragraphs 29 to 35 of the interim report.
35. In a letter dated 14 October 2003, the Government sent a detailed reply, the full text of
which is being circulated as a separate document of the Commission at its sixtieth session. In its
reply, the Government stresses that Falun Gong is not a religion but an increasingly violent
“antisocial, anti-science, anti-human sect” and that its prohibition by the authorities is
completely legal. Moreover, the allegations of torture and other ill-treatment are unfounded.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 10
36. Regarding Tenzin Delek Rinpoche and Lobsang Thondup, the Government points out
that they were convicted of acts of sedition and enjoyed all the guarantees of a fair trial.
37. In the same letter, the Government enclosed a detailed reply from the Government of the
Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), which pointed out that the 16 members of
Falun Gong had not been prosecuted for their religious beliefs but for disturbing the peace and
that they had had a fair trial. The Government of the Hong Kong SAR provided a copy of the
“anti-subversion” bill, giving a definition of the terms mentioned by the Special Rapporteur and
stressing that it was specified in the bill that fundamental rights were to be respected in the
implementation of its provisions.
38. The third communication concerns reports that 12 members of an unauthorized church
were arrested on 6 June 2003 in the town of Guna, Yunnan, even though they had applied for
official permission to hold religious services.
39. The fourth communication concerns the tens of thousands of Ismaeli Muslims in
the autonomous Tajik district in the Sinkiang-Uighur region, who are cut off from their
fellow believers in Tajikistan and the rest of the world. According to the imam of the
Ismaeli mosque in Tashkurgan, children under the age of 18 are unable to go to the mosque
and the fourth Aga Khan is prevented from providing assistance to the Ismaeli Muslims in
the region.
Egypt
40. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the interim report.
41. In a letter dated 21 July 2003, on the obstacles encountered by members of the Baha'i
community trying to obtain identity papers, the Government replied that the law did not permit
an identity card (or family or social security card) to be issued to a person who was not a
follower of one of the three religions recognized by the Constitution. This is a public policy rule
that cannot be circumvented on grounds of freedom of religion or belief as guaranteed by the
Constitution.
42. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Egyptian Government for its reply. He
wishes to point out that the mention of religion on an identity card is a controversial issue and
appears to be somewhat at variance with the freedom of religion or belief that is internationally
recognized and protected. Moreover, even supposing that it was acceptable to mention religion
on an identity card, it could only be claimed that the practice had any legitimacy whatsoever if it
was non-discriminatory: to exclude any mention of religions other than Islam, Christianity or
Judaism would appear to be a violation of international law.
43. The second communication concerns reports that security forces attacked the
Saint-Antoine Coptic monastery in the Red Sea Desert on 19 August 2003 and that, among
other things, they blocked access to the monastery and tried to destroy the fence around it.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 11
United Arab Emirates
44. See paragraph 39 of the interim report.
45. In a letter dated 25 August 2003, the Government confirmed that the Reverend
Fernando Alconga had been sentenced to one year in prison and expulsion from the country
for “attacking Islam and proselytizing for another religion”. The sentence was suspended for
three years.
Eritrea
46. Three Jehovah's Witnesses who refused to do their military service have reportedly been
held incommunicado without being charged since 1994. A number of Jehovah's Witnesses are
allegedly in prison at present for the same reason, despite their willingness to do alternative
community service.
United States of America
47. See paragraphs 40 to 48 of the interim report.
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
48. A Serbian Orthodox bishop was reportedly arrested on 20 July 2003 for attempting to
perform a baptism in a Macedonian Orthodox church and sentenced to five days in solitary
confinement. Other incidents involving representatives of the Serbian Orthodox Church have
also been reported since the collapse of talks between the Serbian Orthodox Church and the
Macedonian Orthodox Church in June 2002.
Russian Federation
49. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 49 and 50 of the interim report.
50. In a letter dated 19 June 2003, the Government replied that the decisions taken in 2002
with the aim of preventing certain foreigners from entering the country were in no way linked to
their religious activities but were a consequence of violations of the legislation on the status of
foreigners.
51. The second communication concerns reports that the Moscow police stopped an open-air
Baptist service on 26 July 2003. One member of the congregation claims that incidents like this
are a normal part of everyday life for church members. Baptists, who refuse to register, have no
legal status and are not allowed to rent buildings in which to hold their acts of worship. It is
reported that many of their services were stopped during the summer, books were confiscated
and some church members were arrested.
Fiji
52. The church of the majority in the country is reportedly in favour of regulating the
registration of religious groups because of the growing number of “religious sects”. In this
context, the authorities are apparently determined to make it as difficult as possible for religious
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 12
groups to become established in the country. The Minister of Justice is reported to have said that
the current legislation needs to be reviewed “for the reason that there are far too many religious
bodies and religions in the country”.
Greece
53. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 51 and 52 of the interim report.
54. In a letter dated 6 August 2003, the Greek Government replied that the descriptions of
religious minorities referred to in this communication were taken from sources cited in the
religious textbooks and were intended to stimulate critical debate. However, the body of the text
in those books stressed the need for tolerance towards people from other religions.
55. The second communication concerns reports that Mr. Lazaros Petromedelis has
been stripped of his status as a recognized conscientious objector, which he has held since
November 1998, for refusing to do 30 months of community service because of the punitive
nature of this service. On 12 June 2003, a military court of appeal in Athens reportedly gave
him a suspended 20-month prison sentence for insubordination in peacetime. If called up for
military service again, he will have to serve his prison sentence. There are 26 other individuals
in similar situations.
India
56. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 53 to 57 of the interim report.
57. In a letter dated 8 August 2003, the Government confirmed that the Raghunath temple in
Jammu had been attacked on 30 March and 24 November 2002 and explained that the attacks
had been carried out by Islamic fundamentalist groups based in Pakistan. The Government,
which remains “fully committed to protect [ ing the rights of the people to worship and [ tol
uphold [ ing the freedom of religion”, has taken all possible measures to guarantee the security of
places of worship and to prevent similar attacks in the future.
58. The Government also confirmed that women in Jammu and Kashmir had been threatened
by Islamic fundamentalist groups. Steps had been taken to reassure the local population and to
combat such acts of intolerance and intimidation.
59. Finally, the Government confirmed the attack on the American missionary
Joseph William Cooper and on the Reverend Benson and said that 9 of the 15 suspects
had already been arrested. However, it stressed that Mr. Cooper had been ordered to leave
the country for carrying out religious activities that contravened the Foreigners Act 1946.
60. The second communication concerns the following: first, on 27 March 2003, Gujarat
State apparently adopted legislation aimed at preventing religious conversions by “force,
allurement or any other fraudulent means” - terms that are very broadly defined in the law -
legislation which stipulates that the permission of a district magistrate must be obtained before
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 13
conversion; second, in April 2003, a young Dalit girl from Parwasa, Madhya Pradesh, was
allegedly thrown into a well by three men for praying in a temple; and, lastly, on 30 May 2003,
members of a higher caste allegedly tried to stop a group of Mahasangh Dalits from entering a
temple in the town of Hitni, Maharashtra, by throwing stones at them and blocking the roads.
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
61. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 58 to 61 of the interim report.
62. The second communication concerns reports that on 7, 9 and 10 August 2003 the
Jani-e-Jani newspaper published three defamatory and insulting articles about the Baha'i
community, inter alia by branding Baha'is as terrorists and foreign agents.
Israel
63. See paragraphs 62 to 65 of the interim report.
Kazakhstan
64. See paragraphs 66 to 70 of the interim report.
Kyrgyzstan
65. See paragraphs 71 to 73 of the interim report.
Latvia
66. The Government is apparently considering striking a clause from the law on religions that
prohibits the registration of more than one association from the same denomination. This move
appears to have the support of several religious minorities, including the Autonomous True
Orthodox Church, but the metropolitan of the Russian Orthodox Church in Riga is said to be
against it because it would allow other Orthodox churches to register.
67. In addition, it is reported that on 28 August 2003, after two months of threats, the
archbishop of the Autonomous True Orthodox Church in Daugavpils was injured in an arson
attack on his cathedral and that the police did not take the appropriate security measures after
the event.
Morocco
68. See paragraph 74 of the interim report.
Myanmar
69. See paragraphs 77 to 79 of the interim report.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 14
Nigeria
70. The first two communications are dealt with in paragraphs 80 to 83 of the interim report.
71. The third concerns reports that acts of religious violence have caused 15 deaths
since 8 June 2003 in the town of Numan. Gangs of Christian youths are said to have set fire
to several mosques in the town and to have been responsible for violence in neighbouring
villages.
Uzbekistan
72. The first two communications are dealt with in paragraphs 102 to 107 of the interim
report.
73. In letters dated 10 and 18 July 2003, the Government provides a detailed reply to
these two communications. With regard to the difficulties encountered by Jehovah's Witnesses,
the Government replies that the latter belonged to an unregistered religious organization and
points out that, in several of the cases mentioned by the Special Rapporteur, members of this
community had received fines and prison sentences for offering illegal religious instruction
and, in one case, for committing acts that “offended the religious and atheistic convictions of
citizens with a view to inciting religious-based hatred against certain groups”. The difficulties
encountered by other Christian minorities are explained in a similar way (they are unregistered
and offer illegal religious instruction).
74. With regard to the conditions for Muslims in prison No. 6461, the Government points out
that they had been able to observe Ramadan and had not been punished for doing so. According
to the Government, the information contained in the open letter from 22 Muslim prisoners did
not correspond to reality. The letter's signatories included prisoners who regularly broke
prison rules and the letter had been sent after an incident on 17 April 2003 related to discipline
in the workplace that had no effect on the exercise of prisoners' freedom of religion.
Moreover, 20 of the 22 signatories had apparently been reading religious materials in May and
June 2003.
75. The third communication concerns reports that a Pentecostal pastor from Andijan had
decided to seek asylum to protest against the conditions in which Protestants had to live in
Andijan. Among other things, the authorities reportedly refused to register the Pentecostal
Church, which prevents it from functioning normally.
76. The fourth communication concerns reports that, as part of a policy to prohibit the
activities of Protestant churches that are not registered in Uzbekistan, the authorities in the town
of Navoi confiscated books from a Baptist mobile library on 27 September 2003 and prevented
members of the (unregistered) Baptist Church from holding a meeting.
Pakistan
77. See paragraphs 84 and 85 of the interim report.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 15
78. In a letter dated 4 August 2003, on the attacks in Taxila and on Murree School,
the Government supplied the identity of the four individuals arrested and tried by an anti-
terrorist court. It stresses that these attacks must be seen in the context of the events in
Afghanistan after 11 September 2001 and that various measures have been taken to protect
certain minorities.
79. In a letter dated 31 October 2003, the Government replied that the perpetrators of the
attack in Chianwali had been arrested and brought before the anti-terrorist court in Gujranwala.
Lao People's Democratic Republic
80. The first communication is dealt with in paragraph 86 of the interim report.
81. In the second communication, the Special Rapporteur returned to the question of
the arrest of Christians in Muang Nong, drawing the Government's attention to reports
that 12 Christians continued to be detained for not signing a statement that they “would stop
following Christ”.
Republic of Moldova
82. See paragraphs 75 and 76 of the interim report.
83. In a letter dated 22 July 2003, the Government replied that none of the persons
identified in the communication was a police officer in the town of Bendery and that there had
been no cases of detention involving the confiscation of religious books during the periods
indicated.
United Republic of Tanzania
84. The authorities in Zanzibar apparently declared that the legislation obliging Muslims to
obtain the mufti's permission before meeting must be followed to the letter, so that the
Government would be able to identify individuals trying to use religion to divide the people of
Zanzibar. Violent clashes are reported to have taken place in February 2003 between the forces
of law and order and a group of Muslims over this piece of legislation.
Romania
85. See paragraph 87 of the interim report.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
86. The Government reportedly proposes to make it illegal for the administrators of churches
or religious charities to obtain “digital multiplex licences”, which are vital for access to modern
technology.
87. In a letter dated 16 September 2003, the United Kingdom Government replied that the
fact that church administrators are not able to own digital multiplex licences is a restriction
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 16
carried over from former legislation and justified by the rarity of this broadcasting system in
British territory, where the authorities' duty is to satisfy the largest possible number of people.
Moreover, this restriction does not affect religious institutions' right to broadcast: indeed, this
right has been extended.
Serbia and Montenegro
88. The first two communications are dealt with in paragraphs 88 to 90 of the interim report.
89. The third concerns reports that at a concert organized in Vrdnik on 8 August 2003 by the
local Pentecostal Church, unidentified individuals threw an explosive device near the stage and
cut off the power supply with an axe. One of them then reportedly drove a car into the area
where the audience was standing and threatened the organizers, claiming to be armed.
Slovakia
90. The leaders of certain religious minorities reportedly complained about legislation that
prohibits religious communities with fewer than 20,000 members from obtaining legal status,
which they need, among other things, to build places of worship.
Slovenia
91. Several religious minorities who would like the new law to enshrine the principle of
equality between all religions are said to have expressed concern about the choice of leader for
the team responsible for drafting the bill, Mr. Lovro Strum, who is a member of the Order of
Malta.
92. It is also reported that other religious minorities have recently complained about
restrictions on the exercise of their freedom of religion, including Muslims, who are
experiencing great difficulty in their efforts to build a mosque.
Sudan
93. See paragraph 91 of the interim report.
Sri Lanka
94. A Supreme Court decision would allegedly put a stop to proselytizing and religious
conversions and deny legal status to two Christian organizations. The decision is said to have
been favourably received by Buddhist organizations upset by the attitude of Christian groups
offering money, clothes and books to would-be converts.
Tajiliistan
95. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 92 and 93 of the interim report.
96. The second communication concerns reports that a Baptist was fined five times the
minimum monthly salary for accosting passers-by in the street, even though the practice is not
prohibited.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 17
Turkmenistan
97. The first three communications are dealt with in paragraphs 94 to 98 of the interim
report.
98. A fourth communication draws attention to information on the complete lack of freedom
of religion or belief in the country, except for Sunni Muslims or members of the Russian
Orthodox Church, who are allowed to congregate in a limited number of registered places of
worship. It is alleged that all other religious communities in the country are banned de facto and
that their activities are punishable by law.
Turkey
99. See paragraphs 99 to 101 of the interim report.
Viet Nam
100. The first communication is dealt with in paragraphs 108 to 115 of the interim report.
101. The second communication concerns reports that Thich Tn Luc, a Vietnamese Buddhist
monk recognized as a refugee in Cambodia, who was been missing since 25 July 2002, has been
returned to Viet Nam. It appears that his family was informed that he had been brought before a
court in Ho Chi Minh City on 1 August 2003, but that his trial had been postponed.
102. In a letter dated 22 November 2002, the Vietnamese Government replied that the
information sent to it was incorrect. Thich Tn Luc had been arrested at the border between
Viet Nam and Cambodia while attempting to contact foreign organizations with a view to
organizing anti-Vietnamese activities. His trial had been due to be held on 1 August 2003 but
had been postponed for humanitarian reasons at the request of his wife.
Yemen
103. See paragraph 116 of the interim report.
2. Late replies
China
104. As regards the action against members of Falun Gong (see A157/274, paras. 21-27), the
Government sent a detailed reply on 10 March 2003, the full text of which has been circulated as
a separate document of the Commission at its sixtieth session and contains information
concerning certain individual cases raised by the Special Rapporteur along with comments on the
Government's policy vis-à-vis Falun Gong.
Pakistan
105. As regards the accusation of blasphemy against Parvez Masih (see A156/253, para. 62),
the Government replied in a letter dated 4 August 2003 that this person's trial was still pending,
and that he had access to legal counsel and benefited from all the requirements for a fair trial.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 18
With reference to the murder of Mohammed Yousaf Au of (see E/CN.4/2003/66), the
Government confirmed that he had been killed by a fellow prisoner on 11 June 2002 and that
legal action had been taken against the latter. With reference to the attack in Saint Dominic's
Roman Catholic Church (see A157/274, para. 49), the Government gave the names of eight
persons who had taken part in the attack; seven of them had been killed by the police in the
course of clashes while the last was a fugitive. Lastly, as regards the rape of Naira Nadia Masih
(E/CN.4/2003/66), the Government replied that medical examinations had been ordered to
determine her age and that judicial proceedings were still in progress.
3. Report on communications since 1993
106. This report concerns communications sent by the Special Rapporteur and the reaction of
States, on the basis of the reports submitted since 1993.'
(a) Structural analysis of the Special Rapporteur's communications and reactions by
States
107. The Special Rapporteur has prepared tables 4 to 7 in order to provide a better
appreciation of the evolution of the communications and urgent appeals and reactions by States.
Table 4
Evolution of communications
Year of
Number of
Number of
Names of States concerned
report
States
communications
concerned
sent
1994 27 28 Albania, Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, Cameroon,
China, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece,
India, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2), Iraq, Malaysia, Myanmar,
Nepal, Pakistan, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Saudi
Arabia, Spain, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam
1995 50 56 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Austria, Bangladesh (2),
Belarus, Benin, Bhutan, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Cuba,
Cyprus, Egypt, Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2), Iraq (3), Israel and
the occupied territories, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia,
Malaysia (2), Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nepal,
Nigeria, Pakistan (2), Philippines, Romania, Russian
Federation, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia (2), Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic
of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
1 E/CN.4/1994/79; E/CN.4/1995/91 and Add. 1; E/CN.4/1996/95; E/CN.4/1997/9 1;
E/CN.4/1998/6; E/CN.4/1999/58; E/CN.4/2000/65; E/CN.4/200 1/63; E/CN.4/2002/73;
E/CN.4/2003/66.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 19
Year of
report
Number of
States
concerned
Number of
communications
sent
Names of States concerned
1996
46
52
Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Bangladesh,
Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Cambodia, China (5),
Cuba (2), Cyprus, Egypt (2), Eritrea, Germany, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland,
Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Sudan, Turkey, Ukraine,
Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Yemen
1997 49 51 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus,
Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chad,
China (2), Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia,
Greece, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Japan,
Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria,
Pakistan (2), Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia,
Tajikistan, Turkey, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Yugoslavia
1998 51 59 Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan,
Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brunei Darussalam,
Bulgaria, China (3), Comoros, Czech Republic, Egypt, Gabon,
Gambia, Georgia, Greece, India, Iran (Islamic Republic of),
Iraq (2), Israel, Kuwait, Latvia, Mauritania, Mongolia (2),
Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman,
Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation (2),
Singapore, Slovakia (2), Somalia, Sudan, Switzerland,
Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (2),
Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, United Arab Emirates,
Uzbekistan, Viet Nam (2), Yemen, Yugoslavia
1999 46 63 Afghanistan (3), Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,
Belarus, Belgium, Bhutan, Bulgaria, China (2), Cyprus,
Egypt (3), Eritrea, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece,
India (3), Indonesia (2), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (5), Iraq,
Kazakhstan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco,
Myanmar, Pakistan, Democratic People's Republic of Korea,
Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan (3), Turkey (2),
Turkmenistan (2), Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan (2),
Yemen
2000 55 92 Afghanistan, Azerbaijan (3), Bangladesh (2), Belarus, Bolivia,
Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria (2), Cape Verde, China (4),
Comoros (2), Côte d'Ivoire, Cyprus, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (2), Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Eritrea,
Finland, Gabon, Georgia (2), Greece (2), India (5),
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 20
Year of
Number of
Number of
Names of States concerned
report
States
communications
concerned
sent
Indonesia (3), Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2), Iraq, Israel (4),
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania, Mexico, Mozambique,
Myanmar, Nepal (3), Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan (4), Peru,
Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova (2), Russian
Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia (2), Sri Lanka, Sudan, Syrian
Arab Republic (2), Tajikistan, Turkmenistan (3), Uganda,
Ukraine (2), United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan (3),
Viet Nam (3), Yemen (2)
2001 53 86 Afghanistan, Azerbaijan (2), Belarus, Bhutan, Bulgaria (2),
Burundi, Chad, China (5), Côte d'Ivoire, Egypt (3), Eritrea,
Georgia (4), Greece, Hungary, India (3), Indonesia (5), Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy (2), Jordan (2), Kazakhstan,
Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia,
Lebanon, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Myanmar (3), Nauru,
Nepal (2), Niger, Nigeria (2), Norway, Pakistan (3), Papua
New Guinea, Peru, Philippines (2), Republic of Korea,
Russian Federation (2), Saudi Arabia (2), South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia, Turkey (2), Turkmenistan (4), Uganda, Ukraine,
United Kingdom, Uzbekistan (2), Viet Nam, Yemen
2002 29 64 Afghanistan (3), Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt (3), Estonia,
Georgia (4), Guinea Bissau, India (3), Indonesia (4), Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal (2),
Nigeria (2), Pakistan (4), Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia,
Saudi Arabia (2), Sri Lanka, Sudan (2), Turkey,
Turkmenistan (3), Ukraine (2), United Arab Emirates,
Viet Nam (5)
2003 24 37 Azerbaijan (2), Bangladesh, China (4), Egypt, Eritrea,
Georgia (2), India (2), Indonesia (2), Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Israel, Jordan, Myanmar (2), Nigeria (2),
Pakistan (4), Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova,
Singapore, Saudi Arabia (3), Sudan, Turkmenistan, Turkey,
United States of America, Yugoslavia and Zimbabwe.
2004 42 69 Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Armenia (2), Azerbaijan (2),
Bangladesh, Belarus (3), Bulgaria, China (4), Egypt (2),
Eritrea, Fiji, Greece (2), India (2), Iran (Islamic Republic
of) (2), Israel, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan (2), Lao People's
Democratic Republic (2), Latvia, Morocco, Myanmar (2),
Nigeria (3), Pakistan, Republic of Moldova, Romania,
Russian Federation (2), Saudi Arabia, Serbia and
Montenegro (3), Slovakia, Slovenia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Tajikistan (2), The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia,
Turkey, Turkmenistan (4), United Arab Emirates,
United Kingdom, United States of America, United Republic
of Tanzania, Uzbekistan (4), Viet Nam (2), Yemen
Table S
Evolution of urgent appeals
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 21
Year of
report
Number of
urgent appeals
Number of States
concerned
States concerned
1995
6
5
Bangladesh, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq (2), Pakistan,
Saudi Arabia
1996
1997
4
4
2
4
China (2), Egypt (2)
China, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2), United Arab
Emirates
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2
4
2
1
2
3
0
2
2
2
1
1
2
China, United Arab Emirates
Iran (Islamic Republic of) (3), Sudan
Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Afghanistan
China, Nigeria (2)
Table 6
Evolution of replies to communications
Year of
Teport
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
‘Jumber of States
concerned
27
50
46
49
51
46
55
53
29
24
24
Number of States replying
(the number in parenthesis
corresponds to late responses)
17(5)
10 (6)
7(17)
1500)
2103)
22(6)
2300)
1602)
1106)
7(2)
5 (16)
‘ ercentage of replies to
communications (the percentage
in parenthesis includes the late
esponses)
62.96 (85.18)
20 (54)
15.21 (36.95)
30.61 (46.93)
41.17 (52.94)
47.82 (71.73)
41.81 (61.81)
30.18 (52.83)
20.82 (87.50)
29.16 (37.50)
35.71 (40.47)
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 22
Table 7
Evolution of responses to urgent appeals
Year
Number of urgent
appeals and States
concerned
Responses
Percentage
(in parenthesis)
1995
6 (5)
Bangladesh (1)
16.66
1996
4(2)
Egypt(2)
50
1997
4(4)
China (1), United Arab Emirates (1)
50
1998
2(2)
China (1), United Arab Emirates (1)
100
1999
4(2)
Islamic Republic of Iran (2)
50 (75 taking into account
late response from the Sudan
received in 2001)
2000
2(2)
Islamic Republic of Iran (1), Iraq (1)
100
2001
10)
Islamic Republic of Iran (1) + late response
from the Sudan to one 1999 urgent appeal
100
2002
20)
Response from the Permanent Mission of
Afghanistan to the United Nations at
Geneva to one urgent appeal/No response
from the Taliban
50ff one considers the
response from the Permanent
Mission of Afghanistan.
Otherwise 0 if one considers
the response of the Taliban
2003
3 (2)
China (1)
33.33
2004
0
0
108. In all, 705 communications have been sent to 127 States (of the 189 United Nations
Member States) since the Special Rapporteur took up his post. Of this total, 10 States were
sent 28 urgent appeals.
Analysis of communications
109. The exponential increase in the number of communications (see table 1) is on a par with
the increase in the number of States receiving communications. A considerable increase in the
number of States concerned by several communications during a single reporting period should
also be noted. This practice is by no means selective in respect of a given State, but reflects
particularly critical situations or cases in a given country. Its expansion has been rapid
since 2000 since it has also become a means for regular rather than sporadic follow-up to serious
problems in a particular State.
110. The number of urgent appeals has remained limited in accordance with the objective
underpinning the introduction in 1994 in the mandate of this new type of communication,
representing a more rapid and efficient response to very serious situations and cases. Recourse
to this procedure can only produce the expected effects insofar as it continues to be an exception
justified by imminent and serious threats to the life, health or safety of persons. Making it
another type of procedure would be tantamount to marginalizing it and to depriving the
procedures available in general to special rapporteurs of some of their credibility.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 23
Analysis of State reactions
111. It can be seen from table 6 that although the percentage of replies received within the
deadline has fallen considerably, if the late replies are also taken into account it increases. This
development can be explained by and coincides with the surge in the number of communications
and States concerned during this period. The explanation proves to be that in this new situation
States have not always been in a position to reply within the deadline established. The majority
of States, however, are adapting to this development by replying to the communications
nevertheless, although generally somewhat late.
112. As regards the urgent appeals, apart from the year 1995 when this new procedure was
introduced, response rates tend to be satisfactory.
113. Response rates nevertheless need to improve; this presupposes better cooperation from all
States, particularly those that have never replied since the inception of the mandate (these are:
Angola, Benin, Cambodia, Comoros, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi,
Mali, Nauru, Niger, Papua-New Guinea, Qatar, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa,
Uganda and Zimbabwe). Generally speaking, many States have difficulty in coping with the
numerous requests addressed to them by mechanisms the numbers of which are constantly on the
increase for reasons that are basically political.
114. Such situations, that are not specific to the mandate on freedom of religion or belief,
should occupy more of the Commission's attention. There must be limits to the convenient
tranquillity of silence, especially when that silence is not due to technical considerations.
(b) Analysis of the merits of communications
Violations offreedoni of religion or belief
115. An analysis of communications since the inception of the mandate in respect of the
principles, rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief makes it possible to establish the
following seven categories of violations:
(a) Violations of the principle of non-discrimination in matters of religion or belief,
namely, policies, legislation and regulations, practices and acts that discriminate against certain
communities, particularly when they are minorities or do not belong to the official religion.
There are cases in this regard concerning Egypt, France, Islamic Republic of Iran and the United
States of America;
(b) Violations of the principle of tolerance in matters of religion or belief, namely,
policies, practices and acts of religious intolerance by the State and society, particularly on the
part of non-State entities such as communities of religion or belief and political and religious
groups, the strongest manifestations of which verge on religious (inter- and intra-religious)
extremism. The media also play a role in propagating a climate of intolerance vis-à-vis certain
communities, particularly minority communities. Cases in this regard concern Georgia,
Indonesia and Viet Nam;
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 24
(c) Violations of freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, namely, policies,
legislation and regulations, practices and acts contrary to the principle of conscientious objection
and the freedom to change one's religion or to keep one's religion or belief Cases in this regard
concern China, Eritrea, Israel, the Lao People's Democratic Republic and Saudi Arabia;
(d) Violations of freedom to manifest one's religion or belief, namely, policies,
legislation and regulations, practices and acts that constitute controls, interference, prohibitions
and abusive restrictions on the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief Cases in this regard
concern the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan;
(e) Violations of the freedom to enjoy the use of religious property, namely, policies,
practices and acts affecting the freedom to enjoy the use of religious property that take the form
of the confiscation or the non-restitution of properties, refusal of access to places of worship,
closure, attacks on and destruction of such places of worship and of cemeteries, places of burial
and religious schools. Cases in this regard concern Afghanistan, Azerbaijan and Romania;
(f) Violations of the right to life, physical integrity and health of individuals (clerics
and religious leaders, believers and non-believers), namely, policies, practices and acts that take
the form of threats, ill-treatment, arrests and detentions, enforced disappearances, death
sentences, executions and assassinations. Cases in this regard concern Bangladesh, India and
Pakistan;
(g) Violations affecting women, namely, a category encapsulating the first six
categories. It is important to stress that such violations are not only carried out by extremist
groups and communities but also and most often by society and official institutions. Cases in
this regard concern Afghanistan and Nigeria.
Religions or beliefs covered by communications
116. The Special Rapporteur's communications have covered violations affecting the majority
of the world's communities of religion or belief
117. On the one hand, the religions in question are those commonly termed “major” or
“traditional religions” because of their numerical importance internationally, namely,
Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism, including the main movements within
each religion.
118. On the other hand, there are the other communities of religion or belief, generally
numerically smaller in international terms, such as, for example, the Baha'is, Jehovah's
Witnesses and Ahmadis, in addition to humanists and other non-believers. Particular attention
has also been given to the beliefs of indigenous peoples.
119. It should be noted that the line between the two types of religious community is not
always clear-cut, insofar as certain communities may be classified, by insiders or external
observers, as a perceived part of a major religion, or as a separate religion, or a belief or
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 25
organization whose goals are unconnected with any religion or belief In this connection, among
the communities of religion or belief to which the unqualified and indiscriminate appellation of
sects is appended by certain people, there exist a number of movements which are manifestly
movements of religion or belief, just as there are groups and movements that, disguised under
freedom of religion or belief, engage in activities that are sometimes criminal. The excesses of
some of these movements have aroused considerable emotion in public opinion, inducing some
States as a result to adopt legislation sometimes of a very dubious nature in terms of international
law.
120. As regards changes in violations of religion or belief, the Christian religion appears the
most affected in quantitative terms, followed in decreasing order by the category of “other
communities of religion or belief', particularly minorities or minority groups, including those
regarded as “sectarian”; then by Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and Hinduism. The events
of 11 September 2001, however, unleashed a veritable Islamophobia, the extent of which cannot
yet be estimated, rendering this religion suspect in the eyes of many; this could in time modify
these conclusions.
121. These developments, however, must be appreciated within the framework of the mandate
on freedom of religion or belief, and particularly its limited means. Bearing in mind the extent
of the phenomenon, the Special Rapporteur stresses the need for more systematic work and
reiterates his proposal for the preparation of an annual world report on freedom of religion or
belief
122. Going beyond this classification and its analysis, it is clear that no religion or belief is
safe from violations and that intolerance is not a failing on the part of a State or a category of
States, or of a religion or belief
II. REPORT ON PREVENTIVE ACTION
123. Since 1993, the Special Rapporteur has accorded the greatest possible importance to the
prevention of intolerance and discrimination in freedom of religion or belief He has undertaken
research on the matter and put forward proposals so that action can be taken not only in respect
of manifestations of intolerance and discrimination but also of their real causes. In 2001 this
effort was sanctioned by the change in the title of the mandate on religious intolerance, which
became the mandate on freedom of religion or belief
A. Education
124. Since taking up his post, the Special Rapporteur's opinion has been that prevention could
first and foremost be ensured by creating a human rights culture, through education in particular.
Education may indeed make a decisive contribution to the assimilation of values based on human
rights and the emergence of attitudes and behaviour embodying tolerance and
non-discrimination. School, as an essential element of the education system, can also be an
essential and preferred vehicle for prevention.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 26
125. Pursuantto Commissionresolution 1994/18 of 25 February 1994, encouragingthe
Special Rapporteur to consider the contribution of education to the promotion of religious
tolerance, the Special Rapporteur initiated in 1994, by means of a questionnaire addressed to
States, a survey of school curricula with reference to freedom of religion in primary or
elementary and secondary education.
126. On the basis of the replies to this questionnaire from 78 States and the study entitled
“Racial discrimination, religious intolerance and education” (AICONF. 189/PC. 2/22), the
Special Rapporteur undertook consultations in order to benefit from the experience of
certain international, regional and national organizations, both intergovernmental and
non-governmental, and considered that it was necessary for an international consultative
conference on school education in relation to freedom of religion and belief, tolerance
and non-discrimination to be held. This Conference took place in Madrid from 23 to
25 November 2001 on the occasion of the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on
Religion or Belief
127. Following the Conference, a final document was adopted by consensus. This document,
which recommends measures of a general nature as well as on more particular issues and calls
not only on States but also on all actors in society to make a contribution, should serve as a
framework for activities to make school a place for learning about peace, understanding and
tolerance among individuals, groups and nations in order to develop respect for pluralism.
128. As a follow-up to the Madrid Conference the Special Rapporteur has continued to take
various initiatives with States, human rights institutes, non-governmental organizations and
religious communities and with United Nations treaty bodies and the special rapporteurs
particularly concerned with the prevention of intolerance and discrimination.
129. The Special Rapporteur attended various meetings prepared by non-governmental
organizations that provided an opportunity for discussing means of distributing the Madrid final
document and implementing its recommendations; these included the fifth World Congress
of the International Religious Liberty Association (Manila, 11-13 June 2002) and the
thirty-first World Congress of the International Association for Religious Freedom
(Budapest, 28 July- 2 August 2002).
130. A strategic analysis seminar was held in Oslo from 8 to 10 December 2002 and then in
Rabat from 4 to 6 May 2003 on the initiative of the Oslo Coalition on the Freedom of Religion or
Belief, at which participants studied means of setting up an international interdisciplinary
network to facilitate the implementation of the aims of and follow-up to the recommendations of
the Madrid Conference. This seminar was also part of the preparations for a conference of
international interdisciplinary experts to be held in 2004, the purpose of which will be to
promote the elaboration of models for education in religion and ethics in accordance with
international human rights instruments.
131. Lastly, the Special Rapporteur is following closely the activities of the human rights
institutes, in particular, the Arab Institute of Human Rights and the University of Fryeburg,
concerning education for tolerance and non-discrimination, particularly in schools.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 27
B. Inter-religious dialogue
132. A concern of the Special Rapporteur has always been to encourage inter-religious
dialogue as a fundamental aspect of prevention where religion and belief are concerned, more
particularly the prevention of conflicts. In this regard, religions need to examine ways of
managing the expression of their own internal diversity while at the same time incorporating a
genuinely pluralist culture.
133. The Special Rapporteur has put forward specific recommendations to this end in the
context of his in situ visits and has covered the issue of inter-religious dialogue in his general
reports and in the general framework of the International Consultative Conference on School
Education in relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination.
134. The Special Rapporteur has also frequently stressed the importance of the numerous
initiatives taken by the officials of religions, large and small, to meet and work together for
peace, such as the Millennium World Peace Summit (A156/253, para. 126) or the activities
undertaken by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
in the context of the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations in 2001 and other inter-religious
summit meetings (E/CN.4/2003/66).
III. REPORT ON COOPERATION WITH THE COMMISSION
ON HUMAN RIGHTS, UNITED NATIONS HUMAN
RIGHTS MECHANISMS, SPECIALIZED AGENCIES
OF THE UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM AND
NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
A. Follow-up to Commission on Human Rights initiatives
1. Contribution to the World Conference against Racism, Racial
Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance
135. The Special Rapporteur was called on to contribute actively to the preparation of the
Conference, both by putting forward recommendations concerning religious intolerance and
by initiating studies. He accordingly submitted to the Preparatory Committee, at its first
session, a study entitled “Racial discrimination and religious discrimination: identification
and measures” (AICONF. 189/PC. 1/7), and, at its the second session, a second study entitled
“Racial discrimination, religious intolerance and education” (AICONF.189/PC.2/22), containing
specific recommendations, particularly in the sphere of prevention.
2. Follow-up to the resolutions on defamation
136. In 1999, the Commission, inter alia, requested the Special Rapporteur on religious
intolerance to take account in his reports of its resolution 1999/82 of 30 April 1999, entitled
“Defamation of religions”.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 28
137. The issue of defamation has been one of the Special Rapporteur's major concerns since
he took up his post, because it is an intrinsic violation of the freedom of religion or belief (see, in
particular, A156/253, paragraph 137). More recently, the Special Rapporteur has closely
followed the repercussions of 11 September 2001 on Islam (see above).
3. Follow-up to the resolutions on women
138. Since 1996, the Commission has requested in its resolutions on freedom of religion or
belief that the Special Rapporteur should, in preparing his reports, take women into consideration
and bring out gender-specific abuses. The Special Rapporteur has accordingly introduced a
category into his general reports, in the section on the analysis of communications, on violations
affecting women.
139. The Special Rapporteur also addressed the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women in February 1998 in order to set out his approach to the
situation of women with reference to religion and to initiate exchanges of views; he gave
particular attention to this vulnerable group in the context of the International Consultative
Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance and
Non-Discrimination. In the two studies he submitted to the Preparatory Committee of the World
Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance, the
Special Rapporteur also drew attention to the situation of women.
140. Lastly, at the fifty-eighth session of the Commission, the Special Rapporteur submitted a
study on freedom of religion or belief and the situation of women vis-à-vis religion and traditions
(E/CN. 4/2002/73/Add.2).
141. The Special Rapporteur has on several occasions recommended that the relevant
United Nations mechanisms as a whole should prepare an action plan to deal with discrimination
affecting women that can be imputed to religions and traditions.
B. Cooperation with United Nations human rights
mechanisms and the specialized agencies
142. Cooperation with the United Nations human rights mechanisms was initially with the
other thematic and geographical special procedures mechanisms, for the most part informally but
also in the annual meetings of special rapporteurs in Geneva.
143. As regards the treaty bodies, the Human Rights Committee's case law on freedom of
religion or belief has always been a basis for activities under the mandate. Cooperation has
also been initiated with the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women
(see above), as well as with the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
144. As far as cooperation with the United Nations specialized agencies is concerned,
UNESCO, which plays an important role with regard to religions, has been a valuable partner,
particularly on the issue of inter-religious dialogue and in the context of the International
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 29
Consultative Conference on School Education in relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief,
Tolerance and Non-Discrimination. The Special Rapporteur has also benefited from substantial
cooperation from the United Nations Development Programme and United Nations information
centres in preparing and conducting his in situ visits.
C. Cooperation with non-governmental organizations
145. The Special Rapporteur wishes to stress the essential role of the non-governmental
organizations which have made an invaluable contribution to the mandate on freedom of religion
or belief, both as regards management and prevention.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
146. At the conclusion of his activities pursuant to the mandate on freedom of religion or
belief, the Special Rapporteur would like to draw up a balance of the activities undertaken
since 1993. In the course of these 11 years the Special Rapporteur has witnessed a number
of developments which lead him to make qualified observations.
147. Where freedom of religion or belief in general is concerned, although a progressive
decline is apparent in anti-religious policies or policies for the total control of religious
matters by States in the name of political ideology, it must also be acknowledged that
non-State entities have also played a more important role in recent years, often in terms of
failure to respect freedom of religion or belief. Setting aside the very numerous instances
of religious intolerance to be found everywhere in present-day society, the phenomenon of
religious - or what passes for religious - extremism has recently taken on a new lease of life
after noticeably declining at the end of the 1990s.
148. In this context it should be stressed once again that extremism cannot be blamed
on any one religion. The Special Rapporteur's activities have clearly shown that it is
a rare religion that can boast that no extremism has a foothold in its ranks. The majority
of religions have been and still are claimed as their authority by individuals or groups
who disseminate messages of intolerance vis-à-vis other religions and who are frequently
guilty of acts of serious violence against those who not belong to their camp. The
Special Rapporteur emphasized in the conclusions of his last mid-term report to the
General Assembly (A1581296) that, in many cases, States have not met their human rights
obligations as regards freedom of religion. These are not limited to the negative obligation
to refrain from violating the right to freedom of religion of belief; they also include the
positive obligation to protect persons under their jurisdiction from violations of their
rights, including those committed by non-State actors or entities. These measures should
not only consist in prosecuting the perpetrators of such facts and providing compensation
to the victims, but also in specific preventive action to reduce such acts in future and
destroy the evil at the root.
149. In the same order of ideas, the Special Rapporteur draws special attention to the
fact that, despite the efforts made, women continue to be the main victims of violations of
the right to freedom of religion or belief, and he encourages States to take firm and decisive
measures in this regard.
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 30
150. It emerges increasingly clearly that extremist tendencies, on the basis of a message
that is first and foremost religious, use religion for purposes far removed from human
rights in general and from freedom of religion or belief in particular. It is striking to see
the differences of opinion, and sometimes the open contradiction, between the great
majority of the members of a religious community and the extremists who claim allegiance
to it.
151. This situation seems to be less recognized today than it was previously. It suffices
to look at the extremism claiming its origins in Islam that has grown enormously since
the 11 September 2001 attacks. In the report he submitted to the Commission at its
fifty-eighth session, the Special Rapporteur expressed his acute concerns regarding the
consequences for the system of protection of human rights in general, and freedom of
religion or belief in particular, foreshadowed by these acts. Events over the past two years
or so have more than confirmed these concerns.
152. Islamophobia in this context could well convert the historic failure of Islam-based
extremism into an unexpected victory. The desire to confme Islam in a pathological
straitjacket and to make it the axis of evil ultimately leads to conferring the stamp of
legitimacy on forms of extremism for which Islam has been a pretext rather than a cause.
153. At the same time, the world has slipped dangerously towards a logic of war and
repression that results in even more violent confrontations and can only fuel and sustain
terrorism. Non-governmental organizations and international authorities continue to
make known their concerns as to the logic of the “total security” that is being established
under cover of anti-terrorism laws and a barrage of legislation intended to restrict
immigration. The fight against terrorism sometimes ends up inserting freedom of religion
or belief itself into the equation, as a result of the excesses it has encouraged in certain
regions and by the blacklisting of entire communities and religions which are subjected to
systematic suspicion and are discredited. The Special Rapporteur expresses the hope that,
in their fight against terrorism, States wifi not mistake their target and, while continuing to
combat terrorist acts, they wifi refocus their efforts on the origins of terrorism and on the
need to ensure protection and promotion of human rights without bias or selectivity.
154. Lastly, the Special Rapporteur has observed during these years that violations of
freedom of religion or belief are relatively often provoked or amplified by certain of the
media in pursuit of sensations, stereotypes and clichés. Such violations, in some
circumstances, are fuelled by public speechmaking, implicitly and sometimes explicitly
caffing for religious discrimination and hatred, in violation of articles 18 and 20 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In such a situation, freedom of
expression cannot constitute an absolute justification because that freedom is modified by
restrictions provided for by international law that must absolutely be applied by States
when it is a matter of preventing the transmission of messages that are an incitement to
religious intolerance or hatred.
155. The Special Rapporteur notes that inter-religious dialogue is struggling to make any
headway of a serious and sincere nature despite the number of recent and particularly
laudable initiatives in this regard. The road to religious dialogue is stifi fraught with
E/CN. 4/2004/63
page 31
difficulties that can only be avoided by famifiarity with other religions and by real and not
assumed respect for them. The fragile nature of this dialogue is revealed in several recent
examples involving the interests of the communities seeking to participate in it. The
Special Rapporteur also considers that, in the implementation of international obligations
concerning freedom of religion or belief, States, which often wrongly consider that they
should play a discreet background role in inter-religious matters, ought to involve
themselves more formally in inter-religious dialogue and take specific and deliberate steps
to encourage it.
156. As regards education as a means to combat intolerance and discrimination based on
religion or belief, it is far from having freed itself from automatic identification with
religion as a comfortable refuge and an easy alibi. Declarations of self-satisfaction with
one's own tolerance serve as justification, and an indifferent acknowledgement of the other
serves to replace genuine tolerance. As regards the situations that have put schools in
several European countries in the forefront of current events, the Special Rapporteur
draws attention to the dangers both of imposing uniformity and of mistrust of diversity and
making use of freedom of religion or belief for purposes foreign to them and building
ghettos.
157. As for the steps effectively taken in education in religious tolerance, the task seems
far from fmished; despite UNESCO's energetic action, the international community does
not seem to feel particularly concerned. It is symptomatic that, despite the invitation to
States by the General Assembly and the Commission to implement the fmal document
adopted on 25 November 2001 by the International Consultative Conference on School
Education in relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination,
few new initiatives or actions are visible apart from the remarkable efforts and inteffigent
activities of certain non-governmental organizations. The Special Rapporteur has a duty to
stress once again the fundamental, central and essential nature of education in promoting
respect for freedom of religion or belief and energetically to encourage States to grant
priority and fmd adequate resources for actions that may be taken in this regard.
158. Lastly, as regards the other difficulties inherent in the activities of managing the
mandate, without which the Special Rapporteur not only could not be in a position to carry
out his task effectively but could not assess with exactitude and precision the progress to be
made in terms of freedom of religion or belief, he can only encourage States to cooperate
more both as regards the communications he submits to them and the requests for visits he
sends them; such cooperation is essential to the existence of a mechanism capable of
tackling one of the most sensitive aspects of present-day society.
