IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251 OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”

          
          UNITED A
          NATIONS
          y ' General
          H Assembly
          - 7 A
          DistL
          GENERAL
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          8 March 2007
          ENGLISH/FRENCH/SPANISH
          HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL
          Fourth session
          Item 2 of the provisional agenda
          IMPLEMENTATION OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION 60/251
          OF 15 MARCH 2006 ENTITLED “HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL”
          Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief,
          Asma Jahangir t
          Addendum
          Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received
          * The present document is being circulated in the language of submission only as it greatly
          exceeds the page limitations currently imposed by the relevant General Assembly resolutions.
          GE. 07-11705
        

          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 2
          CONTENTS
          Paragraphs Page
          Introduction 1 — 3 4
          SUMMARY OF CASES TRANSMITTED AND REPLIES RECEIVED 4-346 6
          Afghanistan 4—9 6
          Algeria 10—17 7
          Angola 18—20 9
          Australia 21—38 10
          Bangladesh 39—50 14
          Belarus 51—56 17
          Belgium 57—68 18
          Bhutan 69—74 20
          China 75—122 22
          Denmark 123—128 31
          Eritrea 129— 136 33
          France 137— 145 34
          Georgia 146—151 36
          Germany 152— 158 38
          Guatemala 159 — 167 39
          Guinea-Bissau 168—169 41
          India 170—173 41
          Indonesia 174—176 42
          Islamic Republic of Iran 177 — 206 43
          Kazakhstan 207—213 49
          Kvrgvzstan 214—216 51
          Malaysia 217—225 51
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 3
          Nepal 226—228 54
          Netherlands 229 — 233 54
          Pakistan 234—252 55
          Russian Federation 253 — 271 60
          Saudi Arabia 272 — 274 64
          Serbia and Montenegro 275 — 276 65
          Somalia 277—278 66
          Tajikistan 279 — 287 66
          Thailand 288—290 68
          Turkmenistan 291 — 307 69
          United States of America 308 — 324 72
          Uzbekistan 325 — 342 75
          Vietnam 343—346 79
        

          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 4
          INTRODUCTION
          This addendum to the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief
          (A/HRC/4/21) gives an account of communications transmitted by the Special Rapporteur
          between 1 December 2005 and 30 November 2006. It also contains the replies received from
          Governments to her communications by 30 January 2007, as well as observations of the Special
          Rapporteur where considered appropriate. Many of these observations refer to the framework for
          communications which has been annexed to her last report to the Commission on Human Rights
          (see E/CN.4/2006/5. paras. 28-35 and Annex). The various categories are as follows:
          I. Freedom of religion or belief
          1. Freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief
          2. Freedom from coercion
          3. The right to manifest one's religion or belief
          a) Freedom to worship
          b) Places of worship
          c) Religious symbols
          d) Observance of holidays and days of rest
          e) Appointing clergy
          0 Teaching and disseminating materials (including missionary activity)
          g) The right of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their
          children
          h) Registration
          i) Communicate with individuals and communities on religious matters at the
          national and international level
          j) Establish and maintain charitable and humanitarian institutions/solicit and
          receive funding
          k) Conscientious objection
          II. Discrimination
          1. Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief/inter-religious discriminationltolerance
          2. State religion
          III. Vulnerable groups
          1. Women
          2. Persons deprived of their liberty
          3. Refugees
          4. Children
          5. Minorities
          6. Migrant workers
          IV. Intersection of freedom of religion or belief with other human rights
          1. Freedom of expression including questions related to religious conflicts, religious
          intolerance and extremism
          2. Right to life, right to liberty
          3. Prohibition on torture and other cruel. inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment
          V. Cross-cutting issues
          1. Derogation
          2. Limitation
          3. Legislative issues
          4. Defenders of freedom of religion or belief and non-governmental organizations.
        

          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 5
          2. The Special Rapporteur is currently developing this framework for communications into
          an online digest, which is intended to illustrate the international standards with pertinent excerpts
          of the mandate-holders' findings since 1986 according to the categories of the framework for
          communications. The online digest will be available on the website of the Office of the High
          Commissioner for Human Rights https://www.ohchr.org/englishlissues/religionlstandards.htm).
          The Special Rapporteur hopes that uploading the framework for communications onto the
          OHCHR website will make the legal basis of freedom of religion or belief as well as the mandate
          practice more readily accessible for Governments and for civil society worldwide.
          3. Owing to restrictions on the length of documents, the Special Rapporteur has been
          obliged to summarize the communications sent and received. As a result, replies from
          Governments could not be published in their entirety. The names of alleged victims are reflected
          in this report, although exceptions may be made in relation to children and other victims of
          violence in relation to whom publication would be problematic.
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 6
          SUMMARY OF CASES TRANSMITTED AND REPLIES RECEIVED
          Afghanistan
          Urgent appeal sent on 22 March 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
          summary or arbitrary executions
          4. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information received
          according to which on February 2006 Mr. Abdul Rahman was arrested after the police received
          information that he was a convert. He was found carrying a Bible at the time of his arrest. Mr.
          Rahman is currently being tried on the criminal charge of conversion from Islam to Christianity
          in a Kabul court. Mr. Rahman has acknowledged that sixteen years ago he converted to
          Christianity. He was informed by the Prosecutor of the Court that his charges would be dropped
          in case he reconverted to Islam. Mr. Rahman is unwilling to do so. According to the national law
          of Afghanistan, the penalty for conversion from Islam is the death sentence.
          Observations
          5. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. The Special Rapporteur urges the
          Government to ensure compliance with article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
          which clearly states that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion “includes
          freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others,
          and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practise, worship and
          observance”.
          6. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief' (see above para.
          1, category I. 1.). The Special Rapporteur considers situations where people are arrested, tried or
          otherwise challenged because they had converted to another religion as unacceptable forms of
          violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief because, in essence, they limit or tend to
          limit the freedom of thought or conscience itself This is sometimes called the “forum internum”,
          which, according to the main international instruments, forms the part of the right to freedom of
          religion or belief that is not susceptible to any limitation. The Special Rapporteur has already
          covered the question of conversion in detail in her 2005 report to the General Assembly (see
          A/60/399, paras. 40-68). She would like to reiterate that “ [ slince the choice of religion or belief is
          part of the forum internum, which allows for no limitations, a general prohibition of conversion
          by a State necessarily enters into conflict with applicable international standards. A law
          prohibiting conversion would constitute a State policy aiming at influencing individual's desire to
          have or adopt a religion or belief and is therefore not acceptable under human rights law. A State
          also has the positive obligation of ensuring the freedom of religion or belief of the persons on its
          territory and under its jurisdiction.” (see A/60/399, para. 52).
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 7
          Communication sent on 31 July 2006
          7. The Special Rapporteur was informed of the re-establishment of the Department for the
          Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice. The cabinet of Afghanistan has approved a draft
          plan to re-establish it and this draft will be submifted for parliamentary approval when the
          Afghan National Assembly reconvenes later in 2006. According to the information received, a
          similar department existed under the Taliban, which imposed and enforced a number of practices
          requiring men to grow beards and women to wear burkas. That department was also responsible
          for banning girl schools.
          Observations
          8. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She urges the Government to ensure
          compliance with article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which
          states that each State Party “undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its
          territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without
          distinction of any kind, such as race, color, sex, language, religion [ .1”. Para. 13 of Human
          Rights Commiftee general comment 28 states that “States parties should provide information on
          any specific regulation of clothing to be worn by women in public. The Commiftee stresses that
          such regulations may involve a violation of a number of rights guaranteed by the Covenant, such
          as: article 26, on non-discrimination; article 7, if corporal punishment is imposed in order to
          enforce such a regulation; article 9, when failure to comply with the regulation is punished by
          arrest; article 12, if liberty of movement is subject to such a constraint; article 17, which
          guarantees all persons the right to privacy without arbitrary or unlawful interference; articles 18
          and 19, when women are subjected to clothing requirements that are not in keeping with their
          religion or their right of self-expression; and, lastly, article 27, when the clothing requirements
          conflict with the culture to which the woman can lay a claim.”
          9. The Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for communications, more
          specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning
          “Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief/inter-religious discriminationltolerance” (see
          above para. 1, category III. 1.). Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has already covered the
          question of religious symbols in detail in her 2006 report to the Commission on Human Rights
          (see E/CN.4/2006/5, paras. 36-60). She would like to reiterate that “ [ tihe fundamental objective
          should be to safeguard both the positive freedom of religion or belief as manifested in observance
          and practice by voluntarily wearing or displaying religious symbols, and also the negative
          freedom from being forced to wear or display religious symbols.” (see E/CN.4/2006/5, para. 60).
          Algeria
          Communication envoyée le 22 Juin 2006
          10. La Rapporteuse spéciale a attire l'attention du Gouvernement algérien sur l'information
          concernant l'ordonnance n° 06-03 du 28 février 2006, qui fixe les conditions et rêgles
          d'exercice des cultes autres que musulmans. Selon les informations reçues, le Président de
          l'Algérie a approuvé cefte ordonnance parlementaire par une loi du 17 avril 2006. Selon l'article
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 8
          16 (1) << les personnes exerçant un culte autre que musulman, dans un cadre collectif, sont tenues
          de se conformer aux dispositions de la présente ordonnance >>.
          ii. En plus, l'ordonnance contient des conditions concernant les lieux oü doivent être
          exercées traditions et manifestations religieuses. En outre, l'article ii criminalise le fait pour
          toute personne de tenter de convertir un musulman a une autre religion. La peine relative a cette
          infraction est un emprisonnement de deux a cinq ans et une amende de 500.000 a 1 000,000
          dirham (7,045 a 14,091 Dollars US). L'article ii érige egalement en infraction pénale le fait pour
          une personne de fabriquer, entreposer, ou distribuer des documents imprimés ou métrages
          audiovisuels ou tout autre support ou moven << qui visent a ébranler la foi d'un musulman >>.
          12. En outre, selon l'article 13 (3) la personne qui << prêche a l'intérieur des edifices destinés a
          l'exercice du culte >> sans autorisation de l'autorité religieuse compétente de sa confession et des
          autorités algeriennes compétentes est susceptible d'être punie d'un emprisonnement d'un a trois
          ans et d'une amende de 100,000 a 300,000 Dirham (environ 1,409 a 4,227 dollars des Etats-Unis
          d'Amerique). Des craintes ont été exprimées que cefte ordonnance soit susceptible de violer le
          droit a la liberté de religion ou de conviction.
          Réponse datée du 14 d'aoüt 2006
          13. Le Gouvernement algerien a répondu. d'abord. que l'ordonnance n° 06-03 du 28 février
          2006 est conforme aux instruments internationaux ratifies par l'Algerie. En particulier. il a
          remarqué la conformité de l'ordonnance avec l'article 18.3 du Pacte international relatif aux
          droits civils et politiques. qui dispose << La liberté de manifester sa religion ou ses convictions ne
          peut faire l'objet que des seules restrictions prévues par laloi et qui sont nécessaires ala
          protection de la sécurité, de l'ordre et de la sante publique. ou de la morale ou des libertés et
          droits fondamentaux d' autmi >>.
          14. En plus. l'article 36 de la Constitution algerienne garantie la liberté de conscience. Par
          ailleurs. les principes fondamentaux sur lesquels s'appuie l'ordonnance n° 06-03 du 28 février
          2006 sont inspires des préceptes de l'islam. qui rejettent la contrainte dans l'exercice du culte.
          L'article 2 de l'ordonnance spécifie que la religion de l'Etat algerien est l'islam. mais il garantit
          le libre exercice du culte. touj ours << dans le cadre du respect des lois et reglements en vigueur. de
          l'ordre public, des bonnes m urs et des droits et libertés fondamentaux des tiers >>. En plus,
          l'ordonnance propose la creation d'une commission nationale du culte. dont la mission principale
          serait de garantir la liberté d'exercice du culte. Elle prévoit egalement que les associations
          religieuses des cultes autres que le musulman bénéficieront de l'assistance et de la protection de
          1' Etat, et elle interdit egalement de considérer 1' appartenance religieuse comme un critère de
          discrimination.
          15. Les faits incriminés par l'ordonnance sont les suivants : >; << l'utilisation de mov ens de seduction ou des établissements
          d'enseignement, d'éducation ou de sante ou toute autre institution pour convertir un citoven a une
          religion >>; et << prêcher a l'intérieur des edifices destinés a l'exercice du culte, sans être designe,
          agréé ou autorisé par l'autorité religieuse de sa confession et par les autorités algeriennes
          compétentes >> (cette dernière disposition est aussi prévue d'une façon similaire dans le Code
          penal algerien). Le mot << seduction >> est décrit a l'article ii comme tout moven utilisé pour
          convertir un citoven, en exploitant ses faiblesses ou ses conditions sociables difficiles.
        

          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 9
          Observations
          16. La Rapporteuse spéciale remercie le Gouvernement algérien pour cette réponse.
          Elle voudrait faire référence a << la liberté d'adopter. de changer et de renoncer une
          religion ou une conviction>> (selon le fraineworktbr communications, voir ci-dessus para.
          1. catégorie I. 1.). Dans son chapitre surla question des conversions. elle note, quant aux
          restrictions selon paragraphe 3 de l'article 18 du Pacte (A160/399, para. 62), << que cet
          article ne prévoit des restrictions que dans des cas très exceptionnels. Le fait notamment
          qu'il invoque la protection des libertés et droitstbndamentaux (les italiques sont de
          l'auteur) d'autrui pour justifier de telles restrictions denote une volonté plus ferme de
          garantir ce droit que pour d'autres droits dont les clauses restrictives ne font état que des <<
          droits et libertés d'autrui >> (par exemple, art. 12, 21 et 22). On pourrait du reste faire
          valoir que laliberté de religion ou de conviction d'autrui peut être considérée comme
          faisant partie de ces libertés et droits fondamentaux et que, de ce fait, l'imposition de
          restrictions aux activités missionnaires se justifie; mais comme laliberté de religion et de
          conviction des adultes est intrinsèquernent une question de choix personnel, toute
          restriction generalisee imposée par l'Etat (par exemple par le biais de la loi) pour protéger
          la liberté de religion et de conviction d' << autmi >> en restreignant le droit de chacun de
          mener des activités missionnaires est a éviter. >>
          17. Enfin, quant aux activités missionnaires (A/60/399, para. 65) la Rapporteuse
          spéciale estime qu' <> En guise de
          conclusion (A160/399. para. 68) << [ eIlle recommande que les cas présumés de conversion
          <> soient examines individuellement, en tenant compte de leurs contexte et
          circonstances particulières et en s'appuvant sur la legislation pénale et civile courante. La
          Rapporteuse spéciale estime donc qu'il faudrait éviter d'adopter des lois érigeant in
          abstracto en infraction chacun des actes conduisant a une conversion << abusive >>,
          notanmient dans les cas oü ces lois seraient applicables même en l'absence de plainte du
          converti. >>
          Angola
          Communication sent on 19 June 2006
          18. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government of Angola information
          she had received concerning the Muslim Community in Angola. According to these allegations,
          the Muslim community there is encountering difficulties in obtaining the necessary registration in
          order to operate as a legal religious community. The current law on registration, passed in 2004,
          requires 100,000 signatures in order to legalize a religious community. The Muslim community
          in Angola has been waiting for a response to their registration request since early 2005.
          Furthermore, five of the six mosques in Luanda were closed earlier this year.
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 10
          Response from the Government dated 6 October 2006
          19. The Government informed the Special Rapporteur that the situation of the Muslim
          community in Angola is due to not having completed all the legal requirements needed to be
          registered as a legal institution. All religious entities must fulfil a set of requirements in order to
          be granted legal status. The Muslim Community was informed by the Ministry of Justice that
          their application did not meet the necessary requirements and therefore they had two options.
          which were either the fulfilment of the outstanding requirements or to appeal the decision.
          Moreover, the Government notes that freedom of religion or belief is recognized and protected by
          the Angolan constitution in Article 8.
          Observations
          20. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. She would like to refer
          to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms
          and to the mandate practice concerning “Registration” (see above para. 1. category I. 3. h). In this
          regard, the Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that the right to freedom of religion is not
          limited to members of registered religious communities. As she noted in her 2005 report to the
          Commission on Human Rights. “registration should not be compulsory. i.e. it should not be a
          precondition for practicing one's religion, but only for the acquisition of a legal personality and
          related benefits” (E/CN.4/2005/61. para. 58). The Special Rapporteur wishes to be advised as to
          why it is necessary to require 100,000 signatures in order to legalize a religious community
          according to the current law on registration in Angola. She also would be grateful to receive, as
          indicated in the response from the Government of Angola, a copy of the decision of the Ministry
          of Justice which informs the Muslim Community that their application did not meet the
          requirements.
          Australia
          Urgent appeal sent on 15 August 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          independence of judges and lawyers
          21. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government of Australia
          information regarding Amer Haddara, Shane Kent, Fadal Sayadi, Abdullah Merhi, Ahmed
          Raad, Ezzit Raad, Hany Taha, Aimen Joud. Abdul Nacer Benbrika. held in Barwon Prison
          since November 2005, Bassam Raad, Majed Raad, Shoue Hammoud. held in Barwon Prison
          since March 2006 and Izzydeen Attik, arrested and remanded in S dne in November 2005 and
          transferred to Barwon Prison prior to March 2006.
          22. The above mentioned men are all being held at the maximum security Acacia Unit of
          Barwon Prison in Victoria, a facility originally designed for convicted prisoners only. They have
          been charged with various offences under the anti-terror provisions of the Criminal Code Act
          1995 relating mostly to membership and support ofaterrorist organization. None of the above
          mentioned persons has been charged with committing a terrorist act as such. Most of them were
          at some point or are still held in solitary confinement, some for up to 10 weeks. During this
          period they did not have access to exercise yards or recreational facilities. The others are
          confined to their cells between 23 and 18 hours, and during the remaining period, the possibility
          for contacts is severely restricted. Family visits are limited and the monthly contact visits are
        

          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 11
          permitted only to children and not to spouses, partners or other family members. Some of the
          detainees were held together with convicted prisoners for some time.
          23. Access by the detainees to their legal representatives is restricted and all communications
          between them are audio and videotaped. All materials provided to and received by the detainees
          are scanned by the prison authorities. The diet of the detainees includes pork, which some of
          them consider offensive to their religious feelings. The mental health of some detainees has been
          adversely affected by the detention conditions and the prolonged isolation.
          Response from the Government dated 30 November 2006
          24. Pursuant to section 120 of the Australian Constitution, housing of federal offenders
          (including those on remand) is the responsibility of the States and Territories (in this case,
          Victoria). The Commonwealth does not become involved in operational decisions of State
          Departments of Corrective Services in terms of security levels and custodial arrangements. The
          Government Department responsible for corrective services in the State of Victoria has assisted
          the Commonwealth by providing information in response to the sent letters.
          25. Concerning the charges of the alleged offenders, each one of them has been charged with
          one count of being a member of a terrorist organisation, contrary to section 102.3 of the Criminal
          Code. Various additional charges have also been laid against some of the men, including charges
          of intentionally recmiting a person to join a terrorist organisation, intentionally making funds
          available to a terrorist organisation, and possessing a thing connected with the preparation for a
          terrorist act.
          26. Barwon Prison houses remand prisoners. Within Barwon Prison is the Acacia High
          Security Unit, in which the alleged offenders are being held. The Acacia Unit houses both
          remand and convicted prisoners, however they do not mix, consistent with Guideline 1. ii of
          the Standard Guidelines for Prisons under the Revised Standard Guidelines for Corrections in
          Australia 2004 (Standard Guidelines). This is also consistent with Rule 8(b) of the Standard
          Minimum Rules on the Treatment of Prisoners (Standard Minimum Rules), which, while not a
          binding document, may be persuasive, and article 10(2) (a) of the International Covenant on
          Civil and Political Rights (Covenant). Australia has a reservation to article 10(2) (a), which
          states that the obligation under article 10(2) (a) is to be achieved progressively. However, in
          ensuring that remand and convicted prisoners do not mix in Barwon Prison, Australia is
          satisfied that it implements article 10(2) (a) notwithstanding Australia's reservation.
          27. As to the confinement in cells, the Government indicates that the alleged offenders have
          never been held in solitary confinement. Rather, each prisoner has an individual cell. They
          spend approximately six hours out of their cells each day. They may choose to reduce that time
          by returning to their cell earlier. Remand prisoners normally exercise with one other prisoner.
          All prisoners are rotated as to who they may exercise with, but security concerns are
          paramount in deciding the mix of people. Victorian legislation provides that the minimum
          number of hours out of cell is one hour per day (paragraph 47(1) (a) of the Corrections Act
          1986 (Vic) (the Act)), which is consistent with Rule 21 of the Standard Minimum Rules and
          Guideline 2.47 of the Standard Guidelines. All detainees are able to make applications for any
          special arrangements they may require to assist them in the preparation of their defence,
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 12
          consistent with article 14(3) (b) of the Covenant and with Guidelines 1.15. 1.17 and 2.4 of the
          Standard Guidelines.
          28. Concerning personal visits, remand prisoners are permitted one non-contact visit per
          week of one hours' duration and one contact visit per month with any children they may have
          under the age of 16 years. They remain shackled and manacled during a contact visit with
          children for security reasons. Such restrictions on the basis of security are permissible under
          Rule 92 of the Standard Minimum Rules. They have also telephone access and are permitted to
          make 25 personal telephone calls per week.
          29. With regards to the legal visits, remand prisoners do not have limits on the number of
          visits from professionals, except by the conflicting demands of other prisoners to have access
          to the contact rooms available for professional visits, in accordance with article 14(3) (b) of the
          Covenant. Accordingly, there is a system of booking the contact room to guarantee access.
          Lawyers may visit their clients in the Acacia Unit between 8.45 a.m. and 3.30 p.m. Visits are
          video monitored for security purposes, but there is no audio sound or recording. Remand
          prisoners may make an unlimited number of legal professional calls, and are able to make these
          legal professional calls between 8.30 a.m. and 3 p.m. each day. These restrictions are
          consistent with Principle 8 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers. Rule 93 of the
          Standard Minimum Rules and Guideline 1. 17 of the Standard Guidelines.
          30. Concerning the diet of the detainees, section 47 of the Act stipulates that prisoners have
          the right to be provided with special dietary food where the Governor of the prison is satisfied
          that such food is necessary for medical reasons or on account of the prisoners religious beliefs
          or because the prisoner is a vegetarian. Section 47 conforms to Guideline 2.13 of the Standard
          Guidelines.
          31. In this context. Halal food is provided to Muslim prisoners and they have the choice of
          selecting any item off the prison menu. During Ramadan, Muslim prisoners have the option of
          a special food pack. While pork is included in the general Barwon Prison menu, it is not
          included in the special food pack; however, prisoners may select a food item which specifically
          includes pork. Allegations that the remand prisoners were served pork meals have been
          referred to the Corrections Inspectorate for investigation.
          32. Regarding mental health, all prisoners are medically assessed, including psychiatric
          assessment, on entering prison, which accords with Rule 24 of the Standard Minimum Rules.
          As to the question of complaints being lodged or not, the Corrections Department of the State
          of Victoria has advised that complaints have been lodged by the alleged offenders and are
          being investigated.
          33. The Government of the State of Victoria indicated that whilst the group has been in
          custody, there have been a number of registered incidents, complaints and allegations.
          Allegations of threats made by remand prisoners towards corrections staff have been
          investigated and formally resolved at the Prison Governor's Disciplinary Hearings. Allegations
          of assault and threats made towards the remand prisoners have been referred to Victoria Police
          for investigation. Under Australia's Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), the Government is unable to
          provide any details of medical examinations without the express written consent of the
          individual affected by them.
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 13
          34. As regards prosecutions undertaken, Messrs Benbrika, Atik, Haddara, Joud, Kent,
          Merhi, A Raad, E Raad, Sayadi and Taha were arrested and charged in November 2005. In late
          March 2006, Messrs B Raad, M Raad and Hammoud were also arrested and charged. All the
          alleged of offenders have been through committal proceedings, at which a Magistrate found
          that there was a case against each on which a reasonable jury could convict. On 1 September
          2006, 11 of the alleged offenders were committed to stand trial in the Supreme Court of
          Victoria on the charges under the Criminal Code. On 20 September 2006, the remaining two
          alleged offenders were commifted to the Supreme Court to stand trial. All matters have been
          listed for a directions hearing in the Supreme Court on 1 December 2006.
          35. With the exception of Messrs Hammoud, Kent and M Raad, each remand prisoner has
          been formally disciplined for breaches of prison rules following a guilty plea or a finding of
          guilt at the Prison Governor's Disciplinary Hearings. Recorded breaches have included failure
          to comply with directions, verbal abuse directed at prison staff and verbal threats towards prison
          staff Penalties have included monetary fines and restrictions on contact visits for periods of time not
          exceeding 28 days.
          36. Regarding the legislation which regulates the communications between the detainees and
          their lawyers in prison, they mention the Act and the Corrections Regulations 1998 (Vic), which
          regulates communications between remand prisoners and their lawyers. They mention
          particularly sections 44, 47 (1) (m), 47 A and 47 B.
          37. Given the above information, the Government affirms that the detention of the alleged
          offenders has not been arbitrary, has been necessary, proportionate and justifiable in the
          circumstances. The alleged offenders are also being treated, while on remand, with humanity
          and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
          Observations
          38. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's comprehensive response. She
          would be appreciative to receive, as indicated in the response from the Government of Australia,
          information on any results of the investigation by the Corrections Inspectorate concerning the
          allegations that the remand prisoners were served pork meals. The Special Rapporteur would
          like to take the opportunity to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to
          the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Persons deprived
          of their liberty” (see above para. 1, category III. 2.). As she noted in her 2005 report to the
          General Assembly, “ [ al person in custody finds him or herself in a situation of enhanced
          vulnerability and can therefore be an easy target for persecution. Prison authorities are given total
          control over the most basic activities of the inmates, from the time they will sleep to what they
          will eat, and how they will be able to exercise their right to freedom of religion or belief”
          (A/60/399, para. 85).
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 14
          Bangladesh
          Urgent allegation sent on 20 January 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
          the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography
          39. The Special Rapporteurs received information about a 14 year old Hindu girl from the
          town of Thakurgaon Bangladesh according to which, on 10 November 2005 at about 4 p.m.. the
          girl was abducted at gunpoint on her way home from school. The two abductors are alleged to be
          two neighbouring young Muslims. There are concerns that the purpose of the abduction is in
          order to force her to convert to Islam. On 11 November 2005. the girl's parents lodged a formal
          complaint at Thakurgaon Sadar Police Station and appealed to the Home Minister. However, the
          police reportedly did not act upon the complaint, arrest the abductors or attempt to recover the
          girl. Twenty three days after the abduction, the girl called her parents from a mobile phone and
          informed them that she was under the custody of a police officer from Dinajpur. This information
          was transmitted to Thakurgaon Sadar Police Station but no action was reportedly taken to
          apprehend the alleged perpetrators.
          Response from the Government dated 9 June 2006
          40. The Government informed that this case was investigated and that the following
          information was established. The person in question voluntarily left her father's place with her
          fiancée on 10 November 2005. On the same day, she converted into Islam and declared her
          marriage with her fiancée. This was stated by affidavit before the learned Notary Public. As per
          the affidavit, her age was claimed to be 21 years. The medical board certified that her age was
          about 18 years and consequently she is not a minor. Her father lodged a legal action accusing the
          fiancée and others of abducting her. The case is pending before the learned Court. At present, she
          is staving at the residence of her husband. The Court will decide whether there was abduction or
          not.
          Observations
          41. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. She would be grateful
          to receive information on any results of the court case which was lodged by the father of the
          alleged victim. The Special Rapporteur would like to take the opportunity to remind the
          Government of article 18(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which
          states that “ [ nb one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to
          adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” Furthermore, according to article 5(1) of the 1981
          Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on
          Religion or Belief, “ [ tihe parents or, as the case may be, the legal guardians of the child have the
          right to organize the life within the family in accordance with their religion or belief and bearing
          in mind the moral education in which they believe the child should be brought up.” Article 14(2)
          of the Convention on the Rights of the Child provides that “States Parties shall respect the rights
          and duties of the parents and, when applicable, legal guardians, to provide direction to the child
          in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the child.”
          42. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Freedom from coercion” (see above para. 1, category I. 2.) and “The right
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 15
          of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children” (category I. 3. g). As she
          noted in her 2005 report to the General Assembly, “with regard to children, the choice of religion
          is restricted by the parents' rights to determine their child's religion up to an age where the child
          is capable of doing so on his/her own, in accordance with article 18, paragraph 4, of the
          Covenant.” (A/60/399, para. 54).
          Communication sent on 2 June 2006
          43. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government the information she
          had received concerning the attack on Hindu worshippers in Chandpur. According to what has
          been alleged, on 31 October 2005 a group of Hindus held a religious meeting in the house of
          Pradip Chandra in Hijlakandi village, Chandpur district, when they were attacked by a group of
          Muslims from the same village. The attackers threatened and assaulted the worshippers and
          demanded money from them. They also ransacked the materials and musical instruments of the
          Hindus and snatched a gold chain belonging to one of the women in the group. The victims
          lodged a case with the Matlab North police station after which police officials visited the spot. No
          formal police investigation has been undertaken. Leaders from both communities have initiated a
          reconciliation programme.
          Response from the Government dated 7 June 2006
          44. The Permanent Mission of Bangladesh assures that the contents of the communication
          have been duly noted and forwarded to the concerned authorities of Bangladesh in order to take
          further action as deemed appropriate.
          Observations
          45. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Permanent Mission for acknowledging receipt of the
          communication. She would be grateful to receive information about any police investigation
          launched and on the results of any such investigation, together with the outcome of the
          reconciliation programme which had been initiated by leaders from both communities. The
          Special Rapporteur would like to take the opportunity to remind the Government of article 6 of
          the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based
          on Religion or Belief, according to which the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or
          belief includes the freedom, “(a) To worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief
          [ .1; (c) To make, acquire and use the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or
          customs of a religion or belief'.
          46. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. a) and “Places of
          worship” (category I. 3. b). As she noted in her 2005 report to the Commission on Human Rights,
          “members of religious communities or communities of belief, whenever they find themselves in
          places of worship, are in a situation of special vulnerability given the nature of their activity. The
          Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that States should pay increased attention to attacks
          on places of worship and ensure that all perpetrators of such attacks are properly prosecuted and
          tried.” (E/CN.4/2005/61, para. 49).
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 16
          Urgent appeal sent on 26 June 2006
          47. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
          received regarding new threats made against the Ahmaddiyya community. According to the
          information received, on 22 June 2006, an anti Ahmadivva outfit, Khatme Nabuwwat Andolon,
          published an advertisement in the Daily Inqilab under the headline “An open letter to the
          Honourable Prime Minister, Leader of the Opposition, Speaker of the National Parliament and
          Members of Parliament”. The article allegedly threatened the Government to declare Ahmadis
          “non-Muslims” and stated, inter alia, “Though the activists ofKhatme Nab uwwat have taken
          strong measures like imposing sieges bitt due to the peace—loving and law—abiding mentality of
          their leadership no untoward incident like loss of litè or other lawlessness has occurred so,fhr.
          Even attei shol4 ing tins much ot 1 es ti am the taihti e and negligence on the pai t ot the
          Government in this regard, the Prophet—lovers are now ready to sacrifice their lives tbr this just
          and logical demand. Bitt once loss of lives occurs in this sensitive issue related to the honour of
          ow Ho / i' Pi ophet thei e is a pos sibiliti' to! the ongoing anti Qadianee movement to till n into a
          Qadianee—eliminating movement Thei etoi e it is wged that ‘o it declai e the Qadianees as non—
          IVIuslim and pass a law preserving the honour of the Holy Prophet in the current Parliament
          session betoi e the siege pi ogi amine ot the Qadianee Den atAshkona on the 23i d otJutne 2006
          We are ready to cooperate with Government in this regard.”
          48. The Special Rapporteur also recalled that previous communications in relation to this
          issue have been sent to the Government of Bangladesh in 2004 and 2005.
          Response from Government dated 29 June 2006
          49. The Permanent Mission of the People's Republic of Bangladesh reported to the OHCHR
          that it has forwarded the case to the concerned authorities of Bangladesh for necessary inquiry
          and action. It assured that the request will be carefully considered as it deserves.
          Observations
          50. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Permanent Mission for acknowledging the
          communication. However, taking into account the serious character of the situation faced by the
          Ahmadiyya community in Bangladesh, she regrets that she has neither received a substantive
          reply to the urgent appeal of 26 June 2006 nor to her previous communication dated 10 March
          2005 (see E/CN.4/2006/5/Add. 1, paras. 27-29). The Special Rapporteur therefore continues to
          urge the Government to take concrete measures to eliminate acts of religious intolerance towards
          the Ahmadiyya community in accordance with article 8(a) of the 2005/40 Resolution of the
          Commission on Human Rights, which urges States to step up their efforts to eliminate intolerance
          and discrimination based on religion or belief, notably by “ [ tiaking all necessary and appropriate
          action, in conformity with international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, intolerance
          and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or
          belief, with particular regard to religious minorities, and also to devote particular attention to
          practices that violate the human rights of women and discriminate against women, including in
          the exercise of their right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief'. In this regard, the
          Special Rapporteur would like to receive detailed information about the content of any relevant
          measures taken by the authorities. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 17
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Minorities” (see above para. 1, category III. 5.).
          Be /ants
          Communication sent on 9 March 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the situation
          of human rights in Belarus
          51. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received concerning the refusal to register the Christ's Covenant Reformed Baptist Church and
          the Belarusian Evangelical Church.
          52. According to what has been alleged, the Christ's Covenant Reformed Baptist Church
          has unsuccessfully been seeking re-registration under the 2002 religious law. Pastor Georgi
          Vyazovsky is facing administrative charges for leading an unregistered congregation and carrying
          out services at his home. The hearing is scheduled to take place on 3 March 2006.
          53. The Belarusian Evangelical Church has been unsuccessful in its attempts to obtain re-
          registration under the 2002 religious law. On 20 September 2005, the Church was liquidated. The
          attempts to re-register were unsuccessful because the Church does not have state-approved non-
          residential worship premises.
          54. There are concerns that the two churches are among many religious groups unable to gain
          registration in Belams. This inability to register renders it difficult to obtain suitable premises,
          meaning that many religious groups are forced to use private residential premises for worship, for
          which they then face administrative charges.
          Observations
          55. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to take the opportunity
          to remind the Government of Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/40 which urges
          States, “ [ t b review, whenever relevant, existing registration practices in order to ensure the right
          of all persons to manifest their religion or belief, alone or in community with others and in public
          or in private” (para. 4 c) and “ [ t b ensure that, in accordance with appropriate national legislation
          and in conformity with international human rights law, the freedom for all persons and members
          of groups to establish and maintain religious, charitable or humanitarian institutions is fully
          respected and protected.” (para. 4 c).
          56. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Registration” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. h). In this regard, the Special
          Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that the right to freedom of religion is not limited to members of
          registered religious communities. As she noted in her 2005 report to the Commission on Human
          Rights, “registration should not be compulsory, i.e. it should not be a precondition for practicing
          one's religion, but only for the acquisition of a legal personality and related benefits”
          (E/CN.4/2005/61, para. 58). Referring to the OSCE/ODIHR Guidelines for Review of
          Legislation pertaining to Religion or Belief, the Special Rapporteur would like to underline that
        

          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 18
          high minimum membership requirements should not be allowed with respect to obtaining legal
          personality and that registration procedures should be easy and quick and not depend on
          extensive formal requirements.
          Belgiiiiiz
          Communication envoyée le 9 octobre 2006 simultanément au Rapporteur special sur le
          droit de toute personne de jouir du meilleur état de sante physique et mentale susceptible
          d'être atteint
          57. Les Rapporteurs ont aftiré l'aftention du gouvemement belge sur l'information selon
          laquelle. le 31 mai 2006. Govind Prasad Srivastava. était arrêté a l'aéroport de Bruxelles
          National a la suite d'une demande d'Interpol, émise par les autorités indiennes. Il est
          actuellement détenu ala prison de Forest dans l'aftente de son extradition vers linde. Govind
          Prasad Srivastava a soumis une requête écrite aux autorités pénitentiaires pour rencontrer un
          conseiller religieux hindou, en particulier parce qu'il dit souffrir de depression. Cefte requête
          aurait été rejetée.
          58. En tant qu'adherent a la foi hindoue, il a des besoins alimentaires spéciaux. Il ne mange
          pas de viande. de poisson ou d' ufs. De plus. il souffre du diabète, ce qui limite egalement le
          type de nourriture qu'il peut recevoir. Apparemment. plusieurs demandes pour une alimentation
          appropriée a son état de sante ont été refusées par l'administration pénitentiaire. Depuis qu'il est
          détenu, il n'a pas reçu de nourriture qui convient a ses crovances religieuses ou a son diabète. Il
          aurait, en consequence perdu 10 kg et souffrirait de depression. Selon les informations reçues. ses
          parents avaient demandé qu'il reçoive une alimentation appropriée. Cependant, les autorités
          pénitentiaires auraient refuse ces requêtes en raison des regles pénitentiaires.
          59. Selon les informations reçues. l'administration pénitentiaire belge fournit un repas chaud
          par jour àtous les prisonniers. Le repas est compose de viande. de legumes et de pommes de terre
          ou de frites. Govind Prasad Srivastova ne mange pas de viande et n'est regulierement pas en
          mesure de manger des legumes car ils sont couverts par la sauce de la viande.
          60. En vertu des regles pénitentiaires. les alimentations spéciales ne sont pas fournies aux
          prisonniers. sauf si le service medical de la prison indique qu'un détenu en particulier a besoin
          d'une alimentation spéciale pour raisons médicales. Selon les regles de la prison, des détenus qui
          ont une alimentation spéciale en raison de leur crovances religieuses on autres convictions
          peuvent acheter d'autres types de nourriture ala cantine, a leurs frais, ou se la faire livrer par des
          communautés religieuses locales. Cependant. Govind Prasad Srivastava pretend que la nourriture
          disponible a la cantine et convenant a ses besoins, est limitée a des << snacks >> froids et qu'il n'v a
          pas de communauté hindoue locale qui livre de la nourriture aux détenus hindous.
          Réponse datée du S décembre 2006
          61. Le Gouvernement belge a répondu que, selon le directeur principal de la prison de Forest,
          M. Govind Prasad Srivastana n'avait personnellement pas introduit de demande visant a
          rencontrer un conseiller religieux hindou. Par contre. une demande de visite signée par un certain
          <> est bien parvenue a la prison de Forest. La requête portait l'en-tête de
          <
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 19
          Krishna >>. L'organisation étant considérée comme une secte, la demande de visite a eté refusée.
          Cette personne ne rentrant pas dans le champ d'appiication de i'articie 72 de la ioi de principes
          du 12 janvier 2005. elie ressortit donc au régime ordinaire des visites. Ce régime est toujours
          régié par i'arrêté royal du 21 mai 1965 portant règiement général des étabiissements
          pénitentiaires. Le gouvemement beige a égaiement fait référence a i'articie 32 de cet arrêté royal.
          62. De plus, iaioi 2juin 1998. portant creation d'un centre d'information et d'avis suries
          organisations sectaires nuisibies et d'une ceiiuie administrative de coordination de ia lufte contre
          ies organisations sectaires nuisibies, définit ce qu'il faut entendre par organisation sectaire
          nuisibie et a crée ie Centre d'information et d'avis sur ies organisations nuisibies (CIAOSN)
          63. En ce qui conceme l'affirmation seion iaqueiie ie détenu n'aurait pas reçu une nourriture
          appropriée en fonction de ses crovances reiigieuses, ii faut remarquer que, d'une part. ies détenus
          qui ne désirent pas manger de viande reçoivent ie repas normai sans viande. et, d'autre part. que
          ia cantine offre une série d'articies aiimentaires dont des fmits frais mais, effectivement. eiie ne
          livre pas des repas chauds.
          64. En ce qui conceme son état de sante au cours de son incarceration, ie patient a été vu neuf
          fois par ie médecin généraiiste pour des probièmes de diabète et de tension artérieiie. Une prise
          de sang a été effectuée. sa glvcémie contrôiée en debut d'incarcération tous ies jours (parfois
          piusieurs fois parjour), et ce pendant un mois; ensuite, eiie l'a été a raison de deux fois par
          semaine, compte tenu de ia stabiiisation de son diabète. Ii a aussi été vu deux fois par un
          cardioiogue, pour des probièmes de tension. et une fois par un psvchiatre. parce qu'il se sentait
          déprimé et demandait du travail. Ii n'est pas fait mention de perte de poids dans ie dossier
          médicai ni de difficultés en ce qui concerne ies repas.
          65. Il importe de souiigner que, l'intéressé avant été iibéré en vue de son extradition ie 10
          octobre 2006. l'enquete menée n'a pas être compiétée par une audition du détenu, ce qui aurait
          permis de recouper ies informations et d'apporter des précisions utiies.
          66. Quant a ia iégisiation appiicabie en matière de déiivrance d'une aiimentation répondant a
          des besoins religieux ou médicaux. ie gouvernement beige a remarqué ies suivantes dispositions
          iégaies : ies articies 87 et 107 dei'arrêté ministériei du 12 juiiiet 1979. portant suries instmctions
          généraies pour ies étabiissements pénitentiaires. ia ioi de principes concernant i'administration
          des étabiissements pénitentiaires. spéciaiement i'articie 72. ainsi que ie statutjuridique des
          détenus du 12 janvier 2005.
          67. En résumé. seion ia iégisiation appiicabie, ie détenu aurait ie droit de se faire iivrer un
          repas << convenant a sa pratique reiigieuse >> pour autant que ceia ne contrevienne pas a i'une des
          trois conditions suivantes
          a) Le conseiiier morai ou reiigieux d'un cuite non reconnu ou d'une organisation non
          reconnue par ia ioi doit recevoir i'autorisation du directeur de iivrer ies repas:
          b) Les rep as déiivrés doivent être << du même type que ceux fournis aux autres
          détenus >>;
          c) L'intervention financière dans ce type de repas ne peut pas dépasser i'intervention
          maximaie prévue pour ies repas iivrés aux détenus.
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 20
          Observations
          68. La Rapporteuse spéciale remercie le Gouvemement beige pour cefte réponse détaiiiée et
          pour avoir annexé une svnthèse des bases juridiques sur iesqueiies se fondent ies organes
          représentatifs des différents cuites reconnus et de ia iaIcité pour ieurs rapports avec i'Etat. La
          Rapporteuse spéciaie voudrait faire référence a ia << iiberté de reiigion ou de conviction des
          detenus >> (seion ie ti ainet oik to! communications oir ci-dessus para 1 categorle III 2 ) et a
          son rapport d'activité transmis aux membres de i'Assembiée generaie en 2005 (A160/399. para.
          85) : <>.
          Bhiitan
          Urgent appeal sent on 12 July 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
          protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on
          the question of torture
          69. The Speciai Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they
          had received regarding two Christians John Tamang alias Puma Bahadur Tamang and
          Benjamin Sharma alias Budhu Mani Dhungana in the town of Paro, Western Bhutan.
          According to the information received, on 7 January 2006. John Tamang. aiias Puma Bahadur
          Tamang, and Benjamin Sharma, aiias Budhu Mani Dhungana. were arrested for screening the
          flim ‘Jesus' in the town of Paro. The arrest was carried out by a Lt. Coi. of the Crime and
          Investigation Department of Rovai Bhutan Poiice (RBP) in Thimphu who punched and hit the
          two men during the arrest. They are thought to be heid incommunicado in Thimphu. They have
          reportediv been subjected to torture and ui-treatment in detention.
          Response from the Government dated 27 July 2006
          70. Mr. Dhungana and Mr. Tamang are civii servants. Mr. Dhungana is a Chief Nurse in the
          Surgicai Ward at Jigme Dorji Wangchuck Nationai Referrai Hospitai (JDWNRH). Thimphu.
          whiie Mr. Tamang is an Auditor at the Rovai Audit Authority. aiso in Thimphu. According to the
          investigation carried out by the Government. the above mentioned two persons traveiied from
          Thimphu to Nago viiiage in Naja biock under Paro district. On their way they gave aiift to Ms.
          Wangmo. who was returning to her viiiage. On 7 January 2006. they staved at Ms. Wangmo's
          house. Posing as if they were on officiai duty, they instructed Ms. Wangmo' s daughter to caii au
          the viiiagers to assembie at their house in order to have officiai discussions on faith. The viiiagers
          from 17 househoids went to Ms. Wangmo's piace.
          71. They started the discussion with iectures and a flim. During their discourse, Mr.
          Dhungana made derogatory remarks against the Spirituai Head of Bhutan, His Hoiiness the Je
          Khenpo. The viiiagers were deepiy disturbed by these remarks and by the flim. and made Mr.
          Dhungana and Mr. Tamang stop the discussion. The mafter was reported to the nearest Ro ai
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 21
          Bhutan Police station the same night by the village elder. Both Mr. Dhungana and Mr. Tamang
          were handed over to the Royal Bhutan Police on 8 January 2006. The next day. they were
          brought before the Court. They were charged for and found guilty of an offence of official
          misconduct under Section 294 of the Bhutan Penal Code, having violated also Article 9 of the
          National Security Act, an offence of deceptive practice under Section 309 of the Bhutan Penal
          Code, and an offence of breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of Government property
          under Sections 265 and 267 of the Bhutan Penal Code.
          72. The above mentioned persons have not appealed the judgement. They are currently
          serving their sentences in Thimphu District Jail. They are allowed to receive visitors in
          accordance with the prison mles and they have actually been receiving visits from their family
          and friends on a daily basis. Moreover. they have not been detained incommunicado, as said in
          the urgent appeal sent to the Government; and medical aftention is provided to all detainees if
          required by the individual concerned.
          73. Regarding the arrest itself, it is incorrect what is alleged concerning the above mentioned
          Lt. Col.. due to the fact that he was not present during the arrest. It is also untrue that both
          detainees have been subjected to torture and ill treatment. Torture is prohibited by law in Bhutan.
          Concerning the existing policies of the Government. people are free to practice any religion of
          their choice, but proselytism of any religion is prohibited in order to maintain and preserve
          society' s harmony. The right to freedom of religion or belief is guaranteed in the draft
          Constitution of Bhutan. To conclude, the Government also indicated that Bhutan has not faced
          sectarian or religious violence and that there is no social tension between people of different
          faiths. The Government continues to promote peaceful coexistence between the different
          religious groups in the countw.
          Observations
          74. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response and she encourages the
          Government to reply also to her request to visit the country. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur
          would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international
          human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Teaching and disseminating
          materials including missionar acti/ it/ (see abo/ e para 1 categor/ I 3 In her 2005 report
          to the General Assembly, she noted the following (see A160/399. para. 62): “Whereas the scope
          of freedom afforded to persons for the practice of their religion or belief by producing and
          distributing information about their religion or belief is wide, certain limitations can be imposed
          in accordance with article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. However, it should be noted that this
          article allows for restrictions only in very exceptional cases. In particular the fact that it mentions
          the protection of “tiindainental rights and freedoms” (emphasis added) of others as a ground for
          restriction indicates a stronger protection than for some other rights whose limitation clauses refer
          simply to the “rights and freedoms of others” (e.g. article 12, 21 and 22). It could indeed be
          argued that the freedom of religion or belief of others can be regarded as such a fundamental right
          and freedom and would justify limitations to missionary activities, but the freedom of religion
          and belief of adults basically is a question of individual choice, so any generalized State
          limitation (e.g. by law) conceived to protect “others” freedom of religion and belief by limiting
          the right of individuals to conduct missionary activities should be avoided.”
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 22
          China
          Urgent appeal sent on 16 December 2004 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
          protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on
          the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and
          mental health
          75. The Special Rapporteurs were informed that Zhang Rongliang. an underground church
          leader, was detained by police on 1 December 2004 in Xuzhai village. It was alleged that he was
          at risk of being tortured. Moreover, since he was diabetic, concern was expressed that he would
          not have access to the medication or treatment he needed. It was reported that his wife and child
          were in hiding. According to witnesses, police searched every household in the above mentioned
          village and confiscated DVDs about Christianity, other materials and photos revealing Zhang's
          connections with foreigners. Reports indicated that Zhang Rongliang was the leader of the China
          for Christ Church and of the Protestant Fangcheng Mother Church. He was the co-author of
          House Churches of China - Contèssion of Faith and Declaration. Zhang Rongliang had already
          been imprisoned five times for his beliefs, for a total of 12 years, during which time he was
          allegedly tortured.
          Response from the Government dated 12 May 2005
          76. The Government informs that Zhang Rongliang is a male aged 52, from Fangcheng
          County, Henan Province. In the beginning of 2003, he inveigled people's police officers at the
          Zhengzhou Xinmi public security bureau Chengguan (outlying areas) police station, in Henan
          Province, into forging residence and identity documents for himself and family members (10
          people in all), and used the forged identity documents at the Xinmi public security bureau in
          2004 to apply for and obtain passports. The public security authorities found out in time and
          annulled the residence documents and passports. Zhang's conduct was a contravention of article
          319 of the Criminal C ode and he was suspected of using or possessing fraudulent travel
          documents. On 1 December 2004, acting under article 61 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the
          Henan Province public security authorities took Zhang into criminal custody. Investigations into
          the case are in progress.
          77. The Government highlights that China's Constitution and laws clearly stipulate that
          citizens have the right to freedom of religion and belief Article 36 of the Constitution stipulates
          that “citizens of the People's Republic of China have freedom of religion and belief'. But the
          article goes on by saying that “no one shall make use of religion to disturb public order, damage
          citizens' health or obstruct the operation of the national education system.” The Universal
          Declaration of Human Rights, while acknowledging the various rights that people have, also
          clearly states that, in exercising their rights and liberties, people are subject to the limits laid
          down by law. The present case is one of a breach of the criminal law, and the action taken by the
          Chinese law-enforcement authorities against Zhang Rongliang was entirely based on his criminal
          conduct and unrelated to issues of religion or belief
          78. The Government informs that accusations made in the communication are groundless.
          The Chinese law-enforcement authorities acted strictly in accordance with the Criminal Code,
          the Code of Criminal Procedure, etc.; the question of arbitrary detention does not arise. China
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 23
          was one of the first States to become party to the Convention against Torture. It upholds the
          prohibition on torture and other cmel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and has
          adopted many specific measures under domestic law. In handling the case in question, the
          relevant Chinese Government departments abided strictly by their treaty obligations and
          proceeded in accordance with domestic law. There was no instance of torture or ill-treatment.
          79. The Chinese Government has always taken great care to safeguard the legitimate rights of
          convicts and detainees. The Prisons Act and the Remand Facility Regulations cover all aspects of
          the protection of offenders' and detainees' rights including their right to security of the person,
          lawful possessions, health protection and education, and their rights to a defence, to appeal, to
          lodge complaints and report matters to the authorities, and such other rights as have not been
          restricted or taken from them by law. All legitimate rights of Zhang Rongliang have been
          safeguarded, and it is not true that when he fell ill he was refused medical treatment.
          Observations
          80. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's reply. She would like to make
          reference to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading
          treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak, of his mission to China from 20 November to 2
          December 2005 (E/CN.4/2006/6/Add.6, para. 81): “In the opinion of the Special Rapporteur, the
          combination of deprivation of liberty as a sanction for the peaceful exercise of freedom of
          expression, assembly and religion, with measures of re-education through coercion, humiliation
          and punishment aimed at admission of culpability and altering the personality of detainees up to
          the point of even breaking their will, strike at the very core of the human right to personal
          integrity, dignity and humanity. It constitutes a form of inhuman and degrading treatment or
          punishment leading to submissiveness and a ‘culture of fear', which is incompatible with the core
          values of any democratic society based upon a culture of human rights.”
          Urgent appeal sent on 13 September 2005 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on violence
          against women, its causes and consequences
          81. The Special Rapporteurs brought the two following cases to the attention of the
          Government: On 21 May 2002, police officers from the Zhonggong police station arrested Ms.
          Ren Shujie, aged 42, living in the Tiexi District, Shengyang City, Liaoning Province, for
          practicing Falun Gong. She was later sentenced to three years of forced labour and was detained
          at the Longshan Labour Camp. No charges were brought against her and she was provided no
          hearing before a court of law. She went on hunger strike for 64 days, during which time she was
          subjected to torture and harsh labour for fifteen hours daily. After bringing an end to her hunger
          strike she continued to be tortured by the prison guards, including Tang Yubao, who subjected her
          to electric shocks. On 22 March 2004, she was transferred to Masanjia Labour Camp where she
          was forced to sleep on cement floors for three months. She was released on 24 December 2004,
          due to her extremely weak conditions, weighing less than 40 kg, whereas at the time of her arrest
          she weighed 80 kg. The several complaints that Ren Shujie made to the prison guards, who were
          the only authorities she had access to, provided no response or amelioration to her conditions of
          detention.
          82. On 21 January 2000, Ms. Liu Yunxiang, aged 32, living in Yangjiazhuang village in
          Junbukou Township was arrested by police officers belonging to the Junbukou Township of
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 24
          Weifang City in Shandong province, for practicing Falun Gong. No charges were brought against
          her and she was provided no hearing before a court of law She was subjected to severe beatings,
          and the men who were also arrested with her were forced to beat her and the other arrested
          women on their hips. During her detention, she was forced to curse the founder of Falun Gong,
          drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes, which is against Falun Gong principles. As a result of this
          treatment, Ms. LiuYunxiang miscarried. She was released after having paid for her release. In the
          Summer of 2001, she was arrested again for practicing Falun Gong and was once again subjected
          to torture including electric shocks, as a result of which she miscarried a second time. After
          twenty days of torture, she was sent to a detention centre for another month, after which she was
          released.
          Response from the Government dated 12 December 2005
          83. The Government informed that Ren Shujie, female, was born in February 1964 in Han
          Chinese. She was educated to lower middle-school level, from Shengvang City, Liaoning
          Province; formerly on the kitchen staff at the Shengyang New Model Building Materials
          Corporation. She was assigned to three years' re-education through labour (21 May 2002 to 20
          May 2005) in April 2002 for dismpting public order and conmiitted to the Longshan Re-
          education through Labour Facility in Shengyang on 21 Ma 2002. On 22 March 2004 she was
          moved to the provincial Masanjia Facility. During her assignment she resisted education and
          often refused to eat, but under careful, patient coaxing from the wardens she resumed eating
          normally. There was no question of ill-treatment during her period of re-education. Upon the
          completion of her term she was released in high spirits and good health.
          84. Liu Yunxiang, female, aged 38, is from Weifang City in Shandong Province. She was
          taken into criminal custody by the local public security authorities in October 2000 for disturbing
          the peace, but released after being taught a lesson. On 30 August 2001, with the approval of the
          local Re-education through Labour Management Committee, she was assigned to three years re-
          education for repeatedly distributing, putting up and spray-painting Falun Gong cult material.
          She was granted early release from re-education on 1 December 2003. Throughout their handling
          of this case the public security authorities acted rigorously, properly and in a civilized manner.
          They did not cause Ms. Liu to have a miscarriage. The claims of beatings and electric shocks are
          sheer rumour mongering.
          85. The Government wants to clarify that respect and upholding freedom of religion and
          belief is one of the Chinese Government's basic national policies. China has over 100 million
          religious adherents and about 300,000 clerics. The rule of law prevails, and the Constitution
          guarantees citizens' freedom of religion. No one can be attacked for their religious beliefs. In the
          cases at issue, Ren and Liu were subjected to re-education through labour for activities that
          disrupted public order: their treatment had nothing to do with freedom of religion.
          86. China was one of the first States to become party to the Convention against Torture, and
          strictly prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and punishment. Its
          laws clearly establish that detainees have extensive rights. The Penal Code, Code of Criminal
          Procedure, Prisons Act and much other legislation strictly prohibit beatings, abuse, corporal
          punishment and ill-treatment. When violations of detainees' rights come to light, those
          responsible are punished in accordance with the law. In dealing with the cases above, the
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 25
          Chinese Government departments concerned complied strictly with their treaty obligations and
          acted within national law. There was no ill-treatment or use of torture.
          Observations
          87. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's reply. She would like to make
          reference to her predecessor's conclusions after his country visit to China from 19 to 30
          November 1994 (E/CN.4/i 995/91. para. 189): “The Special Rapporteur considers that there must
          be no interference with religious activity falling within the scope of the 1981 Declaration. At all
          events, there must not be any surveillance of a kind to infringe the right to freedom of belief and
          to manifest one's belief With regard to sects, the Special Rapporteur particularly wishes to point
          out that the 1981 Declaration protects not only religion, but also theist beliefs and that article 1,
          paragraph 3, of that Declaration states that freedom to manifest one's religion or belief may be
          subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public
          safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.”
          88. The Special Rapporteur continues to be very concerned by the continued violations of
          freedom of religion or belief suffered by members of the Falun Gong. In her previous reports to
          the Commission on Human Rights, she explicitly mentioned members of the Falun Gong as
          targets of various human rights violations because of their beliefs and she strongly condemns the
          continued lack of freedom of belief of members of Falun Gong (see E/CN.4/2005/61, paras. 37-
          38 and E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1, para. 109).
          89. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Government for the invitation it has
          extended in 2004 for a follow-up visit and she hopes to receive a reply from the Government
          further to her last lefter of September 2006 requesting dates for this visit.
          Urgent appeal sent on 6 December 2005 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question of
          torture
          90. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the aftention of the Government of the People's
          Republic of China information they had received regarding five Buddhist monks from Drepung
          Monastery in Lhasa. Their names are Ngawang Namdrol of Tsotod Township, Phenpo
          Lhundrup County. Lhasa Municipality: Ngawang Nyingpo of Khartse Township. Phenpo
          Lhundrup Country. Lhasa Municipality: Ngawang Thupen a.k.a. Shogbu Metok of Lhasa Inner
          City, Lhasa Municipality; Khenpo Ngawang Phelgyal of Rinpung County, Shigatse Prefecture
          and Phuntsok Thupwang of Gongkar County, Lhoka Prefecture. According to the allegations
          received, on 23 November 2005, the five monks were arrested following a patriotic re-education
          ceremony that had been taking place at Drepung Monastery in Lhasa since October 2005. They
          were handed over to the Public S ecuritv Bureau of their respective places of origin after they
          refused to sign a statement denouncing the Dalai Lama and recognizing Tibet as a part of China.
          They are currently being held in Public Security Bureau places of detention. There are concerns
          that they may be subjected to torture or ill-treatment.
          91. On 25 November 2005. approximately 400 monks held a silent sit-down protest in the
          monastery courtyard. There is concern that members of the army and officers from the People's
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 26
          Armed Police and the Public Security Bureau beat a number of the monks in thier efforts to
          disperse them.
          92. The Special Rapporteurs also brought to the attention of the Government information
          they received concerning Tsering Dhondup. aged 30, a monk at Sera Monastery, near Lhasa and
          Changchup Gyaltsen. a disciplinarian at Sera Monastery. According to the information
          received, in July 2005. the authorities expelled Changchup G altsen from Sera Monastery after
          he read out a request for prayer, which referred to the Dalai Lama. He was placed under
          surveillance for a year. Tsering Dhondup. who is alleged to have drafted the prayer, disappeared
          on the same day. He is thought to be held incommunicado at Gutsa prison in northern Lhasa. He
          is alleged to have possessed and distributed documents criticizing China and supporting Tibetan
          independence.
          Response from the Government dated 12 January 2006
          93. The Government indicated that, recently, five monks at the Drepung monastery in the
          Tibet Autonomous Region were expelled from the monastery by the monastery' s management
          committee, for having breached the monastery regulations. After announcement of this
          administrative decision, a number of monks from the monastery came to the management
          committee to demand an explanation. After hearing the explanation provided by the committee.
          the assembled monks all dispersed and the five monks who had been expelled also expressed
          their acceptance of the decision and returned to their places of origin. Drepung monastery
          remains open to the public and its religious activities are continuing as normal. Throughout this
          entire process, there has been no instance of any monk being physically or verbally assaulted or
          detained, nor has any monastery been shut down.
          94. The Government also explained that article 36 of the Chinese Constitution stipulates that
          “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of religion and belief” In accordance
          with the law, the Chinese Government protects the conduct of normal religious activities by the
          congregation of Buddhist clergy and laity. Currently, there are more than 40,000 monks and nuns
          living in more than 1,700 Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in the Tibet Autonomous Region and
          other religious centres, engaging freely in the study of Buddhist scriptures and conducting all
          kinds of religious activities. The right to freedom of religious assembly and religious belief is
          fully respected and their religious needs are fully satisfied. The Government affirms that any
          person going to Tibet and gaining an understanding of the real situation will reach this same
          conclusion.
          95. In the Tibet Autonomous Region, the monks of every monastery elect their own
          monastery management committees through a democratic process, enact democratic management
          rules for each monastery and carry out its routine work. Each monastery, acting in accordance
          with the relevant management rules, carries out an assessment at regular intervals of the monks
          under its responsibility, the content of which includes such topics as religious regulations and
          precepts, monastic rules and general knowledge of the law.
          96. The five monks from Drepung monastery were expelled by the monastery's management
          committee because they had breached the monastery rules and had failed the relevant assessment:
          this demonstrates that the monastery's management committee was carrying out its routine
          duties, according to the internal running of the monastery, acting in accordance with the relevant
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 27
          provisions of Chinese law and the democratic management rules of the monastery, and it has
          nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of religion or belief
          97. The case of Tsering Dhondupo and Changchup Gyaltsen, monks at Sera monastery in the
          Tibet Autonomous Region and also mentioned in the communication, is in the process of being
          investigated by the Chinese Government.
          Additional response from the Government dated 18 April 2006
          98. The Chinese Government has carefully examined the circumstances of the two monks
          from Sera Monastery, Tsering Dhondup and Changchup Gyaltsen.
          99. Mi Ma, which is the dharma name of Changchup Gyaltsen (male, ethnic Tibetan, born in
          1963, resident of Phenpo Lundup, county of Lhasa, Tibet) was expelled from the monastery for
          engaging in activities within Sera monastery calling for the division of Chinese territory and has
          currently returned to his place of origin.
          100. Tsering Dhondup, which is the dharma name of Ngawang Yonten (male, ethnic Tibetan,
          born 1976, resident of Phenpo Lundup, county of Lhasa, Tibet) was detained on 26 August 2005
          by the Tibetan public security authorities, in accordance with the law, for preparing propaganda
          materials calling for “Tibetan independence” and advocating division of the State. On 25 October
          2005, proceedings were instituted against him, in accordance with the law, by the Lhasa people's
          procurator's office on suspicion of the offence of fomenting division of the State.
          101. Article 52 of the Chinese Constitution stipulates that “It is the duty of citizens of the
          People's Republic of China to safeguard the unity of the country and the unity of all its
          nationalities.” China is a country run by the rule of law and its people - regardless of whether or
          not they are religious believers - are all obliged to respect Chinese law and may not conduct
          activities in the name of religion which are in breach of the law.
          102. The two men referred to above, on repeated occasions, prepared propaganda materials
          which advocated division of the Chinese State and conducted activities calling for the division of
          Chinese territory, violated Chinese law and the relevant provisions of the monastery regulations
          and received the appropriate penalty. The Government states that all this has nothing to do with
          freedom of religious belief
          103. The Chinese judicial authorities acted in strict accordance with laws and regulations under
          the Chinese Criminal Code, the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure and other instruments, and
          there was no question of any “arbitrary detention” or “torture”.
          Observations
          104. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's responses. She would also like
          to thank the Government for the invitation it has extended in 2004 for a follow-up visit and she
          hopes to receive a reply from the Government further to her last lefter of September 2006
          requesting dates for this visit.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 28
          Communication sent on 29 December 2005 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and
          consequences
          105. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received concerning two female Falun Gong practitioners. According to the information
          received, on the night of 24 November 2005, one woman aged 51 was abducted by an estimated
          seven policemen. Her home was ransacked and all Falun Gong materials were seized. She was
          taken to Dongchengfang Town Police Station in Tunzhou City, Hebei Province, where she was
          interrogated, beaten with rubber clubs and shocked with stun batons. At approximately 2 p.m. on
          25 November 2005, a police officer took her to a room, where he lifted her shirt and touched her
          breasts. He then shocked her breasts with a stun baton. Another police officer came into the room
          and raped her. During the rape, he repeatedly slapped her in the face. He then brought another
          woman aged 42 into the same room and raped her too. The two rapes took place in the presence
          of another police officer, who made no attempt to intervene or prevent the incidents.
          Response from the Government dated 28 June 2006
          106. At the time this report was finalized, this reply was still in the process of being translated.
          Communication sent on 11 August 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially in
          women and children
          107. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received concerning organ harvesting. According to the allegations received, organ harvesting
          has been inflicted on a large number of unwilling Falun Gong practitioners at a wide variety of
          locations, for the purpose of making available organs for transplant operations. Vital organs
          including hearts, kidneys, livers and corneas were systematically harvested from Falun Gong
          practitioners at Sujiatan Hospital, Shenyang, Liaoning province, beginning in 2001. The
          practitioners were given injections to induce heart failure, and therefore were killed in the course
          of the organ harvesting operations or immediately thereafter.
          108. It is reported that employees of several transplant centres have indicated that they have
          used organs from live Falun Gong practitioners for transplants. After the organs were removed,
          the bodies were cremated, and no corpse is left to examine for identification as the source of an
          organ transplant. Once the organs were removed they were shipped to transplant centres to be
          used for transplants for both domestic and foreign patients. Officials from several detention
          facilities have indicated that courts have been involved in the administering the use of organs
          from Falun Gong detainees.
          109. It is reported that there are many more organ transplants than identifiable sources of
          organs, even taking into account figures for identifiable sources, namely: estimates of executed
          prisoners annually, of which a high percentage of organs are donated by, according to the
          statement in 2005 of the Vice Minister of Health Mr. Huang Jiefu; willing donor family members,
          who for cultural reasons, are often reluctant to donate their organs after death; and brain-dead
          donors. Moreover, the reportedly short waiting times that have been advertised for perfectly-
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 29
          matched organs would suggest the existence of a computerized matching system for transplants
          and a large bank of live prospective donors.
          110. It is alleged that the discrepancy between available organs and numbers from identifiable
          sources is explained by organs harvested from Falun Gong practitioners, and that the rise in
          transplants from 2000 coincides and correlates with the beginning of the persecution of these
          persons.
          111. On organ transplants, in general, it has been reported that in March 2006, legislation was
          introduced which bans the sale of human organs and requires the donor to give wriften
          permission. The legislation also limits transplants to certain institutions, which must verify the
          source of the organs. This law came in force on 1 July 2006. Contrary to the Government
          assertion that human organs have been prohibited from sale, in accordance with the 1991 WHO
          guiding principles, it has been reported that up to this time Chinese law has allowed the buying
          and selling of organs, has not required that donors give wriften permission for their organs to be
          transplanted, there has been no restriction on the institutions which could engage in organ
          harvesting or transplants, there was no requirement that the institutions engaged in transplants
          had to verify that the organs being transplanted were from legal sources, and there was no
          obligation to have transplant ethics commiftees approve all transplants in advance. Moreover,
          evidence exists, for example, that at least up until April 2006 price lists for organ transplants in
          China were published on the Internet.
          Response from the Government dated 28 November 2006
          112. The Government replied that in March 2006, Falun Gong began fabricating the so-called
          “Sujiatun Concentration Camp” issue, saying that 6,000 Falun Gong practitioners had been
          incarcerated in Sujiatun Hospital in Shenyang, Liaoyang Province and that two thirds of them had
          had organs removed from their living bodies and the corpses cremated to destroy the evidence. In
          order to clarify the facts, the Sujiatun District Government carried out an investigation at the
          hospital; domestic and foreign media including Japan's NHK and Hong Kong's Phoenix Satellite
          Network and Ta Kung Pao conducted on-the-scene interviews; and two visits were paid by
          consular personnel from the US embassy. Based on the results of these investigations it was
          discovered that the hospital only had 300 beds and was completely incapable of housing more
          than 6,000 persons. There was no such basement for incarcerating Falun Gong practitioners, as
          alleged by Falun Gong. The so-called “cremation oven” announced by Falun Gong is in fact a
          boiler/furnace room, whose primary function is to provide heat and disinfect medical instmments.
          This boiler room has several transparent glass windows and a lawn outside that is open to the
          public where nearby residents come daily to stroll. In such a place, with such a physical sefting,
          there is simply no way to cremate corpses in secret, continuously, and in large volume. The
          rumors fabricated by Falun Gong collapse on their own. Everyone recognizes that Sujiatun
          Hospital is nothing but a simple hospital and that there is no evidence to show that it is being
          used for any purpose other than as a public hospital. This once again proves that the “Sujiatun
          Concentration Camp” fabricated by Falun Gong is nothing more than a rumor.
          113. As a WHO member-state, the Chinese Government resolutely abides by the WHO's 1991
          Guiding Principles on Human Organ Transplants and strictly forbids the sale of human organs.
          Human organ donation must be done voluntarily and with the wriften consent of the donor.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 30
          114. The human organ transplant regulations that took effect on 1 July 2006 reiterate that
          human organs must not be sold, that human organs used for transplant by medical facilities must
          have the written consent of the donor, that a donor has the right to refuse to donate before the
          organ transplant takes place, and that medical facilities carrying out human organ transplants
          must have the capacity to ensure medical quality and safety in accordance with ethical principles.
          The goal of these regulations is to standardize and improve the management of clinical practice
          of human organ transplant operations in order to safeguard medical quality and safely.
          115. Presently, the relevant Chinese Government agencies are drafting Human Organ
          Transplant Regulations in order to create the necessary regulation of human organ donation,
          registration, matching, and transplant.
          116. China absolutely does not allow forced donation or trafficking in the corpses or organs of
          executed criminals, which are used in strict accordance with the relevant regulations. Notably: (1)
          Written consent must be received from the criminal to be executed and his family: (2) Approval
          must be received from the provincial-level health authority and the provincial-level higher
          people's court; (3) The unit using the organs must have the approval of the health authorities at
          the provincial level or higher and must have the authority/capacity to conduct medical science
          research or transplant operations.
          117. The question of organ donation is not part of the inquiries made at the time of execution.
          Those death-row criminals who wish to donate their corpse or organs after they are executed
          must express this voluntarily in writing. Mobile Execution Vehicles are used solely by the courts
          to carry out execution by lethal injection. They do not, and are strictly forbidden to, transport
          organs. According to Chinese laws and regulations, individuals who are sentenced to death are
          those criminals who have committed extremely serious crimes and who should be sentenced to
          death and executed immediately, not whether they are Falun Gong practitioners. For this reason,
          there are no statistical data for Falun Gong practitioners who have been executed.
          118. In order to deal with the problem of organ supply, each country typically uses two
          methods: firstly, to increase social awareness and mobilize the population to donate organs; and
          secondly, to facilitate live organ donation and transplant between relatives. China's methods are
          not exceptions, but it has placed serious restrictions: citizens who donate live organs must be at
          least 18 years old and be in possession of full civil capacities; the live organ recipient must be the
          spouse, direct blood relative, or within three generations of collateral blood relatives.
          Observations
          119. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's reply. She has sent a follow-up
          letter on 25 January 2007 which will be covered in her next addendum on cases transmitted to
          Governments and replies received.
          Urgent appeal sent on 31 August 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question
          of torture
          120. The Special Rapporteurs received information concerning Bu Dongwei (also known as
          David Bu), aged 38, and Falun Gong practitioner. According to the allegations received, on 19
          Ma 2006, he was detained by around seven police officers at his home in the Haidian district of
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 31
          Beijing. On 19 June 2006, he was assigned to two and a half years re-education through labour in
          connection with his activities as a member of the Falun Gong spiritual movement by Beijing's
          Re-education through Labour Commiftee, which has the power to impose periods of arbitrary
          detention without charge or trial. He was accused of “resisting the implementation of national
          laws” and “disturbing social order” on the basis of evidence including a verbal confession he
          made to the police and 80 copies of Falun Gong literature discovered in his home. He is due to be
          released on 18 November 2008.
          121. Despite repeated requests to the authorities, his family has not been told where he is being
          detained although unconfirmed reports have been received that he may have been transferred to
          Tuanhe Re-education through Labour facility in Beijing on 21 August 2006. There are concerns
          that he is at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. Bu Dongwei had previously served a term often
          months re-education through labour from August 2000 to May 2001 in Tuanhe for ‘using a
          heretical organization to disrupt the implementation of the law' after he petitioned the authorities
          asking them to review their ban on Falun Gong. During this period, he was reportedly beaten and
          made to sit all day in a small chair. He was also subjected to sleep deprivation aimed at forcing
          him to renounce his belief in Falun Gong.
          Response from the Government dated 28 November 2006
          122. At the time this report was finalized, this reply was still in the process of being translated.
          Denmark
          Communication sent on 24 November 2005 with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary
          forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
          123. The Special Rapporteurs were informed that cartoons representing the prophet
          Muhammad in a defamatory and derogatory manner were published in the newspaper Jyllands-
          Posten in the course of September 2005. It was reported that the series of cartoons were
          published after a writer complained that nobody dared illustrate his book about Muhammad.
          Following the publication, two cartoons illustrators allegedly received death threats.
          124. The Special Rapporteurs, while believing that limitations to the freedom of expression
          have to be applied in a restrictive manner, expressed their concern regarding actions that seem to
          reveal intolerance and absence of respect for the religion of others, particularly in the aftermath
          of 11 September 2001. Such actions may also constitute threats to the religious harmony of a
          society, and the source of incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence on the basis of
          religion which are prohibited by article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
          Rights.
          125. The Special Rapporteurs requested the Government to provide them with information as
          to whether the facts alleged in the summary of the case were accurate, whether a complaint had
          been lodged by or on behalf of the persons affected by the consequences of these publications
          and whether any judicial or administrative decision had been taken so far. The Special
          Rapporteurs also requested information about the existing policy measures to promote religious
          tolerance and the ones to closely monitor that kind of developments.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 32
          Additional responses from the Government dated 31 January 2006, 3 February 2006 and
          16 March 2006
          126. Subsequent to its response dated 24 January 2006. which has already been reflected in
          the previous communications report (see E/CN.4/2006/5/Add. 1. paras. 113-115). the
          Government informed the Special Rapporteurs in further lefters dated 31 January 2006, 3
          Febmarv 2006 and 16 March 2006 of recent developments concerning this issue. On 31 January
          2006, the Danish Prime Minister, Anders Fogh Rasmussen. made a statement where he informed
          that the Danish Daily. Jvllands-Posten. had apologized for the indisputable offence to the Muslim
          world. He hopes that the apology made will contribute to comfort those who have been hurt. The
          Prime Minister also informs that the mentioned apology has been positively received by Muslim
          communities in Denmark and that these have pledged support for the efforts made. He also calls
          on all parties to abstain from any statement or action that will create further tension. In an
          interview on the TV news channel Al-Arabyia on 2 Febmarv 2006, the Danish Prime Minister
          stressed the value he aftached to the close relationship based on mutual respect and friendship
          between Denmark and the Muslim world.
          127. On 16 March 2006, the Government informed the Special Rapporteurs that the Danish
          Director of Public Prosecutions had decided not to institute criminal proceeding in the case of the
          article “The Face of Muhammed”. which was published on 30 September 2005. The Danish
          Director of Public Prosecutions explained that in his opinion there was neither violation of
          section 140 of the Danish Criminal Code (mockery or scorn of religious doctrines or acts of
          worship of any lawfully existing religious community in Denmark) nor of section 266b of the
          Danish Criminal Code (public statement or imparting other information by which a group of
          people are threatened, scorned or degraded on account of their race, colour, national or ethnic
          origin, religion or sexual inclination). The decision of the Danish Director of Public Prosecutions
          cannot be appealed to a higher administrative authority, as stipulated in Section 99(3) of the
          Danish Administration of Justice Act. Furthermore he stressed that although there was no basis
          for instituting criminal proceedings in this case, it should be noted that both provisions of the
          Danish Criminal Code contain a restriction of the freedom of expression. To the extent publicly
          made expressions fall within the scope of these mles there is, therefore, no free and unrestricted
          right to express opinions about religious subjects. It is thus not a correct description of existing
          law when the article in Jyllands-Posten states that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of
          expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and one has to be ready to put
          up with “scorn, mockew and ridicule”.
          Observations
          128. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's additional responses and she
          encourages the Government to continue its efforts to increase mutual understanding and religious
          tolerance. She would like to refer to thejoint press statement with Doudou Diène (Special
          Rapporteur for contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related
          intolerance) and Ambeyi Ligabo (Special Rapporteur for the promotion and protection of the
          right to freedom of opinion and expression) on 8 February 2006. Furthermore, she would like to
          reiterate the conclusions and recommendations from the joint report with Doudou Diène
          (A/HRC/2/3, paras. 51-66) further to Human Rights Council decision 1/107 on incitement to
          racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance.
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 33
          Eritrea
          Urgent appeal sent on 7 December 2005 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          question of torture
          129. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received regarding Helen Berhane. aged 30, a prominent Christian singer. According to the
          allegations, on 13 Ma 2004, she was arrested during an operation led by the Ministry of
          Defence. She is allegedly being detained in a shipping container at the Mai Serwa military base.
          north of Asmara. The reasons for her detention are thought to be linked to her activities as a
          prominent Christian singer. She is being held incommunicado and has not been brought before a
          judge, despite the fact that the Eritrean Constitution requires that detainees be brought before a
          judge within 48 hours of being arrested. According to the information received, the Ministry of
          Defence has been placing pressure on her to sign a statement renouncing her faith and promising
          to cease her participation in any Christian activities in Eritrea.
          Observations
          130. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to take the opportunity
          to remind the Government of article 18(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
          Rights, which provides that “ [ nb one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his
          freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” Furthermore, the Special
          Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the
          international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Freedom from
          coercion” (see above para. 1, category I. 2). In her 2005 report to the General Assembly
          (A160/399, para. 50) she states that “ [ tihe fact that the prohibition of coercion was made explicit
          shows that the drafters of the Covenant found the freedom provided by paragraph 1 to be so
          significant that any form of coercion by the State was impermissible, independently of whether
          the coercion was physical or in the form of State-sponsored incentives. According to the Human
          Rights Committee: ‘Article 18.2 bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a
          religion or belief, including the use of threat of physical force or penal sanctions to compel
          believers or non-believers to adhere to their religious beliefs and congregations, to recant their
          religion or belief or to convert. Policies or practices having the same intention or effect, such as,
          for example, those restricting access to education, medical care, employment or the rights
          guaranteed by article 25 and other provisions of the Covenant, are similarly inconsistent with
          article 18.2' (general comment No. 22, para. 5).”
          Urgent appeal sent on 8 November 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question of
          torture
          131. The Special Rapporteurs and the Chairperson-Rapporteur received information
          concerning Immanuel Andegergesh and Kibrom Firemichael, ten other unidentified members
          of the Rema Church in Adi-Quala town, and one hundred and sixty unidentified members of
          banned Christian churches, including Kale Hiwot (Word of God) Church, the Full Gospel
          Church, the Church of the Living God and the Rema church in Mendefera town.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 34
          132. According to the allegations received, on 15 October 2006, 12 members of the Rema
          church were arrested in Adi-Quala town, south of Mendefera, for taking part in Christian worship
          in a private home. Two of them, Immanuel Andegergesh and Kibrom Firemichael, died in a
          nearby army camp as a result of torture to make them abandon their faith.
          133. On 15 and 16 October 2006, one hundred and sixty members of banned Christian
          churches were arrested at their homes in Mendefera town, 50 km south of the capital Asmara.
          The individuals are members of the Kale Hiwot (Word of God) Church, the Full Gospel Church,
          the Church of the Living God and the Rema Church. It is not known where they are detained and
          there are concerns that they may be subjected to torture and ill-treatment in an effort to force
          them to sign a document agreeing to stop worshipping.
          Observations
          134. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to take the opportunity
          to remind the Government of article 6 of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
          Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, according to which the right to
          freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief includes the freedom, “(a) To worship or
          assemble in connection with a religion or belief'. She also refers to her above mentioned
          observations concerning the urgent appeal sent on 7 December 2005.
          135. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to make reference to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. a). As she noted in
          her 2005 report to the Commission on Human Rights, “members of religious communities or
          communities of belief, whenever they find themselves in places of worship, are in a situation of
          special vulnerability given the nature of their activity. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the
          opinion that States should pay increased attention to attacks on places of worship and ensure that
          all perpetrators of such attacks are properly prosecuted and tried.” (E/CN.4/2005/61, para. 49).
          136. Finally, the Special Rapporteur hopes to receive a reply from the Government further to
          her letter sent in 2004 asking for an invitation to visit Eritrea to assess the situation of freedom of
          religion or belief
          France
          Communication envoyée le 2 octobre 2006
          137. La Rapporteuse spéciale a attire l'attention du Gouvernement français sur l'information
          reçue concernant le rapport de la MIVILUDES (Mission interministérielle de vigilance et de lufte
          contre les derives sectaires) pour l'année 2005, qui await cite, pour la premiere fois depuis sa
          creation, le mouvement protestant des Frères de Plymouth, sans meifre en wuvre des rnoyens de
          nature àjustifier les critiques émises publiquement a son encontre dans ledit rapport. A l'occasion
          de la publication dudit rapport, le président de la MIVILUDES aurait déclaré le 26 avril 2006, sur
          les ondes d'une station radiophonique publique nationale, que <>. S'agissant des Frères de
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 35
          Plymouth, ce haut fonctionnaire aurait ajouté <>.
          138. Or, les Frères de Plymouth auraient déjà rencontré, sur leur propre initiative. les 8 octobre
          2003 et 12 mai 2004. les responsables de la MIVILUDES et echange des correspondances a
          plusieurs reprises. De plus. selon les declarations publiques précitées. le travail de verification
          concernant ce mouvement protestant n'aurait pas été entrepris avant la publication du rapport les
          mettant en cause. Du fait d'une large diffusion de ce rapport officiel. les Frères de P1 's mouth
          feraient face a un certain nombre de difficultés. telles que le refus de contrat d'assurance
          concernant leurs biens et des articles de presse diffusant des mises en cause infamantes non
          vérifiées de la MIVILUDES.
          Réponse datée du 20 novembre 2006
          139. Le Gouvemement français a répondu que les objectifs de la MIVILUDES sont
          d'observer et d'analvser le phénomène des mouvements a caractère sectaire, dont les agissements
          sont attentatoires aux droits de l'homme et aux libertés fondamentales ou constituent une menace
          a l'ordre public ou sont contraires aux lois et règlements.
          140. Dans se cadre, la MIVILUDES a restreint sa mission de vigilance ala seule Union
          nationale des Frères de Plymouth de France (UNFPF) et a ses composants. Les extraits du
          rapport de 2005 de la MIVILUDES. sur lesquels la Rapporteuse spéciale a attire l'attention. ne
          concernent que les Frères de Ph mouth n°4 (FP n°4), appelés egalement les Frères exclusifs.
          Frères de Plymouth de la Voie étroite ou << les Purs >>. La MIVILUDES était préoccupée par les
          pratiques de scolarisation des enfants des familles membres de l'TJNFPF. D'abord,
          l'enseignement public était la règle pour la majorité des enfants des familles des FP n°4, ensuite
          un nombre croissant d'entre eux ont été inscrits au Centre national d'enseignement a distance.
          Ultérieurement. les FP n°4 ont décidé, en 2005. de créer une association privée d'enseignement a
          distance. apparemment exclusivement composée de leurs enfants, puis. enfin. d'ouvrir des locaux
          qu'ils ont acquis pour les dédier àl'activité d'enseignement.
          141. C'était le statut d'un local situé a Chambon-sur-Lignon (Haute-Loire) qui posait le
          principal problème a l'epoque. Ce local fonctionnait sur la base d'un enseignement par
          correspondance incomplet : non-enseignement de la biologie et non-pratique du sport. matières
          obligatoires dans l'enseignement français. ne respectant pas en cela les décrets d'application de
          laloi du 18 décembre 1998 tendant a renforcer le contrôle de l'obligation scolaire.
          142. Les interrogations de la MIVILUDES sont nées d'echanges entre administrations,
          notamment des signalements provenant des responsables de l'Education nationale, dans le cadre
          de plusieurs << cellules departementales de vigilance de lufte contre les derives sectaires >> en
          2003, 2004 et 2005. Ces observations ont été communiquées aux dirigeants de l'Union nationales
          des Frères de Plymouth de France a l'occasion de rendez-vous avec la MIVILUDES. Ils ont été
          reçus par l'ancien Secrétaire general et des conseillers de la Mission interministérielle, en 2003 et
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 36
          2004. Et its ont été egatement reçus en 2006 par te Président et ta Secrétaire générate de ta
          MIVILUDES.
          143. Depuis ta pubtication du rapport de 2005. te Ministère de t'éducation nationate a reconnu
          t'écote de Haute-Loire comme << un centre de regroupement >> d'enseignement par
          correspondance. et une inspection a permis de constater que tous tes enseignements étaient
          désormais dispenses. Le Gouvemement français remarque, toutefois, qu'it existe des
          interrogations simitaires a cettes sur t'écote de Haute-Loire portant sur tes acquisitions de
          nouveaux tocaux très vastes et destinés a ta même vocation de scotarisation. Lors de t'entretien
          de 2006. tes représentants de cefte communauté sont restés très évasifs sur teurs projets en cours.
          La MIVILUDES n'a pas eu connaissance de dépôt de ptainte.
          Observations
          144. La Rapporteuse spéciate remercie te Gouvemement français pour cefte réponse
          détaittée et pour ta teifre du 28 juittet 2006 concernant ta visite en France. effectuée en
          septembre 2005. La Rapporteuse spéciate voudrait faire référence a ta << ta tiberté
          d'adopter. de changer et de renoncer a une retigion ou une conviction>> (seton te
          t/ amei. t oik to! communications oir ci-dessus para 1 categorle I 1) et a son dernier
          rapport d'activité transmis au Conseit des droits de t'homme (A/HRC/4/21, para. 54) oü
          ette soutignait: << S'agissant des concepts de << retigion >> ou de << conviction >>, ta
          Rapporteuse spéciate a une vision targe de ta portée de ta tiberté de retigion ou de
          conviction. étant entendu que ta manifestation de cette tiberté peut être soumise aux
          restrictions prévues par ta toi. qui sont nécessaires pour protéger ta sécurité. t'ordre et ta
          sante pubtics ou ta morate ou tes droits et tes tibertés fondamentaux d'autmi. >>
          145. De ptus. ta Rapporteuse spéciate voudrait faire référence a ses conctusions et
          recommandations dans son rapport sur sa visite en France (E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4. paras.
          112 et 113): <>. En outre. << ette recommande au gouvernement de
          suivre de ptus près tes actions et campagnes de prevention qui sont menées dans tout te
          pays par des entités privées ou des organisations patronnées par t'Etat. notamment dans te
          système scotaire. afin d'éviter que tes enfants des membres de ces groupes n'en
          pâtissent. >>
          Georgia
          Communication sent on 2 December 2005
          146. The Speciat Rapporteur brought to the aftention of the Government of Georgia
          information she had received according to which state schoots are carrying out mandatory
          instruction in the Georgian Orthodox faith and requiring chitdren to pray in Georgian Orthodox
          churches. There is concern that parents have been unabte to gain exemption for their chitdren.
          Atthough the amendment to the Education Law in Aprit 2005. which banned such practices, has
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 37
          led to some improvement in this regard, there have been reports of children being baptised by
          Orthodox priests without the prior permission of their parents.
          Response from the Government sent on 16 March 2006
          147. The Government of Georgia informed that their Law on Education prohibits mandatory
          religious instmction. Nevertheless, the practice of compulsory teaching of Orthodox Christianity
          takes place at some state-financed schools. It has sometimes been alleged that children have been
          baptized by Orthodox priests without parental consent, but it should be stressed that the Ministry
          of Education and Sciences of Georgia has no official information about that.
          148. According to the National Education Plan of Georgia, the subject “Religion and Culture”
          is taught as an optional one at schools and it is not designed to teach a specific religion, but aims
          to introduce different religions and beliefs to the children. The Ministry of Education and
          Sciences of Georgia has no official data on studying a particular religion, but there is unofficial
          and indirect information about the existence of such practice at several schools.
          149. Regarding to legal measures, the Law on General Education of Georgia, adopted in April
          2005. protects the freedom of religion and belief among schoolchildren and restricts the
          propagation of any concrete religion, inter alia, by prohibiting classes aimed at learning religious
          rites and related items, as well as studying a specific religion at school time.
          150. With respect to the question concerning the registration requirement in order to be able to
          worship the Government informed that the legal background for that may be found in article
          1510 of the Civil Code of Georgia. That article provides the criteria for registration, which has to
          be done for all non-commercial and non-partisan legal persons. The documents to be presented
          are administrative documents. There is a fee to be paid after the presentation of the mentioned
          documents in the Georgian Civil Code. All religious groups in Georgia have to meet, on an equal
          basis, all the criteria provided in the Civil Code. It is the Ministry of Justice which responds to
          the applications. Article 31 of the Georgian Civil Code stipulates that a refusal from the Ministry
          of Justice must be well-grounded and can be appealed before the court.
          Observations
          151. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's detailed response. She would
          also like to take the opportunity to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically
          to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “The right of
          parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children” (see above para. 1, category
          I. 3. g). Furthermore, the previous mandate holder, Abdelfattah Amor, prepared a thematic study
          on “The role of religious education in the pursuit of tolerance and non-discrimination” (available
          online at hftp://www. unhchr. ch/htmlimenu2/7/b/cfedu-basicdoc.htm). In November 2001, the
          International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion
          or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination by consensus adopted a Final Document
          (E/CN.4/2002/73, Appendix). This Madrid Final Document may serve as useful guidance for
          educational policies aimed at strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights,
          eradicating prejudices and conceptions incompatible with freedom of religion or belief, and
          ensuring respect for and acceptance of pluralism and diversity in the field of religion or belief as
          well as the right not to receive religious instmction inconsistent with his or her conviction.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 38
          Germany
          Urgent appeal sent on 21 February 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
          contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
          and the Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants
          152. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received relating to a questionnaire introduced in the state of Baden-Wflrttemberg. The
          questionnaire is to be answered by citizens of the 57 member states of the Organization of the
          Islamic Conference (OIC) who apply for German citizenship. According to the information
          received, on 1 January 2006, the Ministry of the Interior of Baden-WUrttemberg introduced a
          questionnaire directed principally at Muslims who want to obtain German citizenship. They are
          required to fill out a 30-question questionnaire, concerning a number of issues including attitudes
          to equality between men and women, homosexuality and freedom of religion.
          153. The Special Rapporteurs were concerned that an obligation imposed only on the citizens
          of the 57 OIC member states could be discriminatory, especially considering the large Turkish
          community living in Germany. It was further reported that under the new legislation, those who
          pass the test can have their citizenship revoked if they are found guilty of acting in conflict with
          their responses to the questions.
          Response form the Government sent on 28 March 2006
          154. The following information was provided by the Government regarding the questionnaire
          introduced in the state of Baden-WUrttemberg. The naturalization of foreigners in Germany is
          carried out by the Lander as their own affair, as the Nationality Act (effective from 1 January
          2006) provides. One requirement of that Act is that persons who wish to become naturalized
          citizens must declare their allegiance to the principles of freedom and democracy enshrined in
          the Basic Law and that they are not and have not ever engaged in activities opposed to these
          principles or to the existence or security of the state.
          155. The Interior Ministry of Baden-WUrttemberg adopted a so-called “guide for conducting
          interviews” to examine applicants' compliance with this requirement. The naturalization
          authorities are supposed to use this guide only in case of doubt of an individual applicant's
          allegiance to the constitutional principles of freedom and democracy. There is no intent to make
          applicants answer all 30 questions provided in the mentioned guide. The authorities are free to
          choose the questions.
          156. The Interior Ministry clarified in a decree of 17 January 2006 that the questions from the
          interview guide were not intended only for use with Muslim applicants, but were to be used with
          all applicants for naturalization in case of doubts regarding their allegiance to the constitutional
          principles of freedom and democracy. Muslim applicants are, therefore, not treated differently
          from other applicants. The Ministry also stated that the naturalization authorities as a rule were
          not aware of the religious affiliation of applicants, due to the fact that the application form did
          not ask for this information. As a result, it would be impossible to target Muslim applicants for
          questioning. Although 60% of naturalized immigrants in Baden-WUrttemberg came from the
          OIC nations, in the majority of the cases, the authorities had no doubts about their allegiance to
          the freedom and democracy principles and did not ask them the questions using the interview
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 39
          guide. Furthermore, the Interior Ministry of Baden-WUrttemberg has announced that it will
          evaluate the use of the interview guide after six months and assess its practical effectiveness.
          157. So far, there has only been one complaint from an applicant for naturalization regarding
          the interview guide. This applicant refused to answer the questions posed by the naturalization
          authorities and according to the Interior Ministry of Baden-WUrttemberg this person's
          application for naturalization is to be rejected. The Ministry is not aware of any other complaints
          or rejected applications. Once a person has become a naturalized citizen, his or her citizenship
          may be revoked only if he or she wilfully deceived the authorities with regard to mafters relevant
          for naturalization. The possibility of this type of fraud is limited, as most of the questions taken
          from the interview guide are intended to elicit applicants' aftitudes and opinions. In any case,
          under Article 16 (1) of the Basic Law, no German may be deprived of his or her citizenship.
          Observations
          158. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's detailed response and she notes
          that Muslim applicants are not treated differently from other applicants for naturalization. The
          Special Rapporteur would also like to refer to her framework for communications, more
          specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning
          “Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief/inter-religious discriminationltolerance” (see
          above para. 1, category II. 1.).
          Guatemala
          Liamamiento urgente enviado el 20 de enero de 2006
          159. La Relatora Especial quiso llamar la atención urgente del Gobierno de Guatemala con
          respecto a la información que recibió en relación con el lugar para ceremonias maya Tulam Tzu.
          De acuerdo con la misma, el 27 de diciembre de 2005 se emprendió la construcción de
          condominios en el lugar sagrado maya Tulam Tzu, ubicado en la 40 a avenida, final del Naranjo,
          Zona Cuatro de Mixto, Guatemala. La Conferencia Nacional de Ministros de la Espiritualidad
          Maya de Guatemala Oxlajuj Ajpop utiliza este lugar para practicar sus rituales espirituales y
          tradicionales. Oxlajuj Ajpop ha demandado al Ministro de Cultura y Deportes y al alcalde del
          municipio de Mixto evitar la constmcción, la cual, si continiia, podrIa traer como consecuencia la
          destrucción (parcial o total) de este lugar sagrado maya.
          Respuesta del Gobierno enviada el 4 de abril de 2006
          160. El gobierno informa de que la Constitución PolItica de la Repiiblica de Guatemala
          reconoce el ejercicio de todas las religiones o creencias, tanto en pi iblico como en privado, por
          medio de la enseflanza o culto, sin más lImites que el orden piThlico. Asimismo, Guatemala ha
          ratificado el Convenio N.° 169 de la Organizacion Internacional del Trabajo (OTT) sobre pueblos
          indIgenas y tribales en palses independientes, de 1989, por decreto legislativo de 5 de junio de
          1996, en el cual el Estado se compromete a reconocer y proteger los valores y prácticas sociales,
          culturales y espirituales propias de los pueblos mayas y demás pueblos.
          161. Durante los aflos 1989, 1991, 1997 y 2000 los pueblos indIgenas solicitaron ante el
          Instituto de Antropologla la no constmcción en el sitio sagrado Tulam Tzu. En 1997 se logro
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 40
          detener la construcción. Con fecha de 27 de diciembre de 2005 se iniciaron de nuevo los trabajos
          de constmcción en la zona mencionada.
          162. Anteriormente, con fecha de 12 de febrero de 1990, la Dirección del Instituto de
          Antropologla emitió una resolución ministerial en la que decidió dos cosas: establecer una zona
          (montIculos I. TI v III) como area de protección de reserva e intocable. bajo la supervision del
          Instituto de Antropologla e Historia de Guatemala, v liberar el resto del terreno ubicado en el
          sitio conocido como Rosario Naranjo ala familia Avcinena Ochoa. En 1995 se anotó en el
          Registro General de la Propiedad la delimitación de los montIculos. Enjunio v en julio de 2005
          se solicitó v realizó la delimitación de dichos montIculos. El 6 de febrero de 2006 estos tres
          montIculos fueron declarados Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación v lugar sagrado, a través del
          Acuerdo Ministerial 48-2006.
          163. El 30 de diciembre de 2005 la ConferenciaNacional de Ministros de la Espiritualidad
          Maya de Guatemala denuncia piThlicamente ala empresa LEXUSA S.A., que habla iniciado, en
          fecha de 25 de diciembre de 2005. actividades de construcción en el area Tulam Tzu, reconocida
          como lugar arqueologico. La misma Conferencia presentó varias quejas al Gobiemo. Sin
          embargo. el Ministerio de Cultura v Deportes no pudo admitir a trámite la solicitud de la
          Conferencia Nacional de Ministros de la Espiritualidad Maya por tres razones: a) porque nunca
          se habla dado autorización para la realización de los trabajos de constmcción. b) porque la
          resolución que ampara la autorización v liberalización del area es del aflo 1990 v a dIa de hov es
          firme, puesto que no cabe recurso administrativo alguno. y c) porque el inmueble en que se
          encuentra el lugar sagrado v arqueologico denominado “Tulam Tzu” es propiedad privada. como
          consta en los registros respectivos.
          164. El Ministro de Cultura solicitó apovo de la Defensorla Legal IndIgena de la Procuradurla
          de los Derechos Humanos con tal de buscar una solución al problema por otras vIas.
          Lamentablemente. no hubo resultados positivos.
          165. Actualmente. el conflicto se está intentado solucionar en la Fiscalla de Delitos contra el
          Patrimonio Cultural de la Nación. del Ministerio Pithlico. A su vez. la Comisión Nacional Contra
          la Discriminación y Racismo. y el Consejo Asesor de Pueblos IndIgenas de la Presidencia de la
          Repithlica también están tratando el caso. Otras instancias como la Comisión Nacional de los
          Acuerdos de Paz. el Congreso de la Repithlica v la Secretarla de la Paz se encuentran también
          analizando la problemática.
          166. El Gobierno de Guatemala desea manifestar que las debidas diligencias con respecto al
          caso va se están tramitando ante las autoridades competentes e informan de que pondrán al
          alcance de la Relatora Especial cualquier avance en los procesos mencionados anteriormente.
          Observaciones
          167. La Relatora Especial agradece la respuesta detallada que el Gobierno de
          Guatemala ha enviado /T felicita a éste por haber ratificado el Convenio N.° 169 de la OTT.
          Le gustarla hacer referencia a su clasificación de comunicaciones, concretamente a las
          normas internacionales sobre derechos humanos y la práctica realizada por el mandato
          con respecto abs “lugares de culto” (ver párrafo 1. categorIa I. 3. b). Además. estarla
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 41
          muv agradecida de recibir, tat v como indica ta respuesta det Gobiemo de Guatemata, ta
          información sobre tos procesos mencionados que se están ttevando a cabo.
          Gain ea-Bissau
          Communication envoyée le 19 décembre 2005
          168. La Rapporteuse spéciate attire t'attention du gouvernement de ta Guinée-Bissau sur ta
          question de ta communauté ahmadivva. qui est un groupe retigieux. Seton tes informations
          reçues. te 14 octobre 2005. Atadje Abdu Baio. président du Conseit nationat istamique. aurait fait
          appet aux autorités de ta Guinée-Bissau afin qu'ettes exputsent ta communauté ahmadivva du
          pays. En aoüt 2001. tes missionnaires pakistanais de ta communauté ahmadivva avaient déjà été
          exputsés par te président KumbaYata. tequet avait accuse ta communauté d'interférer dans tes
          affaires potitiques et de provoquer ta division au sein des musutmans. Cette exputsion fut suivie
          d'une decision du ministère pubtic de confisquer t'ensembte des biens de ta communauté et d'un
          ordre de fermeture de teurs mosquées. Le 7 janvier 2005. te ministère pubtic déctara tes deux
          précédentes decisions ittégates et donna ta permission a ta communauté de recommencer ses
          activités. Le 7 mars 2005. M. Cartos Gomez Jnr, premier ministre. décida de suspendre tes
          activités de ta communauté dans t'attente d'une decision d'une commission d'enquete sur cefte
          affaire. Seton tes informations reçues. cefte commission n'aurait pas encore été mise en ptace.
          Observations
          169. La Rapporteuse spéciate regrefte que te Gouvemement de ta Guinée-Bissau n'ait pas
          répondu a sa communication. envovée te 19 décembre 2005. Ette voudrait faire référence aux
          << minorites retigieuses >> (seton te ti aine w oik to! communications oir ci-dessus para 1
          catégorie III. 5.) et a son demier rapport d'activité transmis au Conseit des droits de t'homme
          (A/HRC/4/21. para. 43) : >
          India
          Communication sent on 13 June 2006
          170. The Speciat Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
          received concerning the Freedom of Religion bill in Rajasthan. According to the attegations.
          the Raj asthan Partiament has recenttv approved the ‘Raj asthan Dharma Swatantrava Bitt'
          (Rajasthan Freedom of Retigion Bitt). The aim of this bitt, according to the ‘Statement of Objects
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 42
          and Reasons', is to prevent “unlawful conversion” which “at times has caused annoyance in the
          community belonging to other religions”. Additionally such “unlawful conversions” would cause
          a “law and order problem for the law enforcing machinery of the State.”
          171. The new legislation specifies that those found guilty of converting or aftempting to
          convert someone through allurement or forceful or fraudulent means, could face a minimum
          prison term of two years or a fine which may extend to 50.000 Indian rupees (approximately US
          $ 1.125). The Governor of Rajasthan has refused to sign the bill on 18 Ma 2006.
          Observations
          172. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. The Special Rapporteur urges the
          Government to ensure compliance with article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
          which clearly states that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion “includes
          freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others,
          and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practise, worship and
          observance”. Moreover, she reminds the Government that she is still awaiting a reply to her
          request to visit the country.
          173. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Teaching and disseminating materials, including missionary activity” (see
          above para. 1, category I. 3. . In her 2005 report to the General Assembly, she noted the
          following (see A/60/399, para. 62): “Whereas the scope of freedom afforded to persons for the
          practice of their religion or belief by producing and distributing information about their religion
          or belief is wide, certain limitations can be imposed in accordance with article 18, paragraph 3, of
          the Covenant. However, it should be noted that this article allows for restrictions only in very
          exceptional cases. In particular the fact that it mentions the protection of “tiindctmentc,1 rights and
          freedoms” (emphasis added) of others as a ground for restriction indicates a stronger protection
          than for some other rights whose limitation clauses refer simply to the “rights and freedoms of
          others” (e.g. article 12, 21 and 22). It could indeed be argued that the freedom of religion or
          belief of others can be regarded as such a fundamental right and freedom and would justify
          limitations to missionary activities, but the freedom of religion and belief of adults basically is a
          question of individual choice, so any generalized State limitation (e.g. by law) conceived to
          protect “others” freedom of religion and belief by limiting the right of individuals to conduct
          missionary activities should be avoided.”
          Indonesia
          Urgent appeal sent on 19 January 2006
          174. The Special Rapporteur was concerned about Ms. Lia Aminuddin, leader of the Eden
          Community. According to the allegations, on 28 December 2005, a group of Muslims surrounded
          the Eden Community ‘s premises on Jl. Mahoni, Jakarta, and threatened to burn it down. In
          response, the Jakarta police took Ms. Aminuddin and her followers into custody under the pretext
          of protecting them. Ms. Aminuddin was later formally charged with blasphemy. The other
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 43
          members of the Eden Community were released. Ms. Aminuddin is reportedly still detained at
          Jakarta police station. The Eden community has been forced to stop its religious activities.
          Observations
          175. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1. category I. 3. a) and
          “Places of worship” (category I. 3. b). As she noted in her 2005 report to the Commission on
          Human Rights. “members of religious communities or communities of belief, whenever they find
          themselves in places of worship, are in a situation of special vulnerability given the nature of
          their activity. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that States should pay increased
          attention to attacks on places of worship and ensure that all perpetrators of such attacks are
          properly prosecuted and tried.” (E/CN.4/2005/61. para. 49).
          176. The Special Rapporteur would also like to take this opportuni to insist on receiving an
          invitation from the Government to visit Indonesia to assess the situation of freedom of religion or
          belief As she underlined in her previous reports, the Government has been reminded of this
          request for an invitation on many occasions since 1996.
          Islamic Republic of Iran
          Communication sent on 7 December 2005 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
          177. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received concerning the statement made by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati about non-Muslims and
          Kurosh Niknam, a parliamentarian and member of the Zoroastrian religious minority. According
          to the allegations, on 20 November 2005, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati was reported as describing
          non-Muslims as sinful animals at a ceremony in north-eastern Iran. In response to the comments,
          Kurosh Niknam described the remarks as “an unprecedented slur against religious minorities.”
          As a result, he has been charged with slander and summoned to appear before the Revolutionary
          Tribunal.
          Response from the Government dated 4 January 2006
          178. The Government informed that article 4 of the Law on Establishment of Public and
          Revolutionary Courts stipulates that Revolutionary Courts have no jurisdiction in legal cases
          involving members of the Parliament. These cases fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the
          Criminal Courts. The allegation on summoning Mr. Nikman has been put forward to the Office
          of Public Prosecutor of Government employees and they have found no legal record of the
          alleged case.
          Observations
          179. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. She would like to
          make reference to her predecessor's report on his visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran in
          December 1995 (E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.2, para. 96): “Concerning religious publications and, in
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 44
          general. all publications issued by minorities, the Special Rapporteur endorses the
          recommendations of Mr. Abid Hussain, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and
          expression, who considers that: “Any prior restraint on freedom of expression carries with it a
          heavy presumption of invalidity under international human rights law. An institutionalization of
          such restraint adds further weight to this presumption. In his opinion, the protection of the right
          of freedom of opinion and expression and the right to seek, receive and impart information would
          be better served, not by routinely submitting specific types of expression to prior scmtiny, as is
          currently the case, but rather by initiating action after publication, if and when required”
          (E/CN. 4/1996/39/Add. 1, para. 40).”
          180. The Special Rapporteur reminds the Government that she would like to visit the country
          to analyze the progress that has been made further to her predecessor's visit and
          recommendations. Bearing in mind that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has
          issued a standing invitation to the Special Procedures assumed by the Human Rights Council and
          that it had extended an invitation to her predecessor, the Special Rapporteur reiterates that she
          would be grateful to receive dates on which she could conduct a follow-up visit.
          Urgent appeal sent on 16 February 2006
          181. The Special Rapporteur received information that on 29 October 2005, the Chairman of
          the Command Headquarters of the Armed Forces addressed a letter to a number of Governmental
          agencies, including the Ministry of Information, the Commander of the Revolutionary Guard, the
          Commander of the Basij Resistance Forces of the Revolutionary Guard, the Commander of the
          Police Force and the Deputy of its Intelligence Branch and the Chief Commander of the Army.
          The letter, which is stamped “highly confidential” and “urgent/immediate”, states that on the
          basis of the instructions of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, the Command
          Headquarters of the Armed Forces “has been given the mission to acquire a comprehensive and
          complete report of all the activities of members of the Bahá'I Faith [ ... I for the purpose of
          identifying all the individuals”. The letter asks the recipients “to, in a highly confidential manner,
          collect any and all information about the above-mentioned activities of these individuals”.
          182. There is particular concern as this letter comes at a time of an increasing media campaign
          against members of the Bahá'I faith, with a series of radio programmes and articles reportedly
          provoking mistrust of, and hostility towards, members of the Bahá'I faith. Furthermore, the
          Special Rapporteur has received reports that Bahá'I households have begun to receive notes,
          CDs, tracts and text messages on their mobile phones, all of which are aimed at refuting the
          claims of the Bahá'I Faith. The Special Rapporteur has also received reports that the Iranian
          Association of Chambers of Commerce (Ettehadiyeye Asnctf) is compiling a list of Bahá'Is in
          every type of trade and employment. All these events coincide with the re-emergence of the
          Hojjcttieh society, which has the explicit goal of eradicating the Bahá'I Faith.
          183. On 20 March 2006, the Special Rapporteur issued a press release concerning these
          allegations. The Special Rapporteur indicated that she is “apprehensive about the initiative to
          monitor the activities of individuals merely because they adhere to a religion that differs from the
          state religion. She considers that such monitoring constitutes an impermissible and unacceptable
          interference with the rights of members of religious minorities. She also expresses concern that
          the information gained as a result of such monitoring will be used as a basis for the increased
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 45
          persecution of, and discrimination against, members of the Bahá'I faith, in violation of
          international standards.”
          Response from the Government dated 28 March 2006
          184. The third chapter of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is entitled
          “Rights of the people”, assures equal rights to all the people of Iran and equal protection in front
          of the law. There are many religions that have been recognized as “official religions” of the state.
          However, Bahá'Ism is not an official religion in Iran. The Government maintains that its
          authorities provide assistance to the Bahá'I followers to perform their religious 19-days-apart
          worship, that “they enjoy their normal social rights to a large extent”, and that they have their
          own cemeteries as well as schools based on their belief
          185. With respect to the press release dated 20 March 2006, the Government deeply regrets
          “that the Special Rapporteur has downgraded her mandate to that of an irresponsible NGO,
          stripped off the status of a highly respectful and accountable official of the United Nations. It
          would have been fairer and much reasonable for the Special Rapporteur if she had waited for a
          reply from the Iranian officials on the issue. That would have made her judgment more reliable.
          Illegal activities of some members of the Bahá'I community in Iran resulting in legal cases in the
          courts has motivated extremists Bahá'I associations in Iran to resort to unfounded,
          unsubstantiated and politically motivated allegations on the situation of the Bahá'I community in
          Iran. So called ‘highly classified' lefter is a clear manifestation of this approach.”
          Observations
          186. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. However, she firmly
          rejects the Government's reproaches concerning her press release and the Special Rapporteur
          would have preferred to receive a more substantiated response concerning the concrete
          allegations in question. The Special Rapporteur carries out a close and detailed assessment of the
          information in order to ensure that the situations or cases that are transmitted to Governments
          have a very high level of reliability. Furthermore, she would like to ask the Government of the
          Islamic Republic of Iran for clarification of its statement quoted above that Bahá'I followers
          “enjoy their normal social rights to a large extent” (emphasis added). The Special Rapporteur
          would like to emphasize again that the fact that a religion is recognized as a state religion must
          not result in any discrimination against adherents to other religions. The Special Rapporteur calls
          on the Government of Iran to refrain from categorizing individuals according to their religion and
          to ensure that members of all religious minorities are free to hold and practise their religious
          beliefs, without discrimination or fear.
          Urgent appeal sent on 1 March 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary
          forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Special
          Rapporteur on the Independence of judges and lawyers, the Independent Expert on
          Minority Issues, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to
          freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture
          187. The Special Rapporteurs received information regarding 173 members of the
          Nematollah Sufi Muslim community. They were arrested on 13 Febmary 2006 due to their
          participation in a peaceful protest, which was reportedly violently suppressed by the security
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 46
          forces and members of the Hojatieh and Fatemiyon pro-Government groups. The protest was
          being held against an order by the security forces to evacuate the community's place of worship,
          known as Hosseiniye. The 173 individuals are reportedly being interrogated at Fajr prison in
          Qom and there are concerns that they are being tortured in order to force them to sign pre-
          prepared false confessions, stating that the protest had political motivations and was linked to
          anti-Government groups. The relatives of the detainees have been unable to obtain official
          information about their whereabouts and the detainees have not had access to lawyers. According
          to the information received, lawyer Bahman Nazari was arrested when he approached officials in
          an aftempt to represent the detainees.
          188. The protest began on 9 Febmary 2006. On 13 February 2006, there were hundreds of
          protesters present in and around the Hosseiniye. At about 3 p.m. the security forces set a deadline
          for the protesters to evacuate the Hosseiniye. Members of the Fatemiyon and Hojatieh groups
          also reportedly surrounded the place of worship, shouting slogans such as “Death to Sufis” and
          “Sufi-ism is a British plot”, and distributed leaflets alleging that Sufis are enemies of Islam. The
          security forces moved in at about 4 p.m. and stormed the building using tear gas and explosives.
          They beat many of the protesters. The next day the Hosseiniye was demolished using bulldozers.
          Approximately 1,200 protesters were arrested and taken away on buses to unknown locations.
          The detainees were interrogated and according to the information received, many were subjected
          to torture or ill4reatment. Most of them were subsequently released. However, 173 are still being
          held. According to the information received, those that were released were required to sign
          papers as a condition of their release agreeing not to attend any Sufi gatherings in Qom. Some
          were reportedly required to sign documents renouncing Sufism.
          189. Arrest warrants have reportedly been issued for the main Sufi preacher in Qom, S eyed
          Ahmadi Shariati and the four lawyers who had previously been acting on behalf of the group.
          This incident occurs amid concerns about an increasing demonisation of the Sufi Muslim group.
          In September 2005, a religious jurist in Qom called for a crackdown on Sufi groups in Qom.
          Some people were reportedly required to sign documents renouncing Sufism.
          Observations
          190. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a response from the Government
          with regard to these allegations. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer the
          Government to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human
          rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Discrimination on the basis of religion or
          belief/inter-religious discriminationltolerance” (see above para. 1, category II. 1.).
          Urgent appeal sent on 22 May 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on contemporary
          forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, the Special
          Rapporteur on the Independence of judges and lawyers, the Chairperson-Rapporteur of
          the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and
          protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the Special Rapporteur on
          the question of torture
          191. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received concerning fifty-two members of the Nematollahi Sufi community and two lawyers who
          represent the group. They have been sentenced to one year's imprisonment, a fine, and are to be
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 47
          flogged. They were among the 173 members of the community arrested on 13 Febmarv 2006
          after police and organized pro-Government groups broke up their peaceful protest.
          192. On 3 May. the General Criminal Court in Qom convicted 52 members of the Nematollahi
          Sufi community and their lawyers Farshad Yadollahi and Omid Behroozi, on the charges of
          ‘disobeying the orders of Government officials' and ‘disturbing public order'. For the first
          charge, 25 individuals deemed to have a more “active” role in the incident were fined 10 million
          Iranian Rials (more than US$ 1,000), and the remaining individuals were fined S million Iranian
          Rials (more than US$ 500). For conviction on the second charge they were sentenced to one
          year's imprisonment and to 74 lashes. After their release from prison they will be required to
          present themselves to local security officials every month for two years. In addition, lawyers
          Farshad Yadollahi and Omid Behroozi were disqualified from the legal profession for 5 years.
          193. According to the court verdict, some of those detained ‘confessed' to the charges against
          them. It is not known under what circumstances these confessions were made. All were given 20
          days to appeal the judgement and are currently free on bail. By the beginning of March, almost
          all of the other members of the group who were arrested at the protest had been released. It is not
          known whether any of these will face formal charges at a later stage. It is believed that many
          have had cases opened against them. In April, the main preacher for the Nematollahi Sufi group
          in Qom, Se ed Ahmadi Shariat, was detained and charged with ‘disobeying the orders of
          Government officials' and ‘disturbing public order'. He was released on bail pending trial.
          Observations
          194. The Special Rapporteur regrets that she has not received a response from the Government
          with regard to these allegations. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief/inter-religious
          discriminationltolerance” (see above para. 1, category II. 1.).
          Urgent appeal sent on 9 June 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
          195. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
          information they received regarding the arrest and continued detention of three members of the
          Bahá'I community in the city of Shiraz. According to the allegations, on 19 May 2006, Ms.
          Haleh Roohi, Ms. Raha Sabet and Mr. Sassan Taqva were arrested together with 51 other
          Bahá'I in the city of Shiraz. The arrested Bahá'I were involved in community work, with a local
          non-Governmental organization, at the time of their arrest. They were in possession of a lefter of
          permission of the Islamic Council in Shiraz for this work.
          196. On 20 May 2006, the judge in charge of all cases stated that most of the detainees would
          be released soon. This was confirmed by an official at the Ministry of Information in Shiraz who
          informed a family-member that the detainees would be released within 48 hours. None of the
          persons arrested have been formally charged with an offence. 51 Bahá'I have since been released
          but Ms. Haleh Roohi, Ms. Raha Sabet and Mr. Sassan Taqva remain detained.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 48
          Communication sent on 13 June 2006 jointly with the Independent Expert on Minority
          Issues
          197. The Special Rapporteur and the Independent expert received information concerning the
          arrest of 54 members of the Bahá'i community in the city of Shiraz and other incidents
          concerning the Bahá'I community.
          198. On 19 May 2006, 54 Bahá'I were arrested in Shiraz. The arrested Bahá'I were involved in
          community work, with a local non-Governmental organisation, at the time of their arrest. They
          were in possession of a letter of permission of the Islamic Council in Shiraz for this work. A
          number of non-Bahá'I volunteers who were involved in the community service were also arrested
          but released on the same day, without having to post bail. A 15-year old Bahá'I was released
          immediately too.
          199. On 20 May 2006 the judge in charge of all these cases, stated that most of the detainees
          would be released soon. This was confirmed by an official by the Ministry of Information in
          Shiraz, who informed a family-member that the detainees would be released within 48 hours.
          Afterwards, on 24 May 2006, 14 Bahá'I were released but only after they posted the deed of
          property of their house as bail to meet the amount of 10 million tuman (approximately US $
          11,000) set as bail. On 25 May 2006, a further 36 Bahá'I were released after they personally
          guaranteed they would appear in Court when summoned or deposited work licenses as a surety.
          Three Bahá'I remain detained and there is no indication when they will be released. None of the
          detainees were formally charged. The houses of 6 of the 52 detainees were also raided and
          notebooks, computers and (in one case) books and documents were confiscated.
          200. In addition, on 15 January 2006, 3 members of the Bahá'I community were arrested in
          Kermanshah. One of them was told that he attracted “non-Bahá'I to the Bahá'I faith”. On the
          same day the rooms of these individuals were raided during which books, documents and various
          other items were taken. Mr. U' place of work was also searched. The homes of four other Bahá'I
          were searched on the same day and books, documents and other items were taken.
          201. In one of the Court documents pertaining to Ms. H. it is stated that she is charged with
          “teaching the Bahá'Ism sect and acting in an insulting manner towards all that is holy in Islam”.
          Mr. U was told in Court that his crime was apostasy, which is punishable by death, but had been
          reduced to involvement in Bahá'I activities and insulting Islam. They were released on 21
          January 2006 and are awaiting trial at the Revolutionary Court.
          202. It is reported that Ms. H. wrote a letter to a family member regarding her arrest, in which
          she informs that her interrogations lasted eight hours and focused on the religious instruction she
          was involved in and her role as a coordinator of this teaching programme. She was allegedly also
          asked to give information about the Bahá'I faith and its administrative order, as well as to give
          details about her father and six other Bahá'I who had been killed in 1981.
          203. On S Febmary 2006, three active members of the Bahá'I community in Isfahan were
          allegedly arrested. They have since been released. Finally, from 9 to 11 May 2006, 11 Bahá'I
          homes were allegedly raided in Villashahr, Shahinshahr, Najafabad and Kashan. Books and
          computers were confiscated, but no one was arrested.
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 49
          Response from the Government dated 20 July 2006 to both the urgent appeal dated 9 June
          2006 and the communication dated 13 June 2006
          204. The Government indicated that, according to information received from the Judiciary of
          the Islamic Republic of Iran. a group of 64 individuals had attempted to pass as representatives of
          Governmental cultural organizations such as the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of
          Islamic Guidance, or even as people from different NGOs. such as Nonahalan Emrooz (NGO for
          children). Koodakan Donva (Association of Protection of the Rights of the Child) and people
          from Shiraz Municipality Council.
          205. Legal action was taken by a number of these organizations against this group. A large
          number of these 64 individuals are not Bahá'Is. so the action based on belief has been denied.
          After legal investigations. 61 persons have released 51 of them based on bail. The three
          remaining were eventually in custody for further investigations and finally released on bail. It has
          been claimed that their activities were done in the context of UNICEF's training programmes in
          Shiraz. This was denied by the UNICEF Office in Teheran.
          Observations
          206. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response and she would like to
          refer to her earlier observations concerning the urgent appeal sent on 16 February 2006 also
          regarding the situation of Bahá'I followers in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
          Kazakhstan
          Urgent appeal sent on 9 December 2005 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the question
          of torture
          207. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received regarding an unknown number of Uzbek asylum seekers, including Abdurakhman
          Ibragimov. Tohirjon Abdusamatov. Shoimat Shorakhmedov. who were registered asylum-
          seekers. Alisher Mirzakholov. Abdurauf Kholmuratov. Alijon Mirganiev. Farkhod Islamov
          and possibly Rukhiddin Fakhrutdinov. a former imam from Tashkent. According to the
          information received. they were arrested in southern Kazakhstan starting from 23 November
          2005. Their whereabouts are not known. All of them are wanted by Uzbek authorities on charges
          of “religious extremism.” Concern is expressed that these persons may be at risk of torture or ill-
          treatment if they are returned to Uzbekistan.
          208. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur on torture received information concerning 10
          persons, including Nozim Rakhmonov. an asylum-seeker who had registered his application
          with UNHCR. Azomodin Kosimjonov and Sharafutdin Latipov. According to the information
          received, they were arrested by Kazakhstani authorities on 28 November 2005 in Shymkent. and
          handed over to the Uzbek authorities at the border between the two countries later that same
          night. They are now in the custody of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Tashkent. No judicial
          review of the cases had taken place before the return.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 50
          Response from the Government dated 15 December 2005
          209. The Permanent Mission of the Republic of Kazakhstan informed that the Ministry of
          Foreign Affairs is not in a position to confirm the accuracy of the alleged facts, due to the
          absence of the initial information about the presence of the mentioned citizens of Uzbekistan in
          the territory of Kazakhstan seeking asylum in the UNHCR Office in Kazakhstan. Nevertheless,
          the Ministry, in cooperation with law enforcement bodies of Kazakhstan, will undertake
          measures to verify the facts. Furthermore, the Government mentions that the Ministry has not
          received any complaints of the alleged victims.
          Observations
          210. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response and she would like to
          refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights
          norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Freedom of expression including questions
          related to religious conflicts, religious intolerance and extremism” (see above para. 1, category
          IV. 1.).
          Urgent appeal sent on 4 July 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working
          Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture
          211. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
          information they had received regarding Mr. Temirbaev Gabdurafih, a citizen of Uzbekistan
          living in Kazakhstan as a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention, who is reportedly at risk
          of being returned to Uzbekistan. According to the information received, Mr. Gabdurafih fled
          Uzbekistan in 1999 and has been living in Kazakhstan with his family for seven years. In June
          2006, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) recognized that Mr.
          Gabdurafih was at risk of persecution in his home country because of his practice of Islam
          outside of the state-run mosque system in Uzbekistan. This procedure included a confirmation
          from the Government of Kazakhstan that no criminal charges had been filed against him.
          212. On 24 June 2006, however, security forces arrested Mr. Gabdurafih in Almaty, and he is
          currently in the custody of the Government of Kazakhstan. The arrest took place upon request of
          the Government of Uzbekistan. UNHCR has asked for access to Mr. Gabdurafih, but so far it has
          not been granted, nor has UN}TTCR been provided with any information on the reasons for the
          arrest and further procedure, apart from being told that an “internal investigation” of the case was
          in course. Mr. Gabdurafih appears to have been told that the Government of Kazakhstan would
          decide on whether to deport him within 10 days.
          Observations
          213. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a response from the
          Government and she would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically
          to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Discrimination
          on the basis of religion or belief/inter-religious discrimination/tolerance” (see above para. 1,
          category II. 1.).
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 51
          Kyrgyzstan
          Communication sent on 1 September 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on Human
          Rights and counter terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
          arbitrary executions
          214. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information
          concerning the case of Mr. Mohammadrafiq Kamoluddin, imam of a mosque in the city of
          Kara-Suu. Mr. Ayubkhodja Shahobidinov and Mr. Fathullo Rahimov. According to
          information received, on 6 August 2006, the above-mentioned individuals were killed in the city
          of Osh as the result of an alleged counter-terrorism operation, led by the National Security
          Service of Kvrgvzstan. in cooperation with the security forces of Uzbekistan. It has been reported
          that these individuals were suspected members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and were
          planning to carry out a terrorist attack on the territory of the State of Uzbekistan. Other reports
          highlight that it was not alleged that Mr. Mohammadrafiq Kamoluddin was a member of the
          Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or that he was involved in the commission of terrorist acts.
          Observations
          215. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a response from the
          Government and she would be grateful if the Government indicated the legal basis for
          designating an individual or an entity as “terrorist” as well as the consequences of such
          qualification under the law of Kvrgvzstan. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to
          refer to her most recent annual report to the Human Rights Council where she also covers the
          issue of “Violations linked to counter-terrorism measures” (AIHRC/4/21. para. 40): “The Special
          Rapporteur is conscious of the fact that the States' obligation to protect and promote human
          rights requires them to take effective measures to combat terrorism. However, she would like to
          underline that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their
          obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and
          humanitarian law.”
          216. The Special Rapporteur also hopes to receive a reply from the Government further to her
          letter sent in 2004 asking for an invitation to visit Kvrgvzstan to assess the situation of freedom
          of religion or belief
          Malaysia
          Urgent appeal sent on 22 December 2005
          217. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
          received regarding Mr. Everest Moorthy. According to the allegation received. Mr. Everest
          Moorthv is scheduled to be buried on 23 December 2005 according to Islamic religious rites
          because he allegedly converted to Islam a few weeks before he died. However, it is also reported
          that the family of the deceased is opposing such funerals because they contest the genuineness of
          the conversion. They, inter alia. claim that they were not informed of the conversion by the
          deceased himself although they had been continually in contact with him before he died.
          Moreover, the conversion of Mr. Everest Moorthy did allegedly not take place under the usual
          procedure. It is also reported that while the case has been brought to the High Court of Malaysia
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 52
          to determine the genuineness of the conversion, its first hearing would only take place on 29
          December 2005 without having staved the funerals.
          Observations
          218. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a response from the
          Government and she would be grateful if the Government provided details of any judicial and
          other inquiries carried out in relation to this case.
          Communication sent on 18 July 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion
          and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
          219. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the aftention of the Government information
          concerning the allegation that the Internal Security Ministry of Malaysia has banned over the last
          month eighteen books, mainly devoted to the study of inter-religious mafters. on the grounds that
          they could have ‘disrupted peace and harmony'. Twelve of these books were printed in English
          and the rest in Malay. The books have been banned under the Printing Presses and Publications
          Act 1984 section 9(1), by which the Internal Security Ministry of Malaysia may forbid any
          publication, article, caricature, photograph, report. notes, writing. sound. music, statement or any
          other expression which it considers:
          (a) To be prejudicial to public order, morality, security, the relationship with any other
          country;
          (b) To alarm public opinion or be contrary to any law: or
          (c) Is otherwise prejudicial to public interest or national interest.
          220. The ban was enforced despite the recent approval, by the Malaysian Government, of the
          Media Council Bill (2006) which seeks to ameliorate the most restrictive provisions included in
          the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984. It was also reported that more than forty-five
          books have been banned by the Malaysian authorities since 2003.
          Observations
          221. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a response from the
          Government and she would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically
          to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Freedom of
          expression including questions related to religious conflicts, religious intolerance and
          extremism” (see above para. 1, category IV. 1.). Moreover, she reminds the Government that she
          is still awaiting a reply to her request to visit the country.
          Urgent appeal sent on 23 August 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Representative of the Secretary-
          General on the situation of human rights defend ers
          222. The Special Procedures mandate holders brought to the attention of the Government
          information they had received concerning Mr. Malik Imtiaz Sarwar. one of two lawyers
          currently representing Ms. Lina Joy, in the Federal Court of Malaysia. Ms. Joy is a Malay
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 53
          woman who has renounced her Muslim faith and embraced Christianity, and the court
          proceedings are concerned with whether she can renounce Islam and has the right to have the
          religious affiliation on her identity card deleted.
          223. According to the information received, Malik Imtiaz is the subject of death threats by
          an unknown group, which openly calls for the death of Mr. Imtiaz because of his role as a lawyer
          in the Lina Joy court case. Such threats include posters, titled “Wanted Dead”, which describes
          Mr. Imtiaz Sarwar as a betrayer of Islam for his involvement in the Lina Joy court case and an
          email message circulating on the Internet offers a monetary reward to anyone willing to kill him.
          Concern is expressed that such threats are linked to the lawful professional activity of Mr. Imtiaz
          Sarwar as a lawyer and may represent an attempt to intimidate lawyers who take on cases in
          defence of right to freedom of religion or belief
          Observations
          224. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that the Government has not responded to her
          communication dated 23 August 2006 and she is still waiting for a substantive response to the
          related communication sent on 12 October 2005 concerning the case of Ms. Lina Joy (see
          E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1, paras. 246-248). She would like to remind the Government that paragraph
          9 of General Comment 22 of the Human Rights Committee states that, “the fact that a religion is
          recognized as a state religion or that it established as official or traditional or that its followers
          comprise the majority of the population, shall not result in any impairment of the enjoyment of
          any of the rights under the Covenant, including articles 18 or 27, nor in any discrimination
          against adherents to other religions or non-believers.”
          225. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief' (see above para.
          1, category I. 1.). The Special Rapporteur considers situations where people are arrested, tried or
          otherwise challenged because they had converted to another religion as unacceptable forms of
          violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief because, in essence, they limit or tend to
          limit the freedom of thought or conscience itself The Special Rapporteur has already covered the
          question of conversion in detail in her 2005 report to the General Assembly. She would like to
          reiterate that (see A/60/399, para. 53) “ [ un the cases where non-State actors interfere with the
          right to ‘have or adopt a religion or belief of [ one' si choice', the requirements of article 18 of the
          Covenant and other relevant international instmments also entail a positive obligation for the
          State to protect persons from such interference. The Special Rapporteur wishes to re-iterate in
          this regard that States must ensure that the persons on their territory and under their jurisdiction,
          including members of religious minorities, can practise the religion or belief of their choice free
          of coercion and fear. If non-State actors interfere with this freedom, and especially the freedom to
          change or to maintain one's religion, the State is obliged to take appropriate measures to
          investigate, bring the perpetrators to justice and compensate the victims (see also
          E/CN.4/2005/61, para. 42).”
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 54
          Nepal
          Communication sent on 10 October 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on
          contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance
          226. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received concerning attacks on Dalit members of the community in the Doti district of Nepal.
          On 26 August 2006, Dalit women were allegedly harassed by the Priest of Shivalaya Temple and
          some local men when they attempted to worship on the occasion of Teej, a Hindu festival. They
          were eventually barred from entering the temple. On 16 September 2006, the District
          Administrative Officer issued a formal notice that Dalits have the right to enter and worship at
          public temples, and that those who choose to discriminate on the basis of caste, in whatever
          form, will be prosecuted.
          227. On 17 September 2006, Dalit worshippers visited the Saileswori Temple of Dipayal in
          Silgadhi, Doti District. Their worship was disrupted when upper-caste people, who alleged that
          the Dalit worshippers had been acting in an offensive manner, physically attacked them with
          knifes and other weapons.
          Observations
          228. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. a) and
          “Places of worship” (category I. 3. b). As she noted in her 2005 report to the Commission on
          Human Rights, “members of religious communities or communities of belief, whenever they find
          themselves in places of worship, are in a situation of special vulnerability given the nature of
          their activity. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the opinion that States should pay increased
          attention to attacks on places of worship and ensure that all perpetrators of such attacks are
          properly prosecuted and tried.” (E/CN.4/200 5/61, para. 49).
          Netherlands
          Communication sent on 28 October 2005
          229. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government the situation of Ms.
          Samira Haddad, a 32-year-old Muslim woman who was reportedly refused a post as Arabic
          teacher at the Islamic College in Amsterdam based on her refusal to wear a headscarf.
          Subsequent to the communication sent on 28 October 2005, she has been informed by various
          reliable sources that the national Equality Commission mled in favour of Ms. Haddad on 15
          November 2005. Although the Netherlands' system of parallel public and private denominational
          education gave the Islamic college a high level of discretion in deciding what requirements it
          could set for its staff, the Equality Commission found that the fact that non-Muslim employees
          were exempt from the requirement to wear a headscarf while Muslim employees were obliged to
          wear a headscarf constituted an inadmissible differentiation on the basis of religion.
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 55
          Response from the Government dated 13 March 2006
          230. The Dutch Government wishes to add that the staff regulations of the school contained
          provisions obliging all feminine employees to wear a headscarf. An exception was provided for
          non-Islamic women, who could be released from the obligation on request. The Government also
          informs that a complaint has been lodged by Ms. Haddad at the “Commissie Gelijke
          Behandeling” (Dutch Equal Treatment Commission). The Dutch Equal Treatment Commission
          concluded that the school failed to demonstrate that the obligation to wear a headscarf was
          necessary in pursuance of the post of an Arabic teacher and decided in favour of Ms. Haddad. In
          this particular case, the school decided to disregard the opinion of the Dutch Equal Treatment
          Commission. Since Ms. Haddad has not started legal proceedings, there is currently no follow up
          of the case.
          231. Ajudgement (“Opinion”) of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission is the result of a
          specific case of alleged differentiation between two parties. In a wriften explanation the
          Commission describes whether the respondent has acted in contravention with the Dutch equal
          treatment laws or not. Its opinions are not legally binding, but are generally acted upon
          accordingly by petitioner and respondent.
          232. Regarding the legal basis regulating the wearing of religious symbols, the Government
          indicated that there is no specific regulation regarding the wearing of religious symbols. The
          relevant jurisprudence in this field describes only two possible situations in which regulation
          imposing restrictions on the wearing of garments covering the face or part of the face can be
          justified: the necessity to ensure identification and proper communication and the necessity to
          guarantee the neutrality of state organs.
          Observations
          233. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the detailed response from the Government. She
          would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international
          human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Religious symbols” (see above
          para. 1, categow I. 3. c). Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur has already covered the question
          of religious symbols in detail in her 2006 report to the Commission on Human Rights (see
          E/CN.4/2006/5, paras. 36-60). She would like to reiterate that “ [ tihe fundamental objective
          should be to safeguard both the positive freedom of religion or belief as manifested in
          observance and practice by voluntarily wearing or displaying religious symbols, and also the
          negative freedom from being forced to wear or display religious symbols.” (see E/CN.4/2006/5,
          para. 60). While welcoming the opinion of the Dutch Equal Treatment Commission in the case of
          Ms. Haddad, the Special Rapporteur expresses her concern about pressure within the school to
          adhere to certain religious obligations. She recognizes the complexity of the issues involved and
          encourages the Government to promote an atmosphere of tolerance and non-discrimination.
          Pakistan
          Communication sent on 20 January 2006
          234. The Special Rapporteur brought to the aftention of the Government information she had
          received concerning Shaukat Au Wahia. an employee of the Auqaf Organization in Punj ab.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 56
          According to the information received, on 25 January 1996, he was granted promotion to the post
          of Superintendent. On 6 August 1998, the promotion was withdrawn on the grounds that the
          Punjab Waqf Properties Ordinance 1979 did not permit the promotion of a non-Muslim as an
          officer. On 18 September 2000, the High Court of Lahore allowed his petition against the
          decision to withdraw the promotion (No. 13894/1996) and he was subsequently reinstated. On 29
          January 2001, he was once again demoted on the grounds that his promotion had been illegal. On
          13 October 2004, the High Court of Lahore allowed his petition against the demotion finding that
          the prohibition on the promotion of non-Muslims to officer positions in the Punjab Waqf
          Properties Ordinance violated Article 27 of the Constitution, which provides that, “No citizen
          otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in
          respect of any such appointment on the ground only of [ .1 religion [ .1” (No. 23 98/2002).
          Despite the judgment of the High Court of Lahore, Shaukat Ali Wahla has not been reinstated to
          the post of Superintendent or considered for further promotion.
          Response from the Government dated 27 April 2006
          235. The Government informed the special Rapporteur about the case of Mr. Shaukat Wahla.
          Once Mr. Wahla approached the Honourable Lahore High Court. this Court stated on 13 October
          2004 that the guarantee against discrimination on the ground of religion is absolute and not
          subject to reasonable qualification or restriction. Therefore, Section 5(1) added to the Punjab
          Waqf properties Ordinance 1979 (iv of 1979) by the Punjab Ordinance No. XIII of 1984 violates
          Article 27 of the Constitution of Pakistan.
          236. The Honourable Lahore High Court also stated that “as far as the second contention of
          the learned counsel for the petitioner that a Superintendent is not an officer concerned, it is not
          required to be determined in this case... Therefore, on the basis of part II of the Schedule, in the
          absence ofjob description of the post of Superintendent, it is not possible to say whether he is or
          not an officer for the purpose of proviso of the Punjab Ordinance No. IV of 1979”.
          237. The Auqaf Department has since filed a petition to the Honourable Supreme Court of
          Pakistan against the decision of the Honourable Lahore High Court, which has been admifted.
          Since the Honourable Lahore High Court's judgement has not been suspended by the
          Honourable Supreme Court, the case of promotion of Mr. Wahla as an Officer Superintendent
          was considered by the Departmental Promotion Conmiittee in its meeting held on 7 April 2005,
          and was promoted as Superintendent subject to the final decision of the Apex Court.
          Observations
          238. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response from the Government and she would
          be appreciative to be informed of recent developments in that case.
          Urgent appeal sent on 15 February 2006 jointly with Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
          239. The Special Procedures mandate holders raised their concerns at the case regarding Mr.
          Younis Masih, a citizen of Pakistan of Christian faith, resident in the Chunngi Amar Sadu area
          of Lahore. According to the information received, Younis Masih was arrested on charges of
          blasphemy on ii September 2005 and taken to Kot Lakhpat jail, in Lahore, where he is still
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 57
          detained. Apparently, on 10 September 2005 a Muslim cleric filed a complaint against Younis
          Masih. accusing him of blasphemy under Section 295C of the Pakistan penal code for having
          allegedly made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed at a religious service.
          Blasphemy charges can-v the death penalty or life imprisonment. A first bail petition was rejected
          by the session's court in Lahore in November 2005 and a second petition is currently pending in
          the Lahore High Court.
          240. The Special Procedures mandate holders are aware that people detained on blasphemy
          charges in Pakistani prisons have been killed by fellow detainees or prison wardens, including at
          Kot Lakhpat, the prison where Younis Masih is currently held. The mandate holders are
          concerned that Younis Masih's life would thus appear to be in danger.
          Response from the Government dated 16 May 2006
          241. Mr. Younas Masih, son of Wason Masih, was admifted in Central Jail Lahore on ii
          September 2005, as under trial prisoner involved in the case FIR (First Information Report)
          No.723/OS dated 10 September U/S 295 Police Station Factory Area. Lahore. He is at present
          facing trial in the court of Mr. Muhammad Saleem. Magistrate 1st Class, Model Town. Lahore.
          The Government indicated that Mr. Younas Masih has been provided with all security jail
          facilities according to jail mles. Special security arrangements have been put in place to ensure
          that there is no threat to his life.
          Observations
          242. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response from the Government and she would
          like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human
          rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Freedom of expression including questions
          related to religious conflicts, religious intolerance and extremism” (see above para. 1, category
          IV. 1.).
          243. Furthermore she would like to make reference to her predecessor's report on his country
          visit to Pakistan in June 1995 (E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1, para. 82): “While protecting freedom of
          conscience and freedom of worship is clearly a necessity, applying the death penalty for
          blasphemy appears disproportionate and even unacceptable, especially in view of the fact that
          blasphemy is very often the reflection of a very low standard of education and culture, for which
          the blasphemer is never solely to blame. The Special Rapporteur endorses the Government's
          proposal to amend procedural aspects of the blasphemy law and would encourage it not only to
          give effect to this proposal, but also to go further in amending the law on blasphemy and more
          generally on religious offences in accordance with the views expressed above. The Special
          Rapporteur believes that in any event some practical measures, especially administrative and
          educational, should be implemented pending more substantial constitutional and legislative
          changes.”
          Communication sent on 5 July 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial,
          summary or arbitrary executions
          244. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the aftention of the Government of Pakistan
          information they had received concerning Mr. Abdul Sattar Gopang, who was reportedly
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 58
          stabbed to death while he was on trial for blasphemy charges at the District and Session Court of
          Muzzafargarh on 16 June 2006. According to what has been alleged, his murder was instigated
          by Mr. R. and carried out by five members of his seminary. Two of the perpetrators were
          subsequently captured by bystanders and handed over to the police while two policemen who
          allegedly tried to overpower the attackers were injured.
          245. Mr. Abdul Saftar Gopang worked as a tax collector for the union council in Jatoi town,
          Muzzafargarh. Mr. R., in charge of a seminary, had not been paving his toll tax and had verbally
          threatened Mr. Gopang when asked to do so. On 13 March 2006, Mr. R. again refused to pay his
          toll tax. He then went to the police and filed a fabricated case of blasphemy against Mr. Gopang.
          According to the information received, Mr. R. allegedly told members of his seminary that they
          would go to heaven if they killed Mr. Gopang for having committed blasphemy. Concerns have
          been expressed that fabricated blasphemy charges are possible as a consequence of the
          Blasphemy Laws. To date, it is the Special Rapporteurs' understanding that the three remaining
          perpetrators remain at large and that no charges have been brought in connection with the murder
          of Mr. Gopang.
          Observations
          246. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Freedom of expression including questions related to religious
          conflicts religious intolerance and extremism (see abo/ e para 1 categor/ IV 1) Moreo/ er
          the Special Rapporteur wishes to appeal to the Government of Pakistan to ensure that the death
          of Mr. Abdul Saftar Gopang is promptly, independently and thoroughly investigated.
          Urgent appeal sent on 13 July 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on adequate
          housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living
          247. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received regarding twelve Ahmadiya families from Jhando Sahi village in Daska Tehsil. On 24
          June 2006. a group of unidentified individuals attacked an area inhabited by a dozen Ahmadiya
          families in Jhando Sahi village, forcing the families to leave the village. The group injured two
          people, burned down the community' s place of worship, two shops and a number of houses. The
          group attacked the community following as et unsubstantiated claims that Ahmadiyya youths
          had burned copies of the Quran. According to the information received, the District Police have
          charged four Ahmadiyya youths with desecrating the Quran. However, no charges have been
          brought in connection with the attack on the village. Furthermore, the families have been
          informed by the police that they are not allowed to visit their village and to go back to their
          houses without prior permission.
          Response from the Government dated 12 October 2006
          248. The Permanent Mission of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan presented the information
          received from the concerned authorities of Pakistan on the attack on Ahmadiya families. On 24
          June 2006 some Qadiyanis allegedly set fire to pages of the Holy Quran. This was witnessed by
          some Muslim villagers of the area. Consequently, the villagers gathered and took out the protest
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 59
          procession and caused damage to the moveable and immoveable property of Qadivanis. An FIR
          (First Information Report) No. 165 dated 24.06.2006 u/s 295 — B of the Pakistan Penal Code was
          registered and the two above mentioned accused were arrested while two others accused are et
          to be arrested. For their own safety, the district police shifted the Qadivani families to a safer
          place. Cases have been registered by the local police against 25 known and 33 unknown persons
          for the damage caused to the properties of the Qadivani families. In a meeting with the DCO
          Sialkot. the representatives and residents of the area ensured that they would cooperate in the
          maintenance of law and order in the area. The dislocated Qadivani families have come back and
          are residing in their respective houses. At present there is no tension in the area. Survey of
          damage to the properties is also being carried out for paving compensation to the affected
          Qadivanis.
          Observations
          249. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response from the Government and she would
          like to refer to her observations concerning the joint urgent appeal sent on 15 February 2006.
          Communication sent on 26 September 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
          250. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received concerning the arrest of Sultan Dogar and Abdul Sattar Khan. both employees of the
          Daily Alfazal. a newspaper mn by the Ahmadi community, in Lahore. On 9 September, Chenab
          Nagar (Rabwah) police raided the offices of the Daily Alfazal. where they arrested two of the
          newspaper's employees, Sultan Dogar, a printer and Abdul Saftar Khan. a journalist. The two
          men were charged under article 298B (offence of a member of the Ahmadi faith misusing holy
          personages or places) and article 298C (offence of a member of the Ahmadi faith calling himself
          a Muslim) of the Pakistan Penal Code, article 16 of the Maintenance of Public Order Act and
          article 9 of the Anti-Terrorism Act. Abdul Saftar Khan was subsequently released, but Sultan
          Dogar is still in detention. According to the information received, the police have indicated that
          the raid was part of the Government's policy of preventing the dissemination of hate literature.
          The charges are based on the articles in the newspaper which discussed Qadivani beliefs and
          described Ahmadis as Muslims.
          Observations
          251. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Minorities” (see above para. 1, category III. 5.).
          252. Furthermore she would like to make reference to her predecessor's report on his country
          visit to Pakistan in June 1995 (E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.i. para. 82): “In the light of the above
          considerations, the Special Rapporteur has concluded, after careful thought and having studied
          the matter and consulted other views, that the present State laws related to religious minorities,
          and more generally speaking the subject of tolerance and non-discrimination based on religion or
          belief, are likely to favour or foster intolerance in society. The law applied specifically to the
          Ahmadi minority is particularly questionable and in some respects frankly unwarranted.”
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 60
          Russia;, Federation
          Communication sent on 3 April 2006
          253. The Special Rapporteur had received information concerning the Hindu community in
          Moscow According to the information received, in 2004, the authorities demolished the only
          Hindu temple in the city, with assurances that a new temple would be built in another location. In
          October 2005, the authorities withdrew the land allocated for the building a new temple,
          allegedly because of minor legal inconsistencies. However, no alternative land was allocated for
          the construction of a new temple. Since June 2004, the Hindu community has had to worship in
          inadequate accommodation.
          Response from the Government dated 14 August 2006
          254. The Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation indicated that a two-storev building
          used for religious purposes, namely a Hindu temple, was demolished in Moscow in 2004 to make
          way for new development. The city authorities have proposed two sites to the Hindu community
          for the construction of a new temple. The proposal to use plot No. 39 on Leningradskv Prospekt
          was withdrawn on technical legal grounds. At the time of writing, the possibili of building a
          temple on plot No. 5, Dvbenko Street, is under consideration. The mafter is currently being
          followed up by the city authorities.
          Observations
          255. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response from the Government. She would be
          grateful to receive information on further developments in that case. The Special Rapporteur
          would like to take the opportunity to remind the Government of article 6 of the 1981 Declaration
          on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or
          Belief, according to which the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief includes
          the freedom, “(a) To worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief [ ... ; (c) To
          make, acquire and use the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or customs of a
          religion or belief'. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. a) and “Places of
          worship” (category I. 3. b). The religious and cultural significance of every place of worship
          needs to be duly taken into account by the authorities.
          Urgent allegation sent on 19 May 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question of
          torture
          256. The Special Procedures mandate holders drew the aftention of the Government to
          information received regarding Abdu Salim Navruzov, a Tajik national, Sakhabuddin
          Tursunov, a Tajik national, three unidentified Russian nationals and four unidentified Tajik
          nationals. According to the information received, at approximately 630am on 7 Ma 2006,
          armed men in masks with automatic weapons and pistols entered the city mosque on
          Matmasovska a Street, in Tyumen City, during morning prayers. The men said that they were
          members of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and told Abdu Salim Navruzov, Sakhabuddin
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 61
          Tursunov and the seven other individuals in the mosque to show them their ID cards. The FSB
          members physically threatened them and forced them to get into a bus, which drove them to
          T umen City Police Station No.2. At the police station, they were forced to face the wall and
          were forbidden to speak. They were taken one by one to an office where they were interrogated
          about who financed the mosque and wh they attended the mosque. The FSB members demanded
          that they stop attending the mosque and agree to cooperate. They also threatened that if they
          refused to co-operate, they would plant narcotics on them and bring false charges against them.
          257. The three Russian detainees were subsequently released. However, the six Tajik detainees
          were taken to a bus at gun point. They were made to lie on the floor in the bus and taken to the
          Lenin Regional Ministry of Interior office in Tyumen. At the Lenin Regional Ministw of Interior
          Office, Abdu SalimNavruzov. whose residence permit had expired, was taken away somewhere.
          When the other five individuals asked where he had been taken, they were told, “Soon ou will
          see him in heaven.” The FSB members then counted their bullets in front of the detainees and
          discussed if they had enough bullets for all of the detainees. The whereabouts of Abdu Salim
          Navmzov are still unknown.
          258. The remaining five Tajik nationals were taken in a bus to forest near the village of
          Antipino. As they were getting out of the bus, the FSB members told them to be happy and smile
          because they were going to meet with Allah. One of them, Sakhabuddin Tursunov, was subjected
          to a mock execution by one of the FSB members who forced him to his knees, put a pistol put to
          his head and clicked the trigger. The FSB members demanded that the men stop going to the
          mosque and stop praying, and threatened them with death if they went to the mosque. They then
          forced them to mn into the forest and aimed their guns at them and clicked the triggers as they
          ran away.
          Observations
          259. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a response from the
          Government. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her most recent annual
          report to the Human Rights Council where she also covers the issue of “Violations linked to
          counter-terrorism measures” (A/HRC/4/21, para. 40): “The Special Rapporteur is conscious of
          the fact that the States' obligation to protect and promote human rights requires them to take
          effective measures to combat terrorism. However, she would like to underline that States must
          ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under
          international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.”
          Communication sent on 13 September 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          question of torture and the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and
          consequences
          260. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had
          received regarding Ms. X, aged 23, from Argun in Chechnya. On 19 March 2006, she was
          detained by local law enforcement officers, following allegations by her husband that she had
          committed adultery with a serviceman of Christian faith. She was taken to a law enforcement
          compound in Argun where she was beaten. while being told “Turn around and be condemned by
          Allah”. Her eyebrows and head were shaved and her scalp was painted green, the colour
          associated with Islam. A cross was also smeared on her brow She was ordered to strip, and
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 62
          beaten with wooden rods and hoses on her buftocks. arms, legs, hands, stomach and back. She
          was forced to confess to being unfaithful and then taken to her husband's home and made her
          dance before her neighbours while they verbally insulted her. Several of the law enforcement
          officials kicked her.
          261. On 21 March 2006, she suffered a miscarriage. The local authorities initially failed to
          investigate the events, despite the fact that these had been recorded on mobile phone videos, and
          widely circulated in the region. On 29 August 2006, the Chechen Premier, Ramzan A. Kadyrov,
          reportedly stated that he had ordered the Chechen Interior Ministry to investigate the events.
          Response from the Government dated 28 December 2006
          262. The Government informed that on 18 March 2006, when Malika Solta eva underwent a
          medical examination at the central district hospital in Shah, scars on her face, hands and back
          and a concussion were detected. On the same day, the police received reports that she had been
          abducted. Consequently, the Prosecutor of Argun investigated the case. During the course of this
          investigation Ms. Solta eva explained that she had not been abducted, that she had not been
          subjected to any physical or moral pressure and that she had sustained the injuries as a result of
          domestic violence. She never complained about her injuries to the police. Therefore, on 7 Ma
          2006 the Prosecutor of Argun refused to open a criminal case for reason of the “absence of a
          crime” (art. 24, para 1 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code). However, given the numerous
          contradictions in testimonies of the persons involved and of eye-witnesses and allegations of
          wrong-doing by police officers, the case has been referred to the Republican Prosecutor,
          following which, on 16 October 2006, on the basis of the statement of Ms Soltayeva a criminal
          case was opened with reference to art. 117, para. e (2) of the Criminal Code of the Russian
          Federation (harassment by a group of persons).
          Observations
          263. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the response from the Government and she would
          appreciate receiving further information on recent developments in that case.
          Communication sent on 15 September 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the
          independence of judges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the question of torture
          264. The Special Rapporteurs sent this communication to raise their concern on Ravil
          Gumarov and Timur Ishmuratov. two former detainees at Guantánamo Bay. Cuba. Ravil
          Gumarov and Timur Ishmuratov were the subject of an urgent appeal sent to your Government
          by the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention on 27 Ma 2004.
          According to the allegations received, in February 2004, Ravil Gumarov and Timur Ishmuratov,
          along with five other Russian citizens, were returned from Guantánamo Ba to Russia. In April
          2005, they were arrested in connection with a pipeline explosion in Tatarstan in Januaw 2005. In
          detention, interrogators pulled hairs from Ravil Gumarov's beard and forced vodka down his
          throat, which is a particularly offensive form of ill-treatment for abstinent Muslims, in an effort
          to force him to confess. Interrogators warned Timur Ishmuratov that they would call in his
          pregnant wife for questioning and could not guarantee the safety of the foetus. Both men
          confessed to the crime during the investigation, but subsequently withdrew their confessions in
          court.
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 63
          265. In September 2005. a jury unanimously acquifted them and a third defendant, Fanis
          Shaikhutdinov. of the charges against them. However, prosecutors subs equently got approval
          from the Russian Supreme Court to annul the verdict so that the three could be tried again for the
          same crime. On S Ma 2006, the defendants were convicted of terrorism and illegal possession of
          weapons or explosives (Articles 205 and 222 of the Russian Criminal Code). They were also
          ordered to pay damages of about U.S. $2,000 for property damage. Ravil Gumarov was
          sentenced to a term of 13 years, and Timur Ishmuratov to ii years and one month. The third man,
          Fanis Shaikhutdinov, received 15 years and six months. According to the information received,
          another suspect had confessed to carrying out the crime in July 2005, however, the defence
          lawyers for the three men were never informed of this confession. All three have appealed their
          convictions to the Russian Supreme Court.
          266. According to the information received, two witnesses in the trial were detained and beaten
          to force them to testify against the defendants. On 31 March 2005, Timor Ishmuratov's brother,
          Rustam Hamidullin, was detained by the Tatarstan Organized Crime Unit at his Aunt's house in
          Nefteyugansk, in Khanti-Mansiisk province. Police held him for several days at Nefteyugansk
          police station and beat him while he was handcuffed to a radiator to coerce him to admit that he
          had witnessed preparations for the crime. Police then took him on the train to Tatarstan. Rustam
          Hamidullin was ill-treated during the two-day train trip.
          267. On 1 April 2005, Ildar Valeev, another witness for the prosecution, was called in for
          questioning to the Organized Crime Unit in Almetievsk, Tatarstan. He was subsequently
          sentenced to five days' administrative arrest for swearing in a mosque. He was held in an
          investigation cell in Bugulma, where he was stripped, beaten and subjected to threats and
          psychological pressure until he agreed to sign a statement saying he had witnessed the explosion.
          He was released on 27 April 2005. Both Rustam Hamidullin and Ildar Valeev withdrew their
          statements at the trials.
          Response from the Government dated 28 December 2006
          268. The Government informed that the investigation into the pipeline explosion in Tatarstan
          in January 2005 was conducted by Republican prosecutors together with the Federal Security
          Service. During the investigation, several complaints about illegal acts by law-enforcement
          agents in relation to Ravil Gumarov. Timur Ishmuratov. Rustam Hamidullin and Ildar Valeev
          were filed with the Republican Prosecutor's office, but the investigations conducted by the
          Republican Prosecutors did not confirm these allegations. In September 2005 ajurv trial took
          place, before which Rustam Hamidullin and Ildar Valeev retracted their earlier confessions and
          were acquitted. The Republican Prosecutors appealed the acquiftal and the Supreme Court of the
          Russian Federation annulled the jury's sentence and sent the case back for additional
          investigation.
          269. On 12 May 2006, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, on the basis of the
          sentence of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Tatarstan, sentenced Mr. Gumarov, Mr.
          Shaikhutdinov and Mr. Ishmuratov to respectively 13 years, 15 years and 6 months and ii years
          and one month of imprisonment. They were found guilty of terrorism, i.e. to have collectively
          commifted the explosion, which constituted a deadly risk to people, did considerable damage to
          proper and had other dangerous consequences for society with the aim of destroying public
          security, spreading fear among the population and influencing the authorities' decision-making
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 64
          and several other crimes. By decision of the chamber for criminal affairs of the Supreme Court of
          the Russian Federation of 29 November 2006 the sentence was reduced to 10 years and 6 months
          of imprisonment for Mr. Shaikhutdinov. 9 years for Mr. Gumarov and 8 years and 1 month for
          Mr. Ishmuratov. The appeal on cassation of the three convicts was rejected.
          Observations
          270. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response and she would like to
          refer to her most recent annual report to the Human Rights Council where she also covers the
          issue of “Violations linked to counter-terrorism measures” (AIHRC/4/21. para. 40): “The Special
          Rapporteur is conscious of the fact that the States' obligation to protect and promote human
          rights requires them to take effective measures to combat terrorism. However, she would like to
          underline that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their
          obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and
          humanitarian law.”
          271. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Persons deprived of their liberty” (see above para. 1, categow III. 2.) and
          “Prohibition on torture and other cmel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”
          (category IV. 3.). As she noted in her 2005 report to the General Assembly. “ [ tihe religious
          beliefs of a detainee should under no circumstances be used by the authorities against the
          detainee in order, for instance, to extract information from him or her.” (A160/399, para. 90).
          Saudi Arabia
          Urgent appeal sent on 27 September 2006 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
          272. The Special Procedures mandate holders drew the aftention of the Government to
          information they had received regarding Hadi Saeed Al-Mutif, aged 31, a prisoner at Najran
          Prison. According to the information received, in October 1993, he enrolled at Narj an Police
          Training Camp. On 20 January 1994, he was arrested for making a blasphemous comment in the
          presence of other recruits. In December 1994, his trial began on charges of apostasy. which
          carries a discretionary death sentence. In 1995, he was sentenced to death but his relatives did not
          receive a copy of the judgment or the sentence. In 1999, King Abdullah, the then Crown Prince,
          refused to sign the execution warrant, but his sentence was not officially commuted to life
          imprisonment. On 5 or 6 September 2006, he began a hunger strike and was placed in solitary
          confinement. There are concerns that the severity of his sentence may be linked to the fact that he
          is a member of the Ismaili Shi'ite community.
          273. The Special Rapporteurs expressed their concerns with regard to the circumstance that, if
          the allegations were correct, he has been detained for twelve years in a state of constant
          uncertainty as to whether he will be executed or not. There are, moreover, concerns that the
          sentence may have been particularly severe due to the fact that Hadi Saeed Al-Mutif is a
          member of the Ismaili Shi'ite community.
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 65
          Observations
          274. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a response from the
          Government and she would like to reiterate her question concerning the prospects of the death
          sentence being commuted or pardon being granted. The Special Rapporteur would like to draw
          the Government's attention to article 2(1) of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All
          Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, which provides that
          [ nb one shall be subject to discrimination b/ am State institution group of persons or person
          on the grounds of religion or other belief” Article 4(1) of the 1981 Declaration goes on to state
          that “ [ aill States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the
          grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enj ovment of human rights and
          fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.”
          Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for communications.
          more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning
          “Persons deprived of their liberty” (see above para. 1. categow III. 2.) and “Right to life, right to
          liberty” (category IV. 2.). Moreover, she reminds the Government that she is still awaiting a
          reply to her request to visit the country.
          Serbia and MontenegroC ommuni cation sent on 8 May 20061
          275. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
          received concerning the adoption and signing of a new law on religion. According to the
          allegations, on 27 April 2006, President Tadic signed a new law on religion, after Parliament
          approved the law on 20 April 2006. The law was passed with 129 of the 250 parliamentarians
          taking a vote, of which 120 voted in favour of the law. The new law differentiates between seven
          traditional and all other faiths, and awards different privileges and rights to each category. For
          example, non-traditional faiths will lose, and will have to reapplv for, legal status, as well as
          losing their tax-exempt status. The Special Rapporteur has raised concerns about this issue twice
          before, in 2004 and 2005. President Tadic has also reportedly expressed concerns about the law
          and has called for amendments that would bring the legislation in line with relevant international
          standards.
          Observations
          276. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a response from the
          Government and she would like to reiterate her observations related to previous communications
          on the draft law on religion (see E/CN.4/2005/6 i/Add. 1, paras. 210-213 and
          E/CN.4/2006/5/Add. 1, paras. 3 36-340). Moreover, she reminds the Government that she is still
          awaiting a reply to her request to visit the country. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would
          like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human
          1 The communication was transmitted before 3 June 2006 when the Secretary-General received a
          letter from the President of the Republic of Serbia informing him that the membership of Serbia
          and Montenegro in the United Nations was to be continued by the Republic of Serbia and that the
          name “Republic of Serbia” was henceforth to be used instead of the name “Serbia and
          Montenegro”.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 66
          rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Registration” (see above para. 1, category
          I. 3. h). In this regard, the Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that the right to freedom of
          religion is not limited to members of registered religious communities. As she noted in her 2005
          report to the Commission on Human Rights. “registration should not be compulsory. i.e. it should
          not be a precondition for practicing one's religion, but only for the acquisition of a legal
          personality and related benefits” (E/CN.4/2005/61. para. 58).
          Somalia
          Communication sent on 14 July 2006
          277. The Special Rapporteur had received information that on 7 July 2006, Sheikh Abdalla
          Ali, who mns a sharia court in Mogadishu, allegedly declared: “Who does not perform prayer
          will be considered as infidel and our sharia law orders that person to be killed.” On the same day.
          militiamen allegedly broke up a wedding celebration because a band was playing and women and
          men were socializing together. The fighters reportedly beat band members with electric cables
          and confiscated their equipment. Three days earlier, militiamen in central Somalia shot and killed
          two people at the screening of a World Cup soccer broadcast banned because it violated the
          fighters' interpretation of Islamic law
          Observations
          278. The Special Rapporteur notes that she has not received a reply from the Government and
          she hopes that the situation in the country will improve. She would like to take the opportuni to
          remind the Government of article 18(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
          Rights, which provides that “ [ nb one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his
          freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” Furthermore, the Special
          Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the
          international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Freedom from
          coercion” (see above para. 1. categow I. 2).
          Tajikistan
          Urgent appeal sent on 1 March 2006
          279. The Special Rapporteur received information regarding the destruction of a synagogue in
          Dushanbe. According to the information received, on 7 February 2006, the authorities in
          Dushanbe began the demolition of the city's only synagogue, which is also the only functioning
          synagogue in the country. The authorities have offered the congregation a plot of land on the
          edge of Dushanbe to build a new synagogue. However. they have not provided any compensation
          and the congregation do not have the funds to build a new Synagogue. According to the
          information received, one member of the congregation tried to film the demolition until city
          officials threatened to break the camera if he did not stop filming. The synagogue was earmarked
          for demolition more than two years ago, under plans for construction of a “Palace of Nations”,
          which will be the new residence of the Tajik President. In Ma 2003, the Jewish community
          received a letter from the authorities ordering them to vacate the synagogue building by July
          2003.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 67
          Response from the Government dated 10 March 2006
          280. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Tajikistan reported that the synagogue
          of the Jewish community in Dushanbe is an ordinary adobe residential building dating from the
          1930s, occupying 0.13 hectares at 27, N. Khikmat Street in Dushanbe. The current synagogue
          building has absolutely no historical or architectural value and is the communal property of the
          Ismoili Somoni district in Dushanbe. In 1980 the premises were placed at the disposal of
          Tajikistan's Jewish community.
          281. The synagogue is currently scheduled for demolition under a plan to build a new
          Government residence. In this connection, representatives of Jewish communities and
          organizations, including the chief rabbi of Central Asia, Mr. Abe Dovid Gurevich, visited
          Dushanbe on a number of occasions. On 4 June 2004 Mr. Gurevich held one of a series of
          meetings with senior officials at Dushanbe city hall, during which it was agreed to allocate a
          0. 15-hectare plot at 3 8/1, Negmat Karabaev street in Dushanbe to Jewish communities and
          organizations for the construction of a new synagogue.
          282. This proposal (one of six submitted for the consideration of Jewish community leaders)
          was approved by the chief rabbi of Central Asia, Mr. Abe Dovid Gurevich, in his lefter dated 5
          July 2004 addressed to the mayor of Dushanbe. It should be noted that the rabbi of the Dushanbe
          synagogue, Mr. MI. Abdurakhmonov, attended these meetings and talks between the chief rabbi
          of Central Asia and senior officials of the city of Dushanbe.
          283. At the same time, pending the completion of the new synagogue, Dushanbe city hall
          proposed that the synagogue be temporarily moved to 48a, Negmat Karabaev Street in Dushanbe,
          and arranged for the distribution of free food to elderly and indigent members of the
          congregation.
          284. Unfortunately, despite the agreement between the two sides and the chief rabbi's letter of
          9 July 2004, the decision of 26 July 2004 allocating a plot of land, and mayoral decision No. 398
          of 23 August 2004 giving the go-ahead for the design of a new synagogue, the Dushanbe Jewish
          community has to date taken no specific steps to draw up plans for the constmction of this
          building.
          285. The Ministry notes that Jewish community leaders have recently sought to exploit this
          situation by kicking up an unjustified fuss about this so-called “issue” in the media. It must also
          be stressed that no members of the Jewish congregation in Dushanbe, who number several dozen,
          have to date submitted any specific complaints or statements regarding this matter to the Tajik
          Government or the city of Dushanbe. Photographs of the existing Jewish synagogue in Dushanbe
          were annexed to show its current state of repair and provide an unbiased assessment of its
          historical and architectural significance.
          Communication sent on 18 May 2006
          286. The Special Rapporteur sent this communication in relation to the draft law entitled
          “About the freedom of conscience and religious unions”. The Committee on Religious Affairs
          has produced a draft law “About the freedom of conscience and religious unions”. Article 16 of
          the draft stipulates that all non-registered religious activity is deemed illegal. Article 18 of the
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 68
          draft provides that the founders of religious organizations and unions must submit signatures
          from 200 citizens in support of the establishment of a religious association in any given town or
          settlement. For a central religious association to be established 800 signatures are required for a
          Muslim association and 600 are required for a non-Muslim association. Other draft articles
          include the condition that any religious organisation or union must have at least twenty founding
          members (article 4): allowing religious education only for children who are older than 7 years old
          (article 10): only allowing one mosque for villages that have a population of between 200 and
          2000 people (article 14). There are concerns that the draft law could lead to limits on the rights of
          religious communities.
          Observations
          287. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response to the urgent appeal
          sent on 1 March 2006 and for having extended an invitation to visit the country. Consequently.
          she will address the question of the destruction of a synagogue in Dushanbe as well as the draft
          law in her report that will be submifted subsequent to the visit that she will carry out to Tajikistan
          in February/March 2007.
          Thailand
          Communication sent on 2 June 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
          human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
          288. The Special Rapporteurs raised concern on information they had received concerning the
          desecration of Hmong graves in Wat Tham Krabok. According to the allegations, monastery
          officials from the Wat Tham Krabok Buddhist monastery, which was formerly used as a Hmong
          refugee camp, have been exhuming Hmong graves. There are said to be about 2,000 Hmong
          graves in the Monastery. According to monastery officials the reason for digging up the graves is
          that they were contaminating the Monastery's water supply. Relatives of the Hmong people
          buried at Wat Tham Krabok were not given notice of the exhumations. The Hmong consider
          graveyards to be sacred sites. The exhumations sometimes include dismemberment, separation of
          parts of the corpses and cremation, which violates Hmong religious and cultural tradition.
          Observations
          289. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to refer to her
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. a) and
          “Places of worship” (categow I. 3. b).
          290. As she noted in her 2005 report to the Commission on Human Rights (E/CN.4/2005/61,
          paras. 49-51): “Moreover, the Special Rapporteur notes that in addition to places of worship,
          different types of buildings or properties that have more than a material signification for the
          religious community that is attached to it, such as cemeteries, monasteries or community
          headquarters, have been targeted. Finally, while attacks on such places have usually been
          committed by non-State actors, other forms of harm or restrictions were usually committed or
          imposed by State authorities. Regarding, in particular, attacks on places of worship, the Special
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 69
          Rapporteur wishes to point out that in addition to the special protection that is granted to
          religious places, sites and shrines by resolution 2004/3 6, members of religious communities or
          communities of belief, whenever they find themselves in places of worship, are in a situation of
          special vulnerability given the nature of their activity. The Special Rapporteur is therefore of the
          opinion that States should pay increased attention to attacks on places of worship and ensure that
          all perpetrators of such attacks are properly prosecuted and tried. More generally, as mentioned,
          inter alia, in paragraph 4 of the Human Rights Committee's general comment No. 22, the Special
          Rapporteur insists that places of worship are an essential element of the manifestation of the right
          to freedom of religion or belief to the extent that the great majority of religious communities or
          communities of belief need the existence of a place of worship where their members can
          manifest their faith. Moreover, unlike other forms of violations of the right to freedom of religion
          or belief, attacks or other forms of restriction on places of worship or other religious sites and
          shrines in many cases violate the right not only of a single individual, but the rights of a group of
          individuals forming the community that is attached to the place in question.”
          Turkmenistan
          Communication sent on 2 December 2005
          291. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government the information that,
          since August 2005, the State Security Ministry (MSS) secret police has been monitoring young
          men who regularly visit mosques in the central Ahal region. The MSS is also systematically
          questioning the parents of young practising Muslims. Concern has been expressed that the
          authorities are conducting a campaign against Islam religious practice under the pretext of
          combating “Wahhabism”. Mr. Muhamad Nurmukhamedov and Mr. Yager Kurbanov, both
          residents of Dashoguz, were reportedly arrested as part of this campaign, after they were accused
          of “Wahhabism”. Reports further indicate that MSS secret police officers have obliged all Imams
          to post lists of mosque-goers above the doors of their mosques and to prevent people whose
          names are on the list from visiting the mosque. Concern has also been expressed that Imams are
          forced to place copies of the Ruhnama (Book of the Soul) in a place of honour in each mosque
          and to quote from it during sermons.
          Response from the Government dated 28 February 2006
          292. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Turkmenistan informed that the relevant law
          enforcement agencies of Turkmenistan have taken steps to elucidate the incidents referred to in
          the communication and have established that the persons referred to in the communication do not
          live in Dashoguz velayat (province). In accordance with national legislation, religious
          organizations and groups, irrespective of their size, denomination or religion, are registered in
          Turkmenistan in compliance with universally recognized norms. There are no instances of
          detention of people on account of their beliefs, or of the application of administrative sanctions
          against them.
          293. The Government of Turkmenistan maintains that the information obtained which states
          claims about the two mentioned persons are from unreliable sources and is absolutely untrue. The
          Government of Turkmenistan also inform that there has not been a single instance of arrest or
          conviction on political, religious or other grounds in Turkmenistan. Moreover, since its society is
          politically stable, all conditions have been created to ensure the livelihood and development of all
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 70
          nationalities and peoples living in the country. These opportunities are guaranteed by law, under
          which all violations of citizens' rights are punishable. The Government of Turkmenistan would
          also like to emphasize that the book Rukhnama recounts the origin and history of the religion,
          customs, traditions and ceremonies of the Turkmen.
          Observations
          294. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response. The Special
          Rapporteur would like to emphasize that her mandate carries out a close and detailed assessment
          of the information in order to ensure that the situations or cases that are transmitted to
          Governments has a very high level of reliability. She would also like to draw the Government's
          attention to the concluding observations which the Conimittee on the Elimination of Racial
          Discrimination adopted on 17-18 August 2005 (CERD/C/TKM/CO/5. para. 17): “The
          Committee, while stressing the complex relationship between ethnicity and religion in
          Turkmenistan, notes with concern information that members of religious groups do not fully
          enjoy their rights to freedom of religion and that some religious confessions remain unregistered.
          It notes, however, the relaxation of registration rules in 2004. The Committee recalls the State
          party' s obligation to ensure that all persons enj ov their right to freedom of religion, without any
          discrimination based on national or ethnic origin, in accordance with article S (d) of the
          Convention. The State party should accordingly respect the right of members of registered and
          unregistered religions to freely exercise their freedom of religion, and register religious groups
          who wish to be registered. Detailed information on religions actually registered in Turkmenistan
          should be provided to the Committee.”
          Communication sent on 2 December 2005
          295. The Special Rapporteur received information that on the morning of 7 October 2005, Ms.
          Durdygul Ereshova and Ms. Annajemal Tuyliyeva, were arrested by a district police officer,
          reportedly on suspicion of “illegal religious activity” and vagrancy. They were taken to Niyazov
          District Police Station where they were beaten by the police chief, Mr. Aymuradov, who ordered
          them to be taken to the basement and raped. They were ill-treated for several days before they
          were freed. The police stole a ring from Ms. Tuyliyeva and confiscated Ms. Ereshova' s passport.
          They were also threatened with internal deportation to a remote part of Turkmenistan, despite
          having a residence permit to live in Ashgabad.
          296. It has been reported that other Jehovah's Witnesses have recently been subjected to
          beatings and fines and have had religious literature confiscated. On the morning of 13 October
          2005, two police officers, including Murad from the 6 th Department, took Ms. Jamilya
          Kerimova from her workplace in Ashgabad to her home. A police detachment of between five or
          six officers reportedly searched the house without a search warrant. The police photographed and
          confiscated all the religious literature they could find. Ms. Kerimova was brought to the 6th
          Department, where she was repeatedly beaten by police officers. On 14 October 2005, a Judge
          from the Ashgabad's Kopetdag District Court fined her 150,000 Manats.
          Response from the Government dated 5 January 2006
          297. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs states firstly that Turkmenistan is a secular State and,
          under the country's Constitution, religion is separate from the State. At the same time, a
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 71
          respectful aftitude to generally recognized norms and values in the spiritual sphere of society is
          one of the main principles applied to the formulation and realization of State policy in
          Turkmenistan. In this connection, Turkmenistan has been and remains commifted to the
          unswerving and consistent conduct of policy for the comprehensive implementation of safeguards
          in the field of human rights and freedoms, including in the area of religion and belief
          298. Article 11 of the Constitution of Turkmenistan stipulates that “the State guarantees
          freedom of religion and faith and the equality of religions and faiths before the law. Religious
          organizations are separate from the State, and may not interfere in its affairs or perform
          Governmental functions. Everyone has the right independently to determine his or her own
          religious preference, to practice any religion alone or in association with others or to practice no
          religion, to express and disseminate beliefs related to religious preference, and to participate in
          the performance of religious services, rituals and ceremonies”.
          299. Furthermore, Turkmenistan has proclaimed by law its obligations towards the international
          community in the field of human rights. The Declaration on the international human rights
          obligations of neutral Turkmenistan, adopted by the People's Council (Khalk Maslakhaty) on 27
          December 1995, states that “Turkmenistan guarantees to everyone the rights and freedoms
          enshrined in the Constitution, laws and generally accepted norms of international law without any
          distinction as to race, sex, language, religion, place of residence, political and other beliefs, ethnic
          or social origin, wealth, official or other status”.
          300. These principles were set forth in the Constitutional Act on the permanent neutrality of
          Turkmenistan passed on 27 December 1995, under which “Turkmenistan recognizes and respects
          the core of democratic rights and liberties of individuals and citizens adopted by the international
          community and enshrined in the norms of international law, and shall furnish political, economic,
          legal and other guarantees of their enjoyment in practice. Turkmenistan shall ensure the equality
          of all nations and peoples, freedom of religion and freedom of confession”.
          301. The Government also indicates that religious organizations and groups in the territory of
          Turkmenistan are registered under its legislation and in compliance with generally accepted
          international norms, regardless of their size, belief and religion. This is evidenced by the fact that
          religious organizations and groups of Muslims, Orthodox Christians, the Seventh-day Adventist
          Church, Bahá'Is, Evangelical Christian Baptists, Hare Krishna, the Church of Christ, the Greater
          Grace Evangelical Church, the Light of the East Evangelical Church, the Full Gospel Christian
          Church and the New Apostolic Church are now officially registered and functioning in
          Turkmenistan.
          302. The Government also notes, at the same time, that, on the basis of the humanist traditions
          of the Turkmen people and guided by the principles ofjustice, clemency and philanthropy,
          pardons were granted to 10 people convicted of evading service in the army (they belonged, in
          their own words, to a group of Jehovah's Witnesses) in 2004-2005. Despite the fact that these
          persons had commifted an offence, i.e. refusal to perform military duties, which is a
          constitutional obligation for a Turkmenistan citizen, they were pardoned.
          303. There are no instances of the detention of people on account of their beliefs, or of the
          application of administrative sanctions against them. With regard to the persons mentioned in
          communication sent, D. Ereshova and A. Tuyliyeva, who are members of a group of Jehovah's
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 72
          Witnesses (which is not registered under the established procedure), it has been confirmed from
          the available information that they were living without any identity papers. Consequently, efforts
          were made pursuant to the law to determine their identities. These persons were not arrested and
          certainly not subjected to violence.
          304. In relation to J. Karimova's case, the Government maintains the information of the
          communication is contrary to the actual circumstances. Also, official meetings were held with
          diplomatic representatives, during which exhaustive replies were given. Accordingly, the
          Government regrets the use made of unreliable sources.
          305. The Government also wants to point out that in Turkmenistan there has not been a single
          instance of an arrest or conviction for political, religious or other reasons. Furthermore, with the
          political stability existing in society all the conditions have been created to ensure the livelihood
          and development of representatives of all nationalities and peoples residing in the country. These
          opportunities are guaranteed by the law, under which any violation of the rights of citizens incurs
          the sanctions prescribed by law
          306. To conclude, the Government emphasizes that Turkmenistan is demonstrating in practice
          its readiness to conduct a dialogue with international organizations, and especially the United
          Nations, in a spirit of constructiveness and commitment to the achievement of common goals
          defined in the name of peace and prosperity for the peoples forming the basis of our cooperation
          within the community of nations.
          Observations
          307. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's detailed response and she would
          like to refer to her observations concerning the communication dated 2 December 2005. The
          Special Rapporteur hopes to receive a reply from the Government further to her lefter sent in
          2003 asking for an invitation to visit Turkmenistan to assess the situation of freedom of religion
          or belief
          United States ofAnierica
          Communication sent on 30 June 2005
          308. The Special Rapporteur brought to the aftention of the Government information she had
          received concerning the situation of Mr. Wazir Ahmed, Mr. Zahid Ahmed, Mr. Hashmat Au.
          Mr. Abdul Majeed, Shamsulhaq. Mr. Muhammad Aslam and Mr. Muhammad Abid, former
          detainees of the detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. They were among a group of forty-
          five men originally arrested four years ago in Afghanistan. According to the information
          received, while they were in custody in Guantanamo Bay, the aforementioned were victims of ill-
          treatment, such as sexual harassment during prayers as well as humiliation through desecration of
          the Holy Koran, which was deliberately designed to hurt their religious beliefs.
          Response from the Government dated 24 March 2006
          309. The Government stated that the Department of Defense (DoD) has carefully looked into
          the mafter of Koran mishandling at the U.S. detention facility in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The
          DoD investigation, completed in June 2005. found five instances of apparent mishandling by
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 73
          guards or interrogators. The Government maintained its firm commitment to respect religious
          freedom and it stated that the United States is particularly dedicated to respecting the religious
          and cultural dignity of the Koran and the detainees' practice of faith. The Joint Task Force has
          carefully implemented a standard operating procedure that makes every effort to provide
          detainees with religious articles associated with the Islamic faith, accommodate prayers and
          religious periods, and provide culturally acceptable meals and practices.
          310. The alleged instances of Koran mishandling were the focus of an in-depth investigation
          that was launched on 5 May 2005. This investigation found no credible evidence that a member
          of the Joint Task Force at Guantanamo Bay flushed a Koran down the toilet. An interview with
          the detainee who reportedly made this allegation revealed that he was not a witness to any such
          mistreatment and no other claims of this type have been made. The matter is therefore considered
          closed.
          311. Since the issuing of Korans to detainees in January 2002, there have been nineteen
          incidents involving handling of the Koran by Joint Task Force personnel. Of these nineteen
          incidences, ten involved the touching of a Koran during the normal performance of duty. The
          other nine incidents involved intentional or unintentional mishandling of a Koran. General Hood,
          who led the investigation, identified seven incidents where a guard may have mishandled a
          Koran. In two additional instances (one confirmed) an interrogator may have mishandled a
          Koran. The investigation also revealed fifteen cases in which the detainees themselves
          mishandled or inappropriately treated the Koran.
          312. With regard to the five instances of confirmed Koran mishandling the Joint Task Force
          specifically found:
          313. During an interrogation in February 2002, a detainee complained that guards at Camp X-
          ray kicked the Koran of a detainee in a neighbouring cell. The interrogator reported the incident,
          the guards were aware of the detainee's complaint but there is no evidence of further
          investigation.
          314. On 15 August 2003, two detainees complained that their Korans were wet because the
          night shift guards had thrown water balloons on the cell block. The complaints were recorded. It
          has not been determined whether further complaints were made by the detainees or whether their
          Korans were replaced. There is no evidence of further investigation into this incident.
          315. On 21 August 2003, a detainee complained that a two-word obscenity had been scrawled
          in English on the inside cover of his English-language Koran. The complaint was recorded and
          the English-language Koran was taken from the detainee who retained his Arabic-language
          Koran. There is no record of a formal complaint of the detainee to the commander.
          316. On 25 March 2005 a detainee complained to his guards that urine came through an air
          vent and splashed on him and his Koran while he lay near the air vent. A guard reported to his
          cellblock commander that he was at fault since he had left his post to urinate outside and had
          done so near the air vent so that the wind blew his urine into the air vent. The guard was relieved
          of duty and the detainee was immediately issued with a fresh uniform and a new Koran.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 74
          317. On 25 July 2003, a contract interrogator apologized to a detainee for stepping on the
          detainee's Koran in an earlier interrogation. The memorandum of the 25 July 2003 interrogation
          shows that the detainee had reported to other detainees that his Koran had been stepped on. The
          detainee accepted the apology and agreed to inform other detainees of the apology and ask them
          to cease the dismptive behaviour caused by the incident. The interrogator was later terminated for
          a pattern of unacceptable behaviour.
          318. As part of the investigation. General Hood has determined that the current guidance to the
          Guard force for handling the Koran is adequate although a number of recommendations for minor
          modifications are under review. The Government feels it is important to note the number of
          Korans (some 1600) which have been distributed among detainees to facilitate their desire to
          freely worship and the small number of very regrettable incidents should be seen in light of the
          volume of efforts to facilitate free religious practice.
          Observations
          319. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to the Government for its detailed response.
          Communication sent on 3 April 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on the situation of
          human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people
          320. The Special Rapporteurs raised concerns regarding information they had received
          regarding the case of John H. Hartley. who maintains to be a Native American from the
          Cherokee Nation. Mr. Hartley is currently in detention at the Coxsackie Correctional Facility
          (NY) where he is reportedly unable to practice his traditional religious beliefs due to lack of
          recognition of the correctional authorities of his affiliation to the Cherokee Nation. According to
          the information received his mother is Native American and he has been practicing his traditional
          religion since he was a child. His mother has signed a “Verification Affidavit” that describes her
          son as Native American.
          Observations
          321. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to make reference to her
          predecessor's conclusions after his country visit to the United States of America in 1998:
          “Concerning the religious rights of Native American prisoners, apart from the recommendation
          made in the section on legal issues, the Special Rapporteur recommends that the positive and
          practical action taken in many federal prisons (fully compatible with security requirements, e.g.
          ending the practice of cutting their hair) should become general throughout the United States
          prison system and that steps should be taken to ensure, particularly through training, and perhaps
          through penalties for prison officers and governors, that these rights are not treated as privileges
          that can be granted or refused at the whim of an authority or official.” (E/CN.4/1999/58/Add. 1,
          para. 84).
          Communication sent on 23 May 2006
          322. The Special Rapporteur received information concerning Saifullah A. Paracha, aged 58,
          a Pakistani national who has been detained at Guantánamo Ba since September 2004. According
        
 
          
          AIHRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 75
          to the allegations received. Saifullah Paracha has not been allowed to speak to a chaplain since he
          arrived at Guantánamo Bay in September 2004, despite the fact that he has indicated that he
          would be willing to speak to a Chaplain of any tradition.
          Observations
          323. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She takes note of the response of the
          United States dated 14 March 2006 to the “Human Rights Experts Joint Report on the Situation
          in Guantanamo” (E/CN.4/2006/120). The Special Rapporteur would be grateful if the
          Government extended an invitation to her to visit — together with the Special Rapporteur on
          torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Chairperson-
          Rapporteur of the Working Group on arbitrary detention the Special Rapporteur on the
          independence ofjudges and lawyers and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the
          enj ovment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health — the Guantánamo Bay
          Naval Station, in accordance with the standard “Terms of Reference for Fact-finding missions by
          Special Procedures”.
          324. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Persons deprived of their liberty” (see above para. 1, category III. 2.). In this
          regard she noted in her 2005 report to the General Assembly (A160/399, para. 80) that “ [ blecause
          the opportunity to practise one's religion, either in private or in public, might easily be restricted
          by the fact of detention, the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners make
          specific reference to the need for prison authorities to allow prisoners to observe their religion
          and to have access to a minister of that religion.”
          Uzbekistan
          Urgent appeal sent on 9 December 2005 jointly with the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the
          Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on the question on
          torture
          325. The Special Procedures mandate holders received information regarding Nozim
          Rakhmonov, Azomodin Kosimjonov. Abdurakhman Ibragimov. Tohirjon Abdusamatov.
          Shoimat Shorakhmedov. Alisher Mirzakholov. Abdurauf Kholmuratov. Alijon Mirganiev.
          Farkhod Islamov. Rukhiddin Fakhrutdinov and Sharafutdin Latipov. All or some of these
          persons were arrested by Kazakhstani authorities starting from 23 November 2005 in Southern
          Kazakhstan and handed over to the Uzbek authorities at the border between the two countries.
          They are now in the custody of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in Tashkent. They are accused of
          either “Wahabbism”, membership in “Akramia”, a banned religious movement or participation in
          the Andijan events of May 2005.
          Response from the Government dated 30 January 2007
          326. The Government informed that Nozim Rakhmonov and Sharafutdin Latipov. both active
          members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. helped to create and lead the illegal
          organization “wahhabiy” starting from 1998, for which they were paid 150 USD per months. On
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 76
          20 February 2006, a criminal case was opened against them and they both fully confessed that
          they were guilty, which has been corroborated by testimonies and associations with whom they
          commifted the crimes, confiscated material evidence and other materials found in the course of
          the preliminary investigation. On 8 May 2006, they both were found guilty by the criminal
          chamber of Tashkent City court of crimes under article 244 (1) of the Criminal Code, i.e. for
          preparing or distributing materials constituting a threat to public safety and societal order, and
          sentenced to five years of imprisonment. None of them filed any complaints during the pre4rial
          investigation. They are currently serving their sentences in JUN-61 and KJN-29.
          327. Abdurakhman Jbragimov, Alisher Mirzakholov, AbduraufKhalmuratov and Alijon
          Mirganiev, all active members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, helped to create and lead
          the illegal organization “wahhabiy” starting from 1998, for which they were paid 150 USD per
          months. From the moment of their respective arrests, all of them had full access to their lawyers
          and all investigative actions were conducted in presence of their defense lawyers. They also were
          allowed to repeatedly be visited by their family members. On 7 March 2006, all of them were
          accused of crimes under article 244 (2) of the Criminal Code, i.e. of setting up, leading or
          participating in a religious-extremist, separatist, fundamentalist or other illegal organization.
          Abdurakhman Ibragimov, Alisher Mirzakholov and Alij on Mirganiev fully confessed that they
          were guilty. AbduraufKhalmuratov partly confessed his guilt. On 17 May 2006, they were all
          found guilty by the court and sentenced to 6 years of imprisonment.
          328. Tohirjon Abdusamatov, an active member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan,
          helped to create and lead the illegal organization “wahhabiy” starting from 1998, for which he
          was paid 150 USD per months. On 4 April 2006 a criminal case was opened against him under
          articles 244 (2) and 248 (3) of the Criminal Code. On 14 June he was sentenced to 10 years of
          imprisonment, which he is serving in KJN-49.
          329. Shoirmat Sharakhmetov, helped to create and lead the illegal organization “wahhabiy”
          starting from 1998. He was arrested by police on 22 December 2005 in Tashkent Region. In the
          course of the investigation it was found that he is suffering from schizophrenia and needs forced
          medical treatment, which was confirmed by a decision of the criminal chamber of Tashkent City
          court on 20 April 2006. He therefore was sent to Tashkent psychiatric hospital n. 1, where he still
          is.
          330. Azomodin Kasimjanov, member of”Akromiya”, actively participated in the so-called
          demonstrations organized close to the court building in Andijan and in the armed group that
          attacked the military unit and the akhimyat. On 29 November 2005 a criminal case was opened
          under a series of aricles of the Criminal Code, including terrorism, premeditated murder, illegal
          possession of weapons etc. Two days later he was arrested and on 21 July 2006 the criminal
          chamber of Tashkent City Court sentenced him to 13 years of imprisonment.
          331. Rukhiddin Fakhrutdinov, on 15 September 2006, was found guilty of crimes under a
          series of articles of the Criminal code including terrorism, falsification of documents, illegal
          entering or leaving of the territory of Uzbekistan etc and sentenced to 17 years of imprisonment
          by the criminal chamber of Tashkent City Court. He partly confessed to having committed the
          crimes he was accused of In addition, several witnesses, such as A. Kholierov, B. Abdukhalikov,
          D. Akhmedov confirmed that R. Fakhmtdinov had given them monthly lessons with the
          underlying aim of conducting jihad in order to overthrow the constitutional system of the
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 77
          Republic of Uzbekistan. The findings of the investigation were also corroborated by
          confiscations of material evidence, searches and the results of a scientific expertise of the
          literature.
          Observations
          332. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's detailed response.
          Communication sent on 11 May 2006
          333. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
          received in relation with Abijan Yakubov, a prisoner in labour camp 64/47 in Kiziltep. Abijan
          Yakubov was punished by 15 days in an isolation cell for reciting Muslim prayers (namaz).
          According to the information received, prisoners at Labour camp 64/47 are prohibited from
          saying prayers at all times, in contravention of internal prison regulations which allow prisoners
          to say prayers from the time the guards awaken them until curfew time. There are also concerns
          that the internal prison regulations, applicable throughout the country, prevent prisoners from
          saying dawn prayers before the guards awaken the prisoners.
          Observations
          334. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur
          would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international
          human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Persons deprived of their liberty”
          (see above para. 1, category III. 2.). In this regard she noted in her 2005 report to the General
          Assembly (A/60/399, para. 80) the following: “Because the opportunity to practise one's religion,
          either in private or in public, might easily be restricted by the fact of detention, the Standard
          Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners make specific reference to the need for prison
          authorities to allow prisoners to observe their religion and to have access to a minister of that
          religion.”
          Communication sent on 10 August 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on Human
          Rights and counter terrorism
          335. The Special Rapporteurs sent this communication to raise concern in view of recently
          introduced legal amendments restricting the right to promote the bible outside prayer
          houses. According to the information received, following a meeting of the heads of the main
          confessions organised by the Religious Affairs Department held on 28 July 2006, a number of
          changes to the criminal and administrative Codes were announced. In particular these changes
          provide that persons who promote the bible outside prayer houses should be fined, and, in case of
          repeated attempts, imprisoned. Also the “pastor” of the church to which the person belongs can
          be fined or punished. These punishments also apply if a person carries more than one bible since
          it is assumed that only one is needed for private use.
          Observations
          336. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a reply from the
          Government concerning the above mentioned allegation. She would like to take the opportunity
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 78
          to remind the Government of article 6 (d) of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All
          Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, according to which the
          right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief includes the freedom. “ [ tb write, issue
          and disseminate relevant publications in these areas”.
          337. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for
          communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate
          practice concerning “Teaching and disseminating materials, including missionary activity” (see
          above para. 1. category I. 3. . In her 2005 report to the General Assembly, she noted the
          following (see A/60/399. para. 62): “Whereas the scope of freedom afforded to persons for the
          practice of their religion or belief by producing and distributing information about their religion
          or belief is wide, certain limitations can be imposed in accordance with article 18, paragraph 3, of
          the Covenant. However, it should be noted that this article allows for restrictions only in very
          exceptional cases. In particular the fact that it mentions the protection of “tiindctmentc,1 rights and
          freedoms” (emphasis added) of others as a ground for restriction indicates a stronger protection
          than for some other rights whose limitation clauses refer simply to the “rights and freedoms of
          others” (e.g. article 12, 21 and 22). It could indeed be argued that the freedom of religion or
          belief of others can be regarded as such a fundamental right and freedom and would justify
          limitations to missionary activities, but the freedom of religion and belief of adults basically is a
          question of individual choice, so any generalized State limitation (e.g. by law) conceived to
          protect “others” freedom of religion and belief by limiting the right of individuals to conduct
          missionary activities should be avoided.”
          Communication sent on 1 September 2006 jointly with the Special Rapporteur on Human
          Rights and counter terrorism and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or
          arbitrary executions
          338. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the aftention of the Government information they had
          received regarding Mr. Mohammadrafiq Kamoluddin, imam of a mosque in the city of Kara-
          Suu. Mr. Ayubkhodja Shahobidinov and Mr. Fathullo Rahimov. On 6 August 2006. the above-
          mentioned individuals were killed in the city of Osh, Kyrgvzstan, as the result of an alleged
          counter terrorism operation, led by the National Security Service of Kyrgyzstan, in cooperation
          with the security forces of Uzbekistan. It has been reported that these individuals were suspected
          members of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan and were planning to carry out a terrorist aftack
          on the territory of the State of Uzbekistan. Other reports highlight that it was not alleged that Mr.
          Mohammadrafiq Kamoluddin was a member of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan or that he
          was involved in the commission of terrorist acts.
          Statement conveyed by the Government on 24 November 2006
          339. The Government of Uzbekistan conveyed the text of a statement by the Ministry of
          Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uzbekistan of 24 November 2006. The Ministry of Foreign
          Affairs indicated that the news of the inclusion of Uzbekistan by the U.S. State Department in the
          so-called list of “states which cause a particular concern in the sphere of observance of religious
          freedoms” was received with astonishment. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs set out that religious
          tolerance and forbearance have always been and remain to be the most important component of
          the Republic of Uzbekistan's state policy. It states that there are eighteen religious confessions in
          the country, including Islam, the Orthodox, the Judaism and Catholicism, and that they coexist
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 79
          peacefully and freely observe their religious practices. There have been no conflicts regarding
          religious situations in the past years.
          340. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs regrets some entirely groundless statements by particular
          politicians, statesmen and mass media, which they consider of an explicitly provocative
          orientation, capable of undermining the mutual understanding among religions. Particularly, it
          refers to the link which is made between international terrorism and the Muslims. The Ministry of
          Foreign Affairs highlights that some slogans coming from the Western press circulate with
          offensive assessments, which hurt the honour, national dignity and feelings of hundreds of
          millions of Muslim believers. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs also affirms that the Republic of
          Uzbekistan is one of the acclaimed hubs of the development of Islamic culture and philosophy. It
          consistently pursues the policy of restoring, learning and preserving their rich spiritual heritage.
          Observations
          341. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that she has not received a substantive response to
          the communication sent jointly on 1 September 2006. She would like to emphasize that her
          mandate primarily receives information from non-state-entities and not from Governmental
          sources. The Special Rapporteur would be grateful if the Government of Uzbekistan indicated
          the legal basis for designating an individual or an entity as “terrorist” as well as the consequences
          of such qualification under the law of Uzbekistan. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would
          like to refer to her most recent annual report to the Human Rights Council where she also covers
          the issue of “Violations linked to counter4errorism measures” (A/HRC/4/21, para. 40): “The
          Special Rapporteur is conscious of the fact that the States' obligation to protect and promote
          human rights requires them to take effective measures to combat terrorism. However, she would
          like to underline that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies
          with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee
          and humanitarian law.”
          342. The Special Rapporteur hopes to receive a reply from the Government further to her letter
          sent in 2004 asking for an invitation to visit Uzbekistan to assess the situation of freedom of
          religion or belief
          Vietnam
          Communication sent on 12 December 2005
          343. The Special Rapporteur brought to the attention of the Government information she had
          received concerning Vo Van Thanh Liem, a Hoa Hao Buddhist. According what is been alleged,
          on 14 September 2005, Vo Van Thanh Liem was convicted on charges of “opposing public
          authorities” and sentenced to 7 years imprisonment. The trial took place before a closed court. He
          was arrested by local police officers in front of the Quang Minh Tu Temple, also known as Coc
          Ong Tu in Cho Moi District, An Giang Province on 5 August 2005. Prior to his arrest, local police
          officers surrounded the temple and barricaded the gate, preventing people from attending
          religious ceremonies. There is concern that his trial and conviction may have been linked to his
          religious activities.
        
 
          
          A/HRC/4/2 1/Add. 1
          page 80
          344. There is also concern that the Standing Committee of Vietnam's National Assembly
          issued an ‘Ordinance Regarding Religious Belief and Religious Organizations' on 18 June 2004.
          The Ordinance confines all religious activities to “religious establishments”. This Ordinance has
          restricted the religious activities of Hoa Hao Buddhists, who tend to carry out private acts of
          home-based worship.
          Response from the Government sent on 24 January 2006
          345. The Government indicated that, on 2 April 2005. Vo Van Thanh Liem threw petrol at 3
          women while they were doing morning exercises, causing eves injuries to Ms. Tran Thi Hang
          (injury percentage: 17%). On 5 April 2005. Ms. Hang lodged a request for legal action against
          Mr. Liem. On 5 August 2005. Mr. Liem was arrested and charged for “intentionally causing
          injury or doing harm to the health of other persons” (Article 104 of the Penal Code of Vietnam).
          The arrest was made while he was in his residence. On 15 September 2005, the People's Court of
          Cho Moi district, An Giang province, put Mr. Vo Van Thanh Liem on trial and sentenced him to 6
          years and 6 months of prison for his offence. There has been no appeal from Mr. Liem.
          Observations
          346. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government's response; however, she would
          like to enquire about the rationale behind the provisions of the ‘Ordinance Regarding Religious
          Belief and Religious Organizations' which confine all religious activities to “religious
          establishments”. In this regard, she wants to remind the Government of article 6 of the 1981
          Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on
          Religion or Belief, according to which the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or
          belief includes the freedom, “(a) To worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief
          [ .1; (c) To make, acquire and use the necessary articles and materials related to the rites or
          customs of a religion or belief'. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her
          framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to
          the mandate practice concerning “Freedom to worship” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. a) and
          “Places of worship” (categow I. 3. b).
        
 
 
Download Attachments:
 
PUBLIC/pdf/1323436052368-tiffdocs.pdf (ERROR)
 
 Tags
Arbitrary Detention Discrimination Free Speech Freedom of Religion