United Nations
e General Assembly Distr.: General
31 July 2001
Original: English/French
Fifty-sixth session
Item 131 (b) of the provisional agenda*
Human rights questions: human rights questions including alternative
approaches for improving the effective enjoyment of human rights and
fundamental freedoms
Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance
Note by the Secretary Genera1**
The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to members of the General
Assembly the interim report prepared by Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur of
the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief, in accordance
with General Assembly resolution 55 /97 of 4 December 2000.
* A1561150.
** The present report is being submitted on 31 July 2001 so as to include as much up-to-date
information as possible.
01-48385 (E) 240901 270901
IID II I DID I II I II DI ID II
A156/253
Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission
on Human Rights on the elimination of all forms of
intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief
Contents
Paragraphs Page
I. Introduction 1—3 3
II. Report on management in the area of freedom of religion or belief 4—106 3
A. Report on in situ visits and their follow-up 4—21 3
B. Report on communications sent by the Special Rapporteur and replies
received from States since the establishment of the mandate (1988-2001). . . . 22—106 8
III. Report on preventive action concerning freedom of religion or belief 107—130 31
A. International consultative conference on school education in relation to
freedom of religion or belief, tolerance and non-discrimination 108—121 31
B. Interreligious dialogue 122—130 34
IV. Report on cooperation with the Commission on Human Rights, United Nations
human rights mechanisms, specialized agencies of the United Nations system and
non-governmental organizations 131—156 37
A. Follow-up to Commission on Human Rights initiatives 131—147 37
B. Cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms and the
specialized agencies of the United Nations 148—150 40
C. Cooperation with non-governmental organizations 151—156 41
V. Conclusions and recommendations 157—169 42
Aimex
Late responses and additional information 47
2
A156/253
I. Introduction
1. At its forty-second session, the Commission on Human Rights decided, by
resolution 1986/20 of 10 March 1986, to appoint for one year a special rapporteur to
examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts of the world inconsistent
with the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (resolution 36/55),
and to recommend remedial measures for such situations.
2. Pursuant to resolution 1986/20, the Special Rapporteur has submitted 15
reports, in some cases with addenda, to the Commission on Human Rights since
1987. Since 1994, six reports (some of them with addenda) have been submitted to
the General Assembly; the present report is submitted in accordance with General
Assembly resolution 55 /97 of 4 December 2000.
3. Since the year 2001 marks the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the
Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief, the Special Rapporteur decided to report on the
mandate since its creation, both as regards management and prevention in the area
of freedom of religion or belief and as regards cooperation with the Commission on
Human Rights, United Nations human rights mechanisms, specialized agencies of
the United Nations system and non-governmental organizations. A series of
conclusions and recommendations were made on the basis of this review.
II. Report on management in the area of freedom of religion or
belief
A. Report on in situ visits and their follow-up
1. In situ visits
4. The Special Rapporteur wishes to recall the importance of in situ visits, which
constitute one of the main activities of the mandate.
5. In accordance with the resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and of
the General Assembly, the purpose of in situ visits is as follows:
(a) To consider, on the spot, incidents and government measures that are
incompatible with the provisions of the 1981 Declaration, and positive experiences
and initiatives in the area of freedom of religion or belief;
(b) To formulate recommendations aimed not only at the State visited but
also at the international community.
6. In October 1987, during the time that Mr. d'Almeida Ribeiro was Special
Rapporteur 1987 to 1993 in addition to personal visits, the Special Rapporteur
made an informal visit to Bulgaria at the initiative of the Bulgarian Government.'
7. Since he took over as Special Rapporteur, Mr. Adelfattah Amor has paid 13
visits two visits per year on average to States in Africa, North America, South
America, Asia, Europe and Oceania (see table 1).
3
A156/253
Table 1
In situ visits
State v s ted
Date o fv s t
Report oo v s t
China
November 1984
E/CN.4/1995/91
Pakistan
June 1995
E/CN.4/1 996/95/Add. 1
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
December 1995
E/CN.4/1996/9 5/Add.2
Greece
June 1996
A/ 51/ 542/Add.1
Sudan
September 1996
A/ 51/ 542/Add.2
India
December 1996
E/CN.4/1 997/91/Add. 1
Australia
February-March 1997
E/CN.4/1 998/6/Add. 1
Germany
September 1997
E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.2
United States of Am erica
January-February 1998
E/CN.4/1 999/58/Add. 1
Viet Nam
October 1998
E/CN.4/1 999/58/Add.2
Turkey
December 1999
A/ 5 5/280/Add.1
Bangladesh
May 2000
A/ 5 5/280/Add.2
Argentina
May 2001
A report will be
submitted to the
Commission on Human
Rights at its fifty-eighth
session
8. However, six States (see table 2) have not, as yet, replied to his requests for
permission to visit, even though reminders have been sent, either through follow-up
letters or in the context of reports submitted to the Commission on Human Rights
and to the General Assembly.
4
A156/253
Table 2
Unanswered requests for permission to visit
State
Date of hzthal request
Reaction
Indonesia
1996
No reply
Mauritius
1996
No reply
Israel
1997
No reply
Russian Federation
1998
No reply
Democratic People's
Republic of Korea
1999
No reply
Nigeria
2000
Acknowledged
9. In accordance with successive resolutions of the Commission on Human
Rights and of the General Assembly, including resolution 55 /97, whereby the
Assembly encourages Governments to give serious consideration to inviting the
Special Rapporteur to visit their countries so as to enable him to fulfil his mandate
even more effectively, the Special Rapporteur invites the above-mentioned
Governments to cooperate fully with him and to respond favourably to his requests
for permission to make in situ visits.
10. The Special Rapporteur wishes to point out that these requests in no way
suggest that there are preconceived views or any negative judgement regarding the
Governments concerned. On the contrary, the aim is, by means of such visits, to
establish or to pursue a dialogue with the authorities and with all the parties
concerned, particularly with non-governmental organizations and all individuals
having a particular interest in the mandate. These in situ visits also lead to a better
understanding and a balanced (and therefore non-Manichean) analysis of the
complex realities of the situation as regards freedom of religion or belief in a given
country.
11. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that, at the level of the principles
governing his mandate, including that of non-selectivity, all countries without
exception should receive an in situ visit, insofar as all have had positive experiences
and problems with regard to the 1981 Declaration, taking into consideration
differences in the level and pace of development in terms of time and space
that have to be evaluated during in situ visits. It is therefore essential to plan in situ
visits in the short, medium and long-term, taking into account time and also
financial constraints.
12. It should also be recalled that some visits such as the above-mentioned visit
to the Sudan are made in response to a specific request from the Commission on
Human Rights and/or the General Assembly.
13. Furthermore, in accordance with Commission resolution 5-5/1 of 19 October
2000, entitled “Grave and massive violations of the human rights of the Palestinian
people by Israel”, adopted at the fifth special session, the Commission on Human
Rights decided inter alia to request the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance
5
A156/253
to carry out an immediate mission to the occupied Palestinian territories and to
report the findings to the Commission at its fifty-seventh session. To that end, on 18
December 2000, the Special Rapporteur addressed a letter to the Permanent Mission
of Israel to the United Nations informing it that he planned to go to the occupied
territories and seeking the cooperation of the Israeli authorities for access to the
territory. On 2 January 2001, the Permanent Mission of Israel informed the Special
Rapporteur of the Israeli Government's position regarding the resolution, namely:
“The operative part of the resolution calls for the establishment of a
human rights inquiry commission, requests the United Nations Commission for
Human Rights to visit the region and report on the (so-called) Israeli violations
of human rights, and request a larger number of special rapporteurs to visit and
report on issues, such as racism, torture and violence against women. Israel
will not cooperate in the implementation of the operative part of this
resolution.”
14. The Special Rapporteur was therefore unable to go to the occupied territories,
despite the gravity of the situation and the corroborating and disquieting information
received in the context of the mandate. On 18 April 2001, during its fifty-seventh
session, the Commission on Human Rights adopted resolution 2001/7 entitled
“Question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories,
including Palestine”, whereby it recalled resolution S- S/i and expressed its deep
concern at the failure of the Government of Israel to cooperate with the human
rights inquiry commission and its failure to cooperate with other relevant
rapporteurs. On 22 June 2001, the Special Rapporteur, in consultation with other
special rapporteurs concerned, sent a reminder to the Permanent Mission of Israel,
calling on it to cooperate within the framework of resolution S- S/i and the terms of
the mandate on freedom of religion or belief so as to enable him to pay a visit to the
occupied territories.
15. Aside from the so-called “traditional” in situ visits referred to above, the
Special Rapporteur decided, in 1999, to begin visits to the major communities of
religion or belief The purpose of such visits was to establish a dialogue on the 1981
Declaration and all issues relating to freedom of religion or belief and to consider
solutions to the problems of intolerance and discrimination in that area.
Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur visited the Holy See in September 1999.2 Visits
are also planned to other religions including, Islam, Judaism, non-Catholic
Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, and the belief systems of indigenous populations.
The end goal of this approach is to demonstrate the diversity and wealth of religions
and beliefs and, if possible, to identify common values and approaches with respect
to fundamental issues relating to freedom of religion or belief and therefore to
human rights.
2. Follow-up to in situ visits
16. Since 1996, the Special Rapporteur has established a follow-up procedure
whereby States which have received an in situ visit are asked to provide comments
and any information on measures the relevant authorities have taken or are
considering taking to implement the recommendations formulated in the mission
reports.
6
A156/253
17. Table 3 below gives an account of the follow-up procedure.
Table 3
Follow-up procedure
States v s ted
Date of subm ss on offollow-up
procedure to State v s ted (report)
Reachon of State to report
China
1996 (A/51/542)
Reply 1996 (A/51/542)
Pakistan
1996 (A/51/542)
Reply 1997
(A/52/477/Add. 1)
Iran (Islamic Republic of)
1996 (A/51/542)
No reply despite
reminders
Greece
1997 (A/52/477/Add.1)
Reply 1997
(A/52/477/Add. 1)
Sudan
1997 (A/52/477/Add.1)
Reply 1997
(A/52/477/Add. 1)
India
1997 (A/52/477/Add.1)
Reply 1998 (A/53/279)
Australia
1998 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply despite one
reminder
Germany
1998 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply despite one
reminder
United States of America
2000 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply
Viet Nam
2000 (E/CN.4/1999/58)
No reply
18. The follow-up procedure will be initiated as soon
visits to Bangladesh and Turkey.
as possible in respect of the
19. The Special Rapporteur calls on all States concerned to cooperate fully with
the follow-up procedure, which is a corollary to his visits and a key tool for
cooperation. Not only does it work to the benefit of States, non-governmental
organizations and individuals concerned with the mandate, but it also strengthens
United Nations human rights mechanisms as a whole. In June 2000, for example, the
Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its final observations on the Islamic
Republic of Iran, endorsed the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on
religious intolerance following his visit to the State party and recommended that the
State party implement them fully.
20. The Special Rapporteur wishes to draw attention to Commission on Human
Rights resolution 2000/86 of 27 April 2000, on human rights and thematic
procedures, in which the Commission invites the Governments concerned to study
carefully the recommendations addressed to them under thematic procedures and to
keep the relevant mechanisms informed without undue delay on the progress made
towards their implementation. The Special Rapporteur calls on Australia, Germany,
7
A156/253
the Islamic Republic of Iran, the United States and Viet Nam to reply as soon as
possible to the follow-up procedure.
21. The Special Rapporteur intends to make follow-up visits as soon as possible.
B. Report on communications sent by the Special Rapporteur and
replies received from States since the establishment of the
mandate (1988-2001)
22. In reporting on his work since the establishment of the mandate, the Special
Rapporteur considers it useful to include in this interim report a summary of the
communications and replies received from States since the last session of the
Commission on Human Rights.
1. Report on communications sent by the Special Rapporteur and replies received
from States since the publication of the report submitted to the Commission on
Human Rights at its fifty-seventh session
23. This report covers a total of 49 communications (including two urgent appeals
to Afghanistan) sent to 24 States: Afghanistan (3), China, Cuba, Egypt (3), Georgia
(4), India (3), Indonesia (4), Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Lebanon, Malaysia,
Myanmar, Nepal (2), Nigeria (2), Pakistan (4), Republic of Korea, Saint-Lucia, Sri
Lanka, Sudan (2), Turkey, Turkmenistan (3), United Arab Emirates, Ukraine (2),
Viet Nam (5).
24. The report also covers the replies received from five States to allegations
contained herein. Late replies were received from 16 States, and two States sent
additional information relating to communications sent in the context of the report
to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-seventh session, in 2001.
Afghanistan
25. On 8 January 2000, Mullah Mohammad Omar Mujahid, supreme chief of the
Taliban, issued a decree establishing the death penalty for any Muslim who converts
to another religion and a five-year prison term for anyone possessing “anti-Islamic”
literature.
26. The Permanent Mission of Afghanistan to the United Nations in Geneva
confirmed this report and issued the following statement:
“The fanaticism shown by the Taliban has extremely serious and dramatic
consequences on the daily lives of the Afghan people: the pursuit of war,
destruction of villages, arbitrary mass executions of civilians, forced
displacement of populations, kidnapping and rape of women, food blockades,
mass arrests of innocent civilians, torture, etc. We have said over and over
again that the ideology and practice of the Taliban are not only foreign to
Islam, but anti-Islamic as well”.
27. On 26 February 2001, a second decree was issued ordering the destruction of
all non-Islamic statues and monuments. In an urgent appeal to the Taliban
representative, Mullah Mohammad Omar Mujahid, the Special Rapporteur asked for
a halt to the destruction of monuments and irreplaceable relics including the
Buddhist statues of Bamayan which reflected the religious diversity of
8
A156/253
Afghanistan. The Special Rapporteur pointed out that such acts of destruction were
an affront to religious beliefs and a violation of freedom of religion, a freedom that
was guaranteed and protected by international law. No reply has been received from
the Taliban to date. The Bamayan statues were destroyed. During this Year of
Dialogue among Civilizations, the international community should react strongly
and take steps to effectively protect religious sites and monuments, including those
which are part of the cultural heritage of mankind. The Special Rapporteur notes
with satisfaction that on 31 May 2001, the General Assembly adopted resolution
55/254 on the protection of religious sites, in which it condemns all acts or threats of
violence, destruction, damage or endangerment, directed against religious sites as
such; calls upon all States to adopt adequate measures aimed at preventing such acts
or threats of violence, and invites relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations to contribute to those efforts by developing appropriate initiatives in
this field; encourages all States, relevant intergovernmental and non-governmental
organizations and the media to promote, inter alia, through education, a culture of
tolerance and respect for the diversity of religions and for religious sites, which
represent an important aspect of the collective heritage of mankind.
28. The Special Rapporteur draws attention to Commission on Human Rights
resolution 2001/42, entitled “Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance”, in
which the Commission requests States to exert utmost efforts, in accordance with
their national legislation and in conformity with international human rights
standards, to ensure that religious places, sites and shrines are fully respected and
protected and to take additional measures in cases where they are vulnerable to
desecration or destruction.
29. The Permanent Mission of Afghanistan in Geneva confirmed the allegations
referred to in the Special Rapporteur's urgent appeal and drew attention to the fact
that pre-Islamic works in Afghanistan had been completely destroyed by the Taliban
militia. The Permanent Mission added:
“We do not know how to qualify this barbaric act of vandalism, which is
an affront to our history and to the beliefs of millions of Buddhists in the
world ... Strong and firm pressure must be brought to bear on the Government
of Pakistan to cease its multifaceted support, including military support, to this
group.”
30. On 22 May 2001, the Taliban allegedly planned to issue a third decree
whereby, based on their interpretation of Sharia law, non-Muslims would be
required to wear a distinctive emblem on their clothing. The official explanation was
that this would provide better protection for minorities. The Special Rapporteur sent
an urgent appeal to the supreme chief of the Taliban, asking him not to issue the
decree because of its discriminatory nature and stressing that measures designed to
protect minorities must be consistent with the relevant international human rights
standards, which were based on the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of
religion or belief Again, no reply has been received from the Taliban. The Special
Rapporteur considers that the case of the Taliban is an instance not only of the use
of religion for political purposes, but of obscurantism as well. The Special
Rapporteur also considers that the negative image of Islam that has been conveyed
by the Taliban not only misrepresents that religion, but constitutes a betrayal and a
downright defamation of Islam, as noted in Commission on Human Rights
resolution 2001/4, of 18 April 2001, entitled “Combating defamation of religions as
9
A156/253
a means to promote human rights, social harmony and religious and cultural
diversity.”
China
31. On 23 January 2001, four men and one woman believed to be Falun Gong
members allegedly set fire to themselves on Tiananmen Square in Beijing.
Cuba
32. On 21 November 2000, a teacher reportedly prohibited her students from
bringing religious pictures to class. She is also said to have told the students' parents
that education was an obligation of the State and not a parental right. It was also
alleged that under a new law, diplomas held by professionals who had entered a
seminary or a religious order would no longer be recognized as valid.
33. Cuba replied, inter alia, that these allegations were a complete fabrication
made up by individuals or organizations acting in accordance with the policy of
hostility and aggression pursued by the Government of the United States of America
against the Cuban people and revolution. These individuals or organizations were
unscrupulously using the mechanisms of the Commission on Human Rights to serve
their own interests. After a detailed investigation, Cuba stated, inter alia,
“It is impossible for students to be punished for bringing to class
symbols, emblems or other distinctive signs, expressing of the freedom of
religion or conviction they enjoy. One of the principles on which [ Cuban]
education is based is the right of every person to be protected from all forms of
discrimination based on religion or belief; that right is established in the
Constitution. While it is true that the Cuban State guarantees to all citizens the
right to a free education, as it has the responsibility and the duty to do, the
educational system grants parents and families a special and decisive role at all
stages of education ... The fact that a person enters seminary or takes orders
does not constitute a violation nor does it constitute grounds for persecution
and discrimination; consequently, the validity of diplomas cannot be
suspended. As regards the exercise of medicine, members of the medical
profession are only required to observe the rules established by the Ministry of
Public Health. In no way do these rules provide that clergy or individuals, in
practicing their religion, whatever it may be, should be prohibited from
exercising their profession or be suspended from their duties. Moreover,
several of the main babalawos (individuals who, in cultures of African origin,
play a role similar to that of Christian priests and pastors) are doctors who
work in hospitals and other health centres in the country.”
34. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank Cuba for its detailed reply, which
reaffirms its adherence to the struggle against religious intolerance.
Egypt
35. In January 2001, some members of the Baha'i community were allegedly
arrested for a variety of reasons, including propagation of deviant beliefs, possession
of forbidden literature, vice and debauchery. The press allegedly conducted a
slanderous campaign against the Baha'is. On 27 February 2001, Dr. Nasir Farid, the
Mufti of Egypt, reportedly issued a legal statement declaring the Baha'i community
10
A156/253
to be a sect and confirming the need to punish as apostates Baha'is who violated the
laws of Islam. As of 9 March 2001, nine Baha'is in the Sohag region were still in
prison. Apparently the detainees have not been formally charged, and their detention
was reportedly extended on several occasions (60 days, 15 days, 45 days and one
month). Arrests of Baha'is in Ismailiya and Shibin el-Kom have also been reported,
and nine Baha'is are said to have been freed.
36. On 27 January 2001, writer and editor Salah al-Din Muhsin was allegedly
sentenced by a tribunal, under article 98(1) of the Penal Code, for having denigrated
revealed religions and threatened social peace. His publications reflecting his views
on society and on religious issues were allegedly banned. In addition, Professor
Saadeddine Ibrahim was reportedly charged with defamation against Egypt for
writing a critical report on the riots between Muslims and Copts in El-Kosheh.
United Arab Emirates
37. In October 2001, the local authorities in Dubai allegedly stopped the Hindu
funeral of an Indian citizen, Hiro Jashanmal Jihangiani, and transferred his body to
the morgue. Ignoring a court decision ordering that the body be returned to the son
of the deceased, they allegedly proceeded to bury it in a Muslim cemetery.
Georgia
38. On 18 December 2000, in Tbilisi, Father Vassili vfl.calashvili (who had been
excommunicated by the Georgian Orthodox Church), along with a group of
Orthodox extremists, allegedly tried to physically prevent the construction of a
Pentecostal establishment, claiming that it was a house of Satanists. On 22 January
2001, the same individuals allegedly broke into the Office of the Ombudsman during
a press conference that had been called to collect petitions on violence against
religious minorities in Georgia. The group allegedly stole 12 of the 14 volumes of
petitions. On the same day, this group of extremists allegedly interrupted a meeting
of Jehovah's Witnesses and beat those present. On 6 March 2001, on the order of the
Georgian Orthodox Patriarchate, four priests allegedly mobilized a crowd of 150
people against the Jehovah's Witnesses in Sachkere. The mayor and the local police
had been warned of the violence but allegedly refused to intervene. On 13 May
2001, in the Mukhiani region, a crowd led by Bassilist extremists are said to have
violently attacked 60 Jehovah's Witnesses, including women, during a religious
service being held in a private apartment. The police allegedly intervened and
arrested three Bassilists, who were later released. In May 2001, Father Vassili
Mkalashvili reportedly aimounced plans for pogroms against Jehovah's Witnesses
on Kavkasia television.
India
39. On 26 November 2000, Hindu militants belonging to the Hindu Vishwa Hindu
Parishad (VHP) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) parties allegedly
occupied by force the Evangelical Church of India in Chindia, Surat district,
Gujarat. They reportedly destroyed the church cross in order to put up Hindu idols.
On the same day, Hindu extremists allegedly attacked the Sainte Marie convent in
Meerut district, Uttar Pradesh, and a number of evangelists in Kolar, Karnataka. On
27 November 2000, Hindu extremists allegedly struck Father C. Alphonse in the
Plipipura church. On 29 November 2000, Hindu extremists are said to have
11
A156/253
seriously damaged the hall of the church in Bokaro. On 4 January 2001, in Jaher
village near Udaipur district, Rajasthan, two priests participating in a religious
ceremony were said to have been beaten by a group of at least 40 armed men.
40. On 14 December 2000, the Andhra Pradesh police allegedly issued an arrest
warrant against M.T.V. Ramana Murty, editor of the humanist monthly Vijceya
Viharam on grounds that he had offended the religious sentiments of Muslims and
incited to animosity among religious groups. The accusation was apparently
motivated by the publication of an article on Swami Dayananda Saraswati, a Hindu
reformer and the founder of Arya Samaj. The article allegedly included quotations
from Swami Dayananda Saraswati that were critical of Islam. According to certain
non-governmental organizations, the quotations were taken from a work that was
available throughout India, including public libraries. It appears that the real reason
for this action against M.T.V Ramana Murty was the publication of a series of
articles criticizing Godman Satya Sai Baba which were widely disseminated through
dignitaries and high-ranking police officials. Objections were also raised to certain
articles against Vaastu, the main proponents of which were said to be incensed
against the editor of the magazine.
41. On 6 December 2000, the Prime Minister is said to have stated in Parliament
that a temple must be built at Ayodhya in response to national sentiment, adding
that: “It is not yet over”. This statement was made on the occasion of the eighth
anniversary of the demolition of Babri Masjid and was interpreted as providing
support for a campaign to impose the building of a temple on the Babri Masjid site.
42. On 20 February 2001, in Karnataka, the Government apparently refused to
renew the residence permit of a 79-year-old French missionary of the Paris Mission
Society who had worked in India among the poor since the age of 24. On 26
February 2001, in Orissa, Balasore district, on the basis of Orissa's freedom of
religion Act of November 1999, the police allegedly prevented six members of the
Channa Singh tribal family from converting to Christianity. Three weeks after
submitting a properly completed form concerning their conversion, the six people
allegedly decided, since there had been no response from the authorities, to go ahead
with the conversion ceremony. However, the police appear to have opposed that on
the grounds that the inquiry into the reasons for their conversion was not yet
complete.
Indonesia
43. On 28 November 2000, in Kairatu, Scram Island, Muslim jihad fighters
allegedly attacked the Christian community, destroying a Seventh Day Adventist
church.
44. In December 2000, in Keswui, Teor and Scram, Muslim extremists appear to
have systematically forced Christians to convert to Islam, to change their names, and
to submit to circumcision in the case of men and genital mutilation in the case of
women, on pain of being executed if they refused. On 20 December 2000, Saleh
Latuconsina, administrator of the state of civil emergency in Ambon, is reported to
have confirmed cases of enforced conversion to Islam in Kesui (Central Maluku)
organized by Muslim extremists.
12
A156/253
45. On 21 May 2001, in Ambon, extremists allegedly attacked Christians causing
the death of at least six people. It is reported that 5,000 people have been killed
since hostilities broke out in the Moluccas in January 1999.
46. Indonesia replied:
“The Government of Indonesia has repeatedly condemned the violence
associated with the recent Moluccan conflict, which originated in Ambon in
1999 and subsequently spread to most major islands in the chain, resulting in
deaths as well as incalculable damage to infrastructures and public buildings.
In addition, officials estimate that in total over 500,000 persons have been
displaced by the fighting, mainly from the two hardest hit provinces of North
Maluku and Maluku, with approximately 197,000 internally displaced persons
generated from the former and 289,000 displaced persons from the latter.
“With regard to the specific allegations mentioned in the above
communications, President Wahid conceded in late December last year that
hundreds of Christians on the islands of Keswui and Teor had been forced to
convert to Islam in November and December 2000. The President was quick to
express his abhorrence at such acts and condemned the practice outright. As
for the incidences of forced circumcisions and female genital mutilations that
allegedly took place, my Government cannot confirm these reports, although
we concede that acts of gross human rights violations may unfortunately occur
during internecine feuding and in cases of mob attacks. Furthermore, it goes
without saying that the Government of Indonesia strongly deplores any action
that leads to unacceptable physical and psychological trauma. Likewise, my
Government also strongly condemns the 20 May 2001 attacks that occurred in
Soya Kecil, Belakang Soya and Karang Panjang in Ambon, resulting in the
deaths of at least 8 people and the injury of 17 others. The latest reports show
that two members of the heavily armed group of attackers were among those
killed. We deeply regret that these latest skirmishes come at a time when the
rift between the two communities was showing definite signs of healing.
“At this point, we believe that it is necessary to rectify the commonly
held view, as reflected in your communications, that the Moluccan conflict is
driven by religious disparities. More accurately, political and socio-economic
causes, with cultural and etimic overtones, are at the root of the trouble and
have in turn sparked off religious tensions. Indeed, although the initial fighting
broke out between local residents (Christians) and settlers (Muslims) over land
tenure issues, complicated by status disparities between these two
communities, it only later evolved into what has been perceived as religious
clashes. Moreover, as the conflict gained momentum, ideology or religious
beliefs were superseded by a desire for revenge, with each faction blaming the
other for initiating and perpetuating the violence. As civilians fled to
neighbouring areas, they exported their resentment to their new places of
residence, thereby causing the violence to spread.
“The rapidly spiralling conflict and the sheer numbers of people involved
took the authorities by surprise and initially overwhelmed the limited forces in
situ. However, an improvement was felt when the Government imposed a state
of emergency and a curfew as well as undertaking all possible measures to
curb the violence, including:
13
A156/253
“(a) Disarming civilians. Over 46,000 weapons of all types and
descriptions have been recovered and removed from general circulation since
the implementation of the state of emergency in June 2000;
“(b) Arresting and expelling members of Laskar Jihad from the islands.
Indeed, the Government of Indonesia is strongly opposed to the deployment of
Muslim militants from Java to the Moluccas to participate in the conflict there
and has recently closed a training camp run by that organization south of
Jakarta;
“(c) Investigating and prosecuting those responsible for instigating or
participating in the various riots, including any police and military personnel
who took part in the violence;
“(d) More recently, reducing the numbers of military personnel by half.
This has had no adverse repercussions on the overall security environment,
which has continued to improve.
“Since the re-establishment of law and order in the region, the
Government has proceeded to rebuild and to implement reconciliation and
education plans, more particularly in North Maluku, where the security
environment has been more conducive. As a result, this hard-hit province has
witnessed the return of many internally displaced persons.
“Among other measures, the Government has concentrated on:
“(a) Establishing reconstruction programmes supervised by the
provincial government in border areas between the two communities and
making a point of rebuilding all places of worship destroyed in the violence;
“(b) Rehabilitating the public utilities, including school buildings and
health facilities, destroyed in the rioting and reaffirming education as a top
priority to improve living conditions and job prospects through self-
sufficiency. Emphasis has also been placed on teaching the younger generation
the values of religious and cultural tolerance;
“(c) Encouraging greater dialogue and social exchanges between locals
of different ethnic origins, cultures and religions in the province through the
organization of peace talks, in order to build trust between the two
communities;
“(d) Calling on local traditional chiefs to resume their leadership while
supporting state law and guaranteeing the integration of all migrants living in
the province. In addition, local traditions and customs will be promoted in
order to accommodate the differences among the various communities of the
province.
“Significant progress has been made in addressing the religious aspect of
the conflict. On 23 April 2001, various of the island's factions reached a
significant decision to unite and produce an agreement entitled ‘Peace
Declaration of Muslims and Christians' confirming their desire to coexist
peacefully and to foil attempts by provocateurs to whip up sectarian feeling.
“To conclude, both the Christian and Muslim communities in the
Moluccas, who had lived peacefully side by side for generations, have been
manipulated by a political elite bent on creating an unstable climate by
14
A156/253
exacerbating cultural and religious sentiment. Although there has been a
marked change for the better in recent months, the considerable destruction
and conflict have led to resentment and feelings of revenge, which are apt to
flare up from time to time and are difficult to control. Notwithstanding, let me
assure you that all efforts continue to be made to promote a spirit of tolerance
and forgiveness among the affected populations and to rebuild the
infrastructures destroyed in the conflict. Meanwhile, we shall be glad to supply
any information, as and when available, on future developments relating to the
situation in the Moluccas.”
Iran (Islamic Republic ol)
47. In 2000, it appears that properties belonging to Baha'is in Tehran, Isfahan and
Shiraz were confiscated. Moreover, shops in Tehran belonging to Baha'is were
allegedly shut down by force and the issuance of trading licences for Baha'is was
delayed.
Kenya
48. On 30 November and 1 December 2000, violent confrontations apparently took
place between young members of the Christian and Muslim communities. The
incidents are said to have broken out after Muslim adolescents destroyed some
wooden kiosks that were considered to be too close to a mosque. A church and a
clinic were reportedly burned down and the International Christian Centre and two
other churches were damaged. Twenty-eight people are said to have been hurt,
including the Archbishop, David Gitari. It is claimed that the police took no action.
49. Kenya replied:
“I would like to inform you that the Government does not condone religious
intolerance, and views the events of 30 November and 1 December as criminal
acts. In fact, as you may be aware, the communities involved have always
lived together peacefully. The incidents of violence were sparked by a dispute
over land whose ownership is claimed by both the Muslim community and a
group of local traders. Following these incidents, the Government immediately
took steps to apprehend those involved. By Monday 4 December 2000, 82
people were already in custody awaiting trial for their involvement in the
mayhem.”
50. The Special Rapporteur thanks Kenya for its clarifications concerning the
incidents referred to, and their nature, as well as for any further information that
may be provided on the outcome of the trials.
Lebanon
51. In mid-March 2001, a Christian cemetery outside Aytroun village was
allegedly desecrated by members of Hizbullah on the grounds that the deceased
were “traitors” who had collaborated with Israel in the past.
15
A156/253
Malaysia
52. In November 2000, four people including a woman were reportedly sentenced
by the Sharia high court in the state of Kelantan, to three years imprisonment
because of their conversion from Islam to Christianity and their refusal to repent and
return to Islam.
Mya nma r
53. Since 1997, the administrative authorities of Toungoo have allegedly been
trying to bring about the destruction of the Hantha mosque. On 15 May 2001, a
group of people, some of them dressed as monks, reportedly entered the mosque in
order to begin the work of demolition. At the same time, a crowd of some 300 men
led by a monk allegedly launched an attack against the Muslim quarters, also
attacking houses and the Kaka mosque. In spite of appeals by Muslims to the police,
the latter are said to have taken no action. On 16 May 2001, the same crowd
allegedly set fire to the Hantah mosque and to Muslim shops. In all, at least 20
Muslims were allegedly killed, about 100 seriously injured and 20 mosques burned
down. It was only on 17 May 2001 that the army reportedly put an end to the
violence.
Nepal
54. On 29 October 2000, four Christians were apparently arrested and accused of
proselytizing in Rajbiraj, Saptari district. They were reportedly arrested in spite of
the fact that Hindu extremists had interrupted an evangelist meeting and attacked
Christian believers, including the four people just mentioned.
55. On 26 February 2001, the Nepalese Government reportedly obstructed the
Tibetan New Year celebrations at Kathmandu, for example prohibiting the display of
photographs of the Dalai Lama outside monasteries.
Nigeria
56. In November 2000 in the state of Katsina, a man was apparently sentenced to
100 strokes of the cane and one year's imprisonment on the grounds that he had had
extramarital sexual relations with an 18-year-old girl. The sentence was reportedly
carried out. On 12 October 2000, in Abuja, the local authorities reportedly ordered
the demolition of a Seventh Day Adventist church.
57. Early in 2001, following a visit by the Israeli ambassador to the capital of the
state of Gombe and discussions between the Governors of the southern States with a
view to challenging, in the Supreme Court, the introduction of sharia law by the
northern States, riots apparently broke out involving thousands of young Muslims.
Four people were said to have been killed and Baptist churches ransacked.
Pakistan
58. On 23 November 2000, the Secretary-General of the Shiite Tehreek-i-Jafria
Pakistan political party was reportedly assassinated. A press release by the party
apparently attributed the crime to religious extremists who were receiving
hospitality from the Taliban in Afghanistan. On 26 February 2001, another
prominent Shiite member of Tehreek-i-Jafria Pakistan was reportedly assassinated.
16
A156/253
59. On 10 January 2001, the police are said to have violently attacked a peaceful
protest against blasphemy laws in force in Pakistan organized by the All-Faiths
Spiritual Movement.
60. Pakistan replied:
“The Government of Pakistan has the honour to state that at 4.00 p.m. on
10 January 2001 as the procession of about 1,000 persons demanding the
abolishment of Blasphemy Law headed by Father Arnold Heredia reached near
Regal Chowk, the mob started throwing stones at the police who were deputed
there to deal with any unpleasant situation. The police had resorted to some
administrative measures to restore law and order. During this process Father
Arnold Heredia received a minor head injury. Two police officials were also
hurt due to stone-throwing by the protesters. Father Arnold Heredia and 17
others were arrested at 5.30 p.m. by Preedy Police Station, Saddar, Karachi, on
10 January 2001. The detainees were charged with violating the following
sections of the Pakistan penal code: section 147, rioting; section 148, rioting
with deadly weapons; section 149, unlawful assembly; section 151, violation
of orders to disperse; section 152, obstruction of a public servant; section 352,
assault or use of criminal force on a public servant; section 324, attempt to
murder; and section 337 H, (a) hurt to others by rash or negligent act; and (b)
rash or negligent act to endanger human life or personal safety of others. Due
process of law is already under way. The case awaits decision by the Court.”
61. The Special Rapporteur thanks Pakistan in advance for communicating to him
the forthcoming court rulings on the above-mentioned cases.
62. On 1 April 2001, a Christian, Parvez Masih, was falsely accused of blasphemy.
Muslim extremists belonging to the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Sipah-e-Sihaba groups
are said to have threatened with reprisals anyone challenging the false accusations
of blasphemy.
Republic of Korea
63. It is reported that 1,505 Jehovah's Witnesses are being held in 37 of the
country's prisons because of their conscientious objection to military service. Most
of them have reportedly been sentenced to three years imprisonment. It is said that
this is due to the fact that there is no legal provision establishing civilian service as
an alternative for conscientious objectors.
Saint Lucia
64. On New Year's Eve, two men reportedly burst into the Basilica of the
Immaculate Conception during morning mass, beat the worshippers, poured petrol
on them and set them alight, killing one nun and causing 12 people, including a
priest, to be hospitalized. It is reported that the police arrested the two perpetrators,
who claimed to be Rastafarian “prophets” whose mission it was to fight corruption
within the Catholic church. This attack apparently exacerbated tension between
Catholics and Rastafarians.
17
A156/253
Sudan
65. On 8 December 2000, a man suspected of belonging to the Al-Takfir wa-al-
Hijra group apparently killed 20 worshippers and wounded 40 others at evening
prayers at the Al-Muhammadiyah mosque in Garaffa.
66. On 10 April 2001, the Government reportedly decided to cancel the Easter
service at Khartoum. Thousands of young Christians apparently gathered in front of
All Saints Church in the suburbs of Khartoum in order to dispute the decision. The
security forces reportedly wounded a number of demonstrators and made 40 arrests.
The Ministry of the Interior is said to have stated that prayer meetings had been
prohibited in any open space in Khartoum in order to prevent any friction between
the various believers.
Sri Lanka
67. On 18 February 2001, in Hingurangoda district, Buddhist extremists are said to
have violently attacked the Sanasum Sevana church in the village of Nuwarawattee.
It is reported that a pastor and two other church officials were seriously injured and
that a religious official was also dragged into a Buddhist temple and savagely
beaten. The extremists allegedly threatened to rape his wife and attack his family if
he continued to visit the church. The police apparently refused to record the
complaints of the victims and would not ensure adequate protection of the Christian
community.
Turkmenistan
68. On 22 November 2000, the National Security Committee apparently launched
an operation against four Protestants in Ashgabat. The members of the National
Security Committee are said to have arrested and harassed these young Protestants
after discovering a box of Christian videos in the Turkmen language in the car in
which they had been travelling. On 24 November 2000, they were allegedly forced
to sign away their property as a gift to the President of Turkmenistan. After being
threatened with deportation, the four Protestants apparently also signed documents
by which they undertook to leave Ashgabat and return to the town in which they
were officially resident.
69. On 25 January 2001, in Ashgabat, the police reportedly interrupted a Bible
study session organized by the World of Life Church and took 25 Protestants to the
police station, where they were questioned and then released. Members of the police
force and representatives of the khyakimlik (local administration) apparently
pressured those questioned into signing statements to the effect that they would
cease to take any part in the “illegal” activities of the church.
70. On 10 May 2001, Dmitry Melnichenko, a member of the Baptist Evangelical
Church at Ashgabat, reportedly refused to perform his military service because of
his religious convictions; he was then placed in a military unit, taken on 15 May to
the office of the National Security Committee to be forced to take an oath, and on 16
May was transferred again to a military unit in Serdar. There appears to be no
alternative form of civilian service in Turkmenistan for conscientious objectors who
are reportedly liable to be sentenced to imprisonment.
18
A156/253
Turkey
71. Early in 2000, Mr. Kemal Timur, a member of the Turkish Protestant Church
of Diyarbakir, allegedly distributed copies of the New Testament. The police are
said to have questioned him eight times but no action was taken against him. On
1 May 2000, he was reportedly arrested by the police following a complaint made
by someone who accused him of having insulted Islam and the Prophet Muhammad.
In December 2000, he was informed that legal proceedings had been instituted
against him five months earlier on the basis of Law No. 64/1, “Propaganda against
Religious Freedom”.
Ukraine
72. In November 2000 in the village of Mazanka in the region of Simferopol
Crimean Tatars are reported to have destroyed an Orthodox cross erected in a public
place. Representatives of the Mejlis of Crimean Tatar People and of the Leadership
of Muslims in Crimea justified the act by saying that the local authorities had
disregarded their opposition to the display of Christian symbols in public, an
expression of the policies of the local diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church
supported by the local authorities. The President of the Council for Religious
Matters in Crimea explained that the Orthodox diocese had proceeded to erect the
cross in the public domain on the hilltop and to put up religious posters in public
places without consulting the Crimean Tatar Muslim community and without
clearance from the local authorities. The press had used the incident to convey a
message of intolerance towards Muslims.
73. Although the Greek Catholic Church was registered in 1991, the local
authorities in Sevastopol have reportedly refused to grant its request for a plot of
land within the city centre on which to build a church. The urban development plan
approved in 1995 apparently provides only for Orthodox churches. The only options
the municipal council has offered the Greek Catholic Church are lots outside the
city.
Viet Nam
74. On 19 November 2000, Mr. Ha Hai, Secretary-General of the Hoa Hao
Buddhist Church of Viet Nam, was reportedly arrested for his religious activities
and, on 15 January 2001, he was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. On 21
January 2001, the Venerable Nguyen Van Dien, deputy head of the church,
reportedly was also arrested and is being held at the Thot Not district prison.
75. In November 2000 the authorities are said to have prohibited some etimic
groups in the central highlands from practising their beliefs, which combine
elements of Christianity and animism.
76. On 3 February 2001, the Venerable Thich Quang Do, Director of the Dharma
Propagation Institute of the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam, was reportedly
arrested by the security forces of Quang Ngai province after visiting the Patriarch of
the Church. The security forces allegedly confiscated a video and photographs taken
with the Patriarch, later saying that they were searching for documents “threatening
to national security”. The Venerable Thich Quang Do was placed under detention.
On 29 March 2001, he wrote a letter to the Government seeking the release of the
Patriarch of the Unified Buddhist Church of Viet Nam, Thich Huyen Quang. He also
19
A156/253
demanded that the Patriarch be returned to his home in Ho Chi Minh City (An
Quang Pagoda), in accordance with the decision of 27 November 1997 of the
authorities of Quang Ngai province whereby Thich Huyen Quang's house arrest was
lifted. The Venerable Thich Quang Do reportedly said that if the decision was not
acted upon, a delegation from the Unified Buddhist Church would escort the
Patriarch from Quang Ngai province to his home. Following the letter and the
announcement, the police apparently tightened security on the Venerable Thich
Quang Do and kept him under closer surveillance. On 18 May 2001, the Venerable
Thich Quang Do and Thich Khong Tanh (of the same Church) were reportedly
called in for questioning, at 2p.m. by the People's Committee ofPhuNhuan district
and at 8.30 a.m. by the People's Committee of the second district of the
arrondissement of An Khanh in Ho Chi Minh City, respectively. On 1 June 2001, the
Venerable Thich Quang Do was placed under two years' administrative detention by
the security forces. On 31 May 2001, three bonzes of the Unified Buddhist Church
of Viet Nam, Thich Khong Tanh, Thich Quang Hue and Thich Tam An, were also
reportedly arrested in Ho Chi Minh City.
77. On 17 May 2001, a Catholic priest, Father Nguyen Van Ly, was reportedly
arrested in the An Truyen church by security forces because of his campaign for
religious freedom in Viet Nam. According to a spokesman for the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, Father Nguyen Van Ly was arrested for not obeying the decision of
the authorities responsible for his administrative detention. That decision, No.
961/QD-UB, signed by the People's Committee of the province on 9 May 2001 and
served on Father Nguyen Van Ly on 10 May 2001, prohibited the priest from
carrying out religious functions in his parish and throughout the territory of Thua
Thien Hue province “for the period of his administrative house arrest”. The decision
was taken in the context of an administrative detention imposed on Father Nguyen
Van Ly by decision 401/QD-UB of 26 February 2001 for allegedly sending written
testimony to the Commission on International Religious Freedom of the United
States Congress. Since then, Father Nguyen Van Ly has apparently been the target of
a harsh campaign of denigration in the official press. Early in March 2001, for
example, he was described as a “traitor” collaborating with “hostile forces abroad”
(Nhan Dan (the official newspaper) and Quan Dol Nhan Dan (the army
newspaper)).
78. On 11 May 2001, the People's Court of An Giang province reportedly
sentenced Truong Van Du and Ho Van Trong to 12 and 4 years' imprisonment,
respectively. They were allegedly accused of “taking part in Hoa Hao religious
demonstrations” in December 2000, “displaying reactionary banners” and “striking
and injuring several policemen who were attempting to disperse them”. Truong Van
Duc and Ho Van Trong apparently had been taking part in the pilgrimage organized
to celebrate the anniversary of the birth of the founder of the Hoa Hao Buddhist
Church. The pilgrimage had been prohibited by the authorities, who deployed large
numbers of police to prevent the pilgrims from reaching Hoa Hao village (in the
town of Phu My, Tan Chau district, An Giang province). Truong Van Duc, who was
accompanying Le Quang Liem, the Secretary-General of the dissident Hoa Hao
church, was apparently intercepted by the security forces close to the Church's
ancestral temple. When he protested, he was reportedly struck down, lost
consciousness and was taken to Phu Tan district prison.
20
A156/253
Late replies
79. The replies of 16 States to the communications sent in the context of the report
submitted to the Commission on Human Rights at its fifty-seventh session namely,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bhutan, China, Côte d'Ivoire, Georgia, Hungary, India, Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Italy, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Russian Federation,
Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Uzbekistan and
Viet Nam, are reflected in the annex to the present report. Also included is the
additional information supplied by Azerbaijan and Egypt in response to
communications sent in the context of the above report.
2. Overview since the creation of the mandate
80. This overview is based on the communications sent by the Special Rapporteur
and the replies received from the States, as presented in previous reports. 4
(a) Structural analysis of the communications of the SpecialRapporteur and replies
of States
81. The Special Rapporteur has prepared tables 4 to 7 in order to shed some light
on how communications, including urgent appeals, have evolved and how States
have responded:
Table 4
Evolution of communications
Number of States
Number of
commun cahons
Year of report concerned
sent Names of States concerned
7 Albania, Bulgaria, Burundi, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Pakistan, Turkey, Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics
29 Albania, Bulgaria, Burundi, China (2),
Czechoslovakia (2), Indonesia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia,
Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan (3), Republic of
Korea, Romania (2), Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Turkey (2), Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (2), United States of America,
Viet Nam
43 Afghanistan, Albania, Bulgaria (3), Burundi
(2), Canada, China (3), Czechoslovakia, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Greece, India (2), Indonesia, Iran
(Islamic Republic oO, Iraq, Israel, Italy,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Myamnar,
Nepal, Nicaragua, Pakistan (3), Romania (2),
Saudi Arabia, Somalia (2), Spain, Syrian Arab
Republic, United Kingdom, Turkey, Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Viet Nam, Zaire
1988
1989
7
22
1990
33
21
A156/253
Number ofstotes
Number of
oommuo oohoos
Yeor of report ooooeroect
scot Nomes of Stotes ooooeroect
1991 21 27 Albania, Bulgaria, Bumndi, China (2),
Colombia, Dominican Republic, Egypt (3),
El Salvador, Ghana, Greece, India, Indonesia,
Iran (Islamic Republic 00 (2), Israel (2),
Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Pakistan (2), Saudi
Arabia, Turkey, Viet Nam
1992 25 31 China (2), Cuba, Dominican Republic, Egypt
(2), El Salvador, France, Ghana, Greece (2),
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2),
Iraq (3), Malawi, Mauritania, Morocco,
Pakistan, Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Sudan,
Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand,
Turkey, United States, Zaire
1993 22 24 China, Cuba, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Greece,
India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2),
Iraq, Malaysia, Malawi, Myanmar, Pakistan (2),
Romania, Saudi Arabia, Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Ukraine,
United States, Viet Nam
1994 27 28 Albania, Algeria, Australia, Bangladesh,
Bulgaria, Cameroon, China, Cuba, Egypt,
Ethiopia, France, Germany, Greece, India, Iran
(Islamic Republic 00 (2), Iraq, Malaysia,
Myamnar, Nepal, Pakistan, Republic of
Moldova, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Spain,
Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic, Viet Nam
1995 50 56 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Austria,
Bangladesh (2), Belarus, Benin, Bhutan,
Bulgaria, Canada, China, Cuba, Cyprus, Egypt,
Ethiopia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India,
Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of) (2), Iraq
(3), Israel and the occupied territories,
Kazakhstan, Kenya, Lebanon, Liberia,
Malaysia (2), Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco,
Myanmar, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan (2),
Philippines, Romania, Russian Federation,
Rwanda, Saudi Arabia (2), Sri Lanka, Sudan,
Switzerland, Turkey, United Arab Emirates,
United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan,
Viet Nam, Yemen, Zimbabwe
1996 46 52 Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Austria,
Bangladesh, Belams, Belgium, Bolivia,
Bulgaria, Cambodia, China (5), Cuba (2),
Cypms, Egypt (2), Eritrea, Germany, India,
Indonesia, Japan, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania,
Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myamnar, Nepal,
Nicaragua, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland,
Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi
Arabia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia,
Sudan, Turkey, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam,
Yemen
A/S 6/2 53
Number ofstotes
Number of
oommuo oohoos
Yeor of report ooooeroect
scot Nomes of Stotes ooooeroect
1997 49 51 Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Armenia,
Bangladesh, Belarns, Bhntan, Bolivia, Brnnei
Darnssalam, Bnlgaria, Bnrundi, Chad, China
(2), Croatia, Cypms, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia,
Georgia, Greece, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic
Republic of), Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Lao
People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal,
Nigeria, Pakistan (2), Republic of Moldova,
Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey,
Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United
Kingdom, United States, Viet Nam, Yemen,
Yugoslavia
1998 51 59 Afghanistan, Albania, Angola, Armenia,
Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and
Herzegovina, Brunei Damssalam, Bulgaria,
China (3), Comoros, Czech Republic, Egypt,
Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Greece, India, Iran
(Islamic Republic oO, Iraq (2), Israel, Kuwait,
Latvia, Mauritania, Mongolia (2),
Mozambique, Myamnar, Nepal, Nicaragua,
Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Portugal, Qatar,
Romania, Russian Federation (2), Singapore,
Slovakia (2), Somalia, Sudan, Switzerland,
Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia (2), Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey,
United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam
(2), Yemen, Yugoslavia
1999 46 63 Afghanistan (3), Albania, Angola, Azerbaijan,
Bangladesh, Belams, Belgium, Bhutan,
Bulgaria, China (2), Cyprus, Egypt (3), Eritrea,
Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, India (3),
Indonesia (2), Iran (Islamic Republic oO (5),
Iraq, Kazakhstan, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Latvia, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali,
Mauritania, Mexico, Morocco, Myamnar,
Pakistan, Democratic People's Republic of
Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian
Federation, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sri Lanka,
Sudan (3), Turkey (2), Turkmenistan (2),
Ukraine, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan (2),
Yemen
2000 55 92 Afghanistan, Azerbaijan (3), Bangladesh (2),
Belarus, Bolivia, Bmnei Darussalam, Bulgaria
(2), Cape Verde, China (4), Comoros (2), Côte
d'Ivoire, Cypms, Democratic People's
Republic of Korea (2), Djibouti, Dominican
Republic, Eritrea, Finland, Gabon, Georgia (2),
Greece (2), India (5), Indonesia (3), Iran
(Islamic Republic oO (2), Iraq, Israel (4),
Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic
Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritania,
A156/253
Number of
Number of States oommuo oahoos
Year of report ooooeroect scot
Nomes of Stotes ooooeroect
Mexico, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal (3),
Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan (4), Peru, Republic of
Korea, Republic of Moldova (2), Russian
Federation, Samoa, Saudi Arabia (2), Sri
Lanka, Sudan, Syrian Arab Republic (2),
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan (3), Uganda, Ukraine
(2), United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan (3),
Viet Nam (3), Yemen (2)
2001 53 86
Afghanistan, Azerbaijan (2), Belarus, Bhutan,
Bulgaria (2), Burundi, Chad, China (5), Côte
d'Ivoire, Egypt (3), Eritrea, Georgia (4),
Greece, Hungary, India (3), Indonesia (5), Iran
(Islamic Republic oO, Israel, Italy (2), Jordan
(2), Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon,
Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Myanmar (3),
Naum, Nepal (2), Niger, Nigeria (2), Norway,
Pakistan (3), Papua New Guinea, Peru,
Philippines (2), Republic of Korea, Russian
Federation (2), Saudi Arabia (2), South Africa,
Sri Lanka, Sudan, The former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia, Turkey (2),
Turkmenistan (4), Uganda, Ukraine, United
Kingdom, Uzbekistan (2), Viet Nam, Yemen
Mid-term 24 49
Afghanistan (3), China, Cuba, Egypt (3),
Georgia (4), India (3), Indonesia (4), Iran
(Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Lebanon,
Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal (2), Nigeria (2),
Pakistan (4), Republic of Korea, Saint Lucia,
Sri Lanka, Sudan (2), Turkey, Turkmenistan
(3), Ukraine (2), United Arab Emirates,
Viet Nam (5)
Table 5
Evolution of urgent appeals
Number of urgeot Number of States
Year of report appeals cooceroect
States cooceroect
1995 6 5
Bangladesh, Iran (Islamic Republic oO, Iraq
(2), Pakistan, Saudi Arabia
1996 4 2
China (2), Egypt (2)
1997 4 4
China, Egypt, Iran (Islamic Republic oO (2),
United Arab Emirates
1998 2 2
China, United Arab Emirates
1999 4 2
Iran (Islamic Republic oO (3), Sudan
2000 2 2
Iran (Islamic Republic oO, Iraq
2001 1 1
Iran (Islamic Republic oO
Mid-term 2 1
Afghanistan
A156/253
Table 6
Evolution of replies to communications
Percentage of rephes to
Year of report Number of States concerned Number of States replyhzg commun cahons
7
5
22 14 + 2 States which
replied late to 1988
communications
33 17+2Stateswhich
replied late to 1988
communications +
2 States with late
replies to 1989
communications
21 12 + 5 States which
replied late to 1990
communications
25 8 + 3 States which
replied late to 1991
communications
22 4 + 9 States which
replied late to 1992
communications
27 17 + 5 States which
replied late to 1993
communications
50 10 + 6 States which
replied late to 1994
communications
46 7 + 17 States which
replied late to 1995
communications
49 15 + 10 States which
replied late to 1996
communications
51 21 + 13 States which
replied late to 1997
communications
46 22 + 6 States which
replied late to 1998
communications
55 23 + 10 States which
replied late to 1999
communications
52 16+11 States which
replied late to 2000
communications +
1 State which replied
late to 1999
communications
71.4 to l00
63.63 to 72.72a
sl.slato 66.66
57.14 to 7l.42a
32 to 68a
18.18 to 4o.9oa
62.96 to 8s.l8a
20 to 54a
15.21 to 36.9sa
30.61 to 46.93a
41.17 to 52.94a
47.82 to 7l.73a
41.81 to 6l.8la
30.76 to 6l.53a
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
25
A156/253
Percentage of rephes to
Year of report Number of States concerned Number of States replyhzg commun cahons
Mid-term 24 5 + 16 States which 20.82 to 87. Sa
replied late to 2001
communications
a Total percentage taking into account late replies received in the following year(s).
Table 7
Evolution of responses to urgent appeals
Number of urgent appeals
and number of States
Year concerned Responses Percentage
1995 6 urgent appeals! 1 response from 16.66
5 States Bangladesh
1996 4 urgent appeals! 2 responses from 50
2 States Egypt
1997 4 urgent appeals! 1 response from China 50
4 States and 1 response from
the United Arab
Emirates
1998 2 urgent appeals! 1 response from China 100
2 States and 1 response from
the United Arab
Emirates
1999 4 urgent appeals! 2 responses from the 50(75 taking into
2 States Islamic Republic of account late response
Iran from the Sudan
received in 2001)
2000 2 urgent appeals! 1 response from the 100
2 States Islamic Republic of
Iran and 1 response
from Iraq
2001 1 urgent appeal! 1 response from the 100
1 State Islamic Republic of
Iran + 1 late response
from the Sudan to one
1999 urgent appeal
Mid-term 2 urgent appeals! Response from the 50 if one considers the
1 State Permanent Mission of response from the
Afghanistan to the Permanent Mission
United Nations at of Afghanistan.
Geneva to 1 urgent Othenvise 0 if one
appeal!No response considers the
from the Taliban response of the
Taliban
A156/253
82. A total of 692 communications were addressed to 125 States (of the 189 States
Members of the United Nations). Of this total, 25 urgent appeals concerned 10
States.
(i) Communications
83. Since the creation of the mandate, the number of communications has grown
exponentially, from a low of seven in 1988, the year in which the mandate was
created, to a high of 92 in 1992.
84. Essentially, this very steep increase in the number of communications has
taken place in three phases:
(a) 1989-1994: 30 communications on the average;
(b) 1995-1999: 56 communications on the average;
(c) 2000-2001: 88 communications on the average.
85. There has also been an exponential increase in the number of States receiving
communications, from a low of seven States in 1988, when the mandate was created,
to a high of 55 States in the year 2000.
86. If we exclude the year 1988, we see that this increase in the number of States
covered by communications has taken place in two phases:
(a) 1989-1994: 25 States on average;
(b) 1995-2001: 50 States on average.
87. There has also been an exponential growth in the number of States which
received more than one communication, as shown in table 8.
Table 8
Evolution in the number of States covered by more than one communication
Number of States havhzg received more than one
Year commun cahon
1989 7 States received 2 communications each
1 State received 3 communications
1990 6 States received 2 communications each
2 States received 3 communications each
1991 4 States received 2 communications each
3 States received 3 communications each
1992 5 States received 2 communications each
2 States received 3 communications each
1993 6 States received 2 communications each
1994 4 States received 2 communications each
1995 5 States received 2 communications each
1 State received 3 communications
27
A156/253
Number of States havhzg received more thoo one
Year oommuo oohoo
1996 2 States received 2 communications each
1 State received 5 communications
1997 2 States received 2 communications each
1998 6 States received 2 communications each
1 State received 3 communications
1999 5 States received 2 communications each
4 States received 3 communications each
1 State received 5 communications
2000 12 States received 2 communications each
5 States received 3 communications each
3 States received 4 communications each
1 State received 5 communications
2001 11 States received 2 communications each
4 States received 3 communications each
2 States received 4 communications each
1 State received 5 communications
88. The sending of more than one communication for a given State began in 1989,
then rose significantly in 1999 and again in 2000. As of that time, at least 11 States
were each concerned by 2 communications, whereas regularly one State was covered
by 5 communications and the practice of sending 3 to 4 communications per State
developed. This practice is by no means selective with respect to a given State, but
reflects especially critical situations or cases within a given country. It is true that it
has increased significantly since the year 2000, for it has also become a means of
regular follow-up and not merely of isolated monitoring of serious problems in a
particular State, such as the situation of Christian communities affected by a
campaign of repression on the part of Muslim officials and extremists and also, in
Georgia, the problems encountered by minorities.
89. The number of urgent appeals remains limited, since the purpose underlying
the introduction, in 1994, of this new type of communication under the mandate on
freedom of religion or belief, was to respond more efficiently and more promptly to
very grave situations or cases. These include cases or situations involving extreme
manifestations of fanaticism or obscurantism having consequences for humanity as a
whole, such as the destruction of the pre-Islamic monuments, including the statues
of Buddha in Bamyan, an integral part of the world heritage, by the Taliban in
Afghanistan; their plan to have all non-Muslims wear a distinctive sign on their
clothes, reminiscent of the horrors of the Second World War. These urgent appeals
also cover assaults causing bodily harm (assassinations, disappearances, detentions
and so forth) or threat thereof (threats, death penalty and so forth). The urgent
appeal is also necessary in the case of violation of the very essence of freedom of
conscience, belief or religion, as, for example in the case of Professor Nasr Hamed
Abu Zid of Cairo University in Egypt, who has been declared an apostate by the
Egyptian courts which have allegedly decided to separate him from his Muslim wife
28
A156/253
(since an apostate, that is to say a person declared to be non-Muslim, cannot stay
married to a Muslim) following a petition by Islamic extremists who consider his
writings on the interpretation of the Koran to be anti-Islamic.
(ii) Reactions of States to the communications
90. As can be seen from table 6, it is important to make a distinction between what
conclusions can be drawn, on the one hand, from the first percentage, which reflects
the reaction of a State (whether or not it replies) within the year and, on the other,
the second percentage, which indicates the final reaction of a State (that is to say
whether or not it replies within more than one year).
91. If we look at the first percentage, we will see a downward progression, that is
to say, overall, a rate of replies that is below average starting in 1992 and 1993 but
especially since 1995.
92. If we look at the second percentage, we see an evolution that is, on the whole,
above average (save in 1993, 1996 and 1997). This is especially true in the period
from 1998 to 2001.
93. The evolution in the first percentage, specifically, a declining rate of reply
essentially since 1995, can be explained by and, in fact, coincides with the rise
in the number of communications and States concerned during this period. As a
result, States were not able to reply within the time limits given.
94. However, as can be seen from the evolution in the second percentage, most
States seem to be adjusting and, on the whole, to be replying to the communications,
albeit somewhat late (the reply is sent during the year following the mandate).
95. As regards urgent appeals, aside from 1995, the year this new procedure was
established, the rates of reply are pretty much satisfactory (there are three rates of
100 per cent, one of 75 per cent and two of 50 per cent).
96. It is, however, true that the rates of reply to communications must improve;
this will entail improved cooperation among all States, particularly those which have
never replied since the mandate was established (Angola, Benin, Cambodia,
Comoros, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Nauru, Niger,
Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Uganda,
United Arab Emirates and Zimbabwe. It should, however, be noted that, in the case
of Nauru, Papua New Guinea and South Africa, the communications were sent in the
context of the report to the most recent session of the Commission on Human
Rights, 4 which means that, based on the one-year delay noted above, replies may be
expected at the Commission's next session.
(b) Analysis of the substance of communications
97. This analysis identifies the main categories of violations of freedom of religion
or belief and of the religions or beliefs concerned.
(i) Violations of the freedom of religion or belief
98. If we analyse the communications since the start of the mandate in light of the
principles, rights and freedoms set forth in the 1981 Declaration, we can establish
seven categories of violations as follows:
29
A156/253
(a) Violations of the principle of non-discrimination in the area of religion or
belief, namely: policies, legislation or regulations, practices or acts that discriminate
against, on the one hand, certain communities of religion or belief, particularly when
these communities are minorities or are not part of the official religion and, on the
other hand, women in respect of the interpretation of religion and of traditions
which purport to be based on religion or belief;
(b) Violations of the principle of tolerance in the area of religion or belief,
namely: policies, practices and acts of religious intolerance stemming from the State
and society, in particular non-State entities such as communities of religion or belief
and political or religious groups, the strongest manifestations of which relate to
religious (inter or intra religious) extremism. Role of the media in fostering a
climate of intolerance towards certain communities, especially minorities;
(c) Violations of the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief,
namely: policies, legislation or regulations, practices or acts that are contrary to the
principle of conscientious objection and freedom to change one's religion or to keep
one's religion or beliefs;
(d) Violations of the freedom to manifest one's religion or belief, namely:
policies, legislation or regulations, practices or acts that constitute control,
interference, prohibition or excessive limitation of the freedom to manifest one's
religion or belief;
(e) Violations of the freedom to dispose of religious property, namely:
policies, practices or acts that affect the freedom to dispose of religious property in
the form of confiscation or non-restitution of property, non-access to places of
worship or to sites having religious or spiritual significance such as the sacred sites
of indigenous peoples; attacks on, closures or destruction of such places, including
cemeteries, tombs and religious schools;
(1) Violations of the right to life, physical integrity or health of individuals
(whether religious, believers or non-believers), namely: policies, practices or acts
that take the form of threats, ill-treatment, arrest and detention, enforced
disappearances, death sentences, executions and assassinations;
(g) Violations affecting women, namely: category including the first six
categories. It is important to emphasize that these violations are committed not only
by extremist groups and communities, but also and most often by society and
official institutions.
(ii) Religions or beliefs covered by communications
99. The Special Rapporteur's communications have covered attacks on most
communities of religion or belief all over the world.
100. This includes, on the one hand, what are usually called the “major religions”
because of the number of followers at the international level, namely, Christianity,
Islam, Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism. Naturally, it concerns the main currents of
each religion; in the case of Christianity, it includes the Catholic and reform
communities and the orthodox churches.
101. It also includes other communities of religion or belief which, on the whole,
have fewer members at the international level, for example, Baha'i, Jehovah's
30
A156/253
Witnesses, Ahmadi and humanists or non-believers. Particular attention was also
given to the beliefs of indigenous peoples.
102. The Special Rapporteur must point out that the dividing line between this
second category of communities and the “major religions” is not always clear,
inasmuch as some communities can be classified, depending on who is doing the
classifying the person concerned or external observers as either a variant of a
major religion or as a separate religion, or even as a belief or organization with
goals unrelated to any religion or belief For instance, the Ahmadi claim to be
Muslims and are recognized as such in some countries, including Bangladesh, but
are denied such recognition in Pakistan. Similarly, the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to
be part of the Christian community and are recognized as being part of it in several
States but are termed a sect by other States. Scientology is the most polemical
example insofar as it calls itself a religion, is viewed as such for tax purposes in the
United States, but is called a sect or even a criminal organization in certain other
States, especially in Europe.
103. In terms of the evolution of violations affecting religions or beliefs,
Christianity seems to be the most affected, quantitatively; it is followed by the
category called “other communities of religion or belief', that is to say especially
minorities or minority groups, including sects; and by Islam, Buddhism, Judaism
and Hinduism.
104. Of course these evolutions must be viewed in the context of the mandate
concerning freedom of religion or belief and the limits thereof (due to its very
modest resources, coverage, while not selective, is limited to the main violations of
freedom of religion or belief).
105. Having made this classification and analysis, it is clear that no religion or
belief is sheltered from violations and that no State or category of States, no religion
or belief has a monopoly on intolerance.
106. The evolution in the substance of communications, that is to say, the major
trends noted since the start of the mandate, will be reflected in the context of the
conclusions of this report.
III. Report on preventive action concerning freedom of religion
or belief
107. The Special Rapporteur considers that it is essential to continue paying
particular attention to traditional activities as regards the management of the
mandate but that it is also necessary to establish preventive activities, through
education and interreligious dialogue.
A. International consultative conference on school education
in relation to freedom of religion or belief, tolerance
and non-discrimination
108. Since he took over, the Special Rapporteur has felt that preventive action
should focus on shaping a culture of human rights, inter alia, by using education.
Indeed, education can contribute decisively to the internalization of values based on
31
A156/253
human rights and to the emergence of attitudes and conduct reflecting tolerance and
non-discrimination. School, as the essential element in the educational system, can
therefore be an essential and preferred vehicle for preventive action.
109. Let us recall that, in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, the
World Conference on Human Rights reaffirmed that: 5
“States are duty-bound, as stipulated in the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights and in other international human rights instruments, to ensure
that education is aimed at strengthening the respect of human rights and
fundamental freedoms. The World Conference on Human Rights emphasizes
the importance of incorporating the subject of human rights education
programmes and calls upon States to do so. Education should promote
understanding, tolerance, peace and friendly relations between the nations and
all racial or religious groups and encourage the development of United Nations
activities in pursuance of these objectives. Therefore, education on human
rights and the dissemination of proper information, both theoretical and
practical, play an important role in the promotion and respect of human rights
with regard to all individuals without distinction of any kind such as race, sex,
language or religion, and this should be integrated in the education policies at
the national as well as international levels.”
110. On the basis of Commission resolution 1994/18 of 25 February 1994 entitled
“Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance
and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief”, whereby the Special Rapporteur
was encouraged to examine the contribution that education could make to the more
effective promotion of religious tolerance, the Special Rapporteur undertook, in
1994, a survey by means of a questionnaire sent to States, on problems relating to
freedom of religion or belief as seen in the curricula and textbooks of primary or
elementary and secondary educational institutions.
111. From the review of the results of the analysis of the responses of 77 States to
this questionnaire and other information drawn from research done on countries
which have not responded, as well as the experiences of certain international,
regional, national, intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations, the
Special Rapporteur saw a need to hold an international consultative conference on
school education in relation to freedom of religion or belief, tolerance and non-
discrimination.
112. This conference, which is to be held in Madrid from 23 to 25 November 2001
with the cooperation of the Government of Spain, has the following goal and
objective:
Goal of the conference
113. The goal of the conference will be the preparation of an international school
strategy centred on the right to freedom of religion and belief among primary or
elementary and secondary school. The conference will consider a draft document
containing a set of recommendations to guide the preparation of school curricula and
textbooks and the training of teachers on education for tolerance and non-
discrimination on the basis of religion or belief, taking into account the relevant
international human rights instruments (art. 18 of the Universal Declaration of
32
A156/253
Human Rights, art. 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and the provisions of the 1981 United Nations Declaration) as well as the
resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights, the General Assembly and the
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
Objective of the conference
114. A draft final document containing a set of recommendations should be
submitted to the participants for comments and observations during the preparatory
phase, before being debated and adopted by the conference on 25 November 2001,
the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the 1981 Declaration. It should be noted
that, after the first meeting of the Preparatory Committee (see details below) on 11
February 2001, a draft final document was given to the participants from States and
other entities with a view to gathering their comments and observations. From 10 to
12 June 2001, at its second meeting, the Preparatory Committee considered the draft
document on the basis of the comments received and approved it, while deciding to
refer it to the States and other participants in the conference in order to record any
possible objections. During the actual conference, a working group will be given
responsibility for considering any objections received on the draft document in order
to submit a final version to the plenary.
115. The Special Rapporteur wishes to make it clear that this conference is not
intended to be a theological encounter, nor a conference on pedagogy. From
begiiming to end, its foundation is the protection and development of tolerance and
non-discrimination, and it is fully intended to be a human rights conference under
the mandate of freedom of religion and belief
116. In its resolution 55/97 the General Assembly welcomed the initiative.
Likewise, in its resolution 2001/42 the Commission on Human Rights welcomed the
initiatives of Governments to collaborate with the Special Rapporteur, including the
convening of an international consultative conference on school education in
relation to freedom of religion and belief to be held in Madrid in November 2001,
and encouraged the full participation of Governments, religious bodies, experts and
non-governmental organizations in the conference.
117. In order to ensure the success of such a conference, a preparatory committee
was established, composed of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or
belief, representatives of Spain and individuals who serve in their personal capacity
and do not represent any State, non-governmental organization or religion: Taieb
Baccouch (Tunisia), expert on the right to education and President of the Arab
Institute for Human Rights; Doudou Diene (Senegal), Director of the Division of
Intercultural Dialogue at UNESCO; Maurice Glélé Ahanhanzo (Benin), Special
Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on contemporary forms of racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia and intolerance; Ivan C. Iban (Spain), Professor at
the Universidad Complutense de Madrid and member of the European Consortium
for Church and State Research; Michael Roan (United States of America), Director
of the Tandem Project and expert in the field of freedom of religion and belief;
Katarina Tomasevski (Croatia), Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human
Rights on the right to education; and Theo Van Boven (Netherlands), former director
of the United Nations Centre for Human Rights and former member of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
33
A156/253
118. The Preparatory Committee drew up a list of participants in the conference,
including all Member States of the United Nations and observers, the various related
components of the United Nations secretariat, specialized agencies, UNESCO
chairs in the field of human rights and interreligious dialogue, treaty and non-treaty
human rights mechanisms regional organizations, international organizations of
an educational or cultural nature, national and regional human rights institutes,
national human rights commissions, and experts from religious or confessional
groups and non-governmental organizations.
119. A dossier was also prepared for the attention of conference participants which
included the membership of the preparatory committee, an introductory note, a
brochure on the conference, the conference rules of procedure, a study by the
Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief entitled “Racial discrimination,
religious intolerance and education”, prepared for the World Conference against
Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance which is to take
place in Durban, South Africa, in August 2001, a second report on the role of
religious education in the pursuit of tolerance and non-discrimination, and a draft
final document.
120. This draft document constitutes the basis for the preparatory consultations and
the discussions during the conference and, once it is adopted by the conference, the
final version will be submitted to the Commission on Human Rights and the General
Assembly.
121. The Special Rapporteur wishes to stress the essential role of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in the Madrid conference. Besides
making the appropriate logistical and human resources available, the High
Commissioner is also expressly representing the Secretary-General of the United
Nations at this conference, which is considered a follow-up to the World Conference
against Racism at Durban, and has been actively involved not only in promoting this
conference with various State and non-governmental contacts, but also in its
preparation and progress.
B. Interreligious dialogue
122. The Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 2001/42, invited
Governments, religious bodies and civil society, during the year marking the
twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the 1981 Declaration, to undertake dialogue
at all levels to promote greater tolerance, respect and understanding of freedom of
religion and belief
123. Indeed, interreligious dialogue constitutes one of the pillars of prevention in
the area of religion or belief At its meeting in Chicago in 1993, the Parliament of
the World's Religions attempted to promote the cause of true dialogue among
religions. It is of primary importance that encounters with and among religions
should create a space for mutual understanding in order to promote or strengthen
full and sincere acceptance of freedom of religion or belief as defined and
guaranteed by international human rights standards. In that way, interreligious
dialogue should enable peaceful resolution and prevention of conflicts and
violations worldwide.
34
A156/253
124. The Special Rapporteur wishes to review and emphasize the numerous
initiatives that recognize the essential value of interreligious dialogue and seek to
promote it.
125. As the Commission on Human Rights noted in its resolution 2001/42, the
Millennium Declaration adopted by the General Assembly and Assembly resolution
55/23 of 13 November 2000 on the United Nations Year of Dialogue among
Civilizations recognize the valuable contribution that dialogue among civilizations
can make to an improved awareness and understanding of the common values shared
by all humankind. Clearly, interreligious dialogue is fully in line with the
Millennium Declaration and the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.
126. At the Millennium World Peace Summit, which was held in New York in
August 2000, over 1,000 officials of various religions or faiths gathered together for
the first time ever and made a commitment to work together to guarantee peace on
earth. They emphasized their firm intention to use their moral authority to contribute
to reconciliation and acceptance of diversity. Finally, they signed a commitment to
promote world peace which recognized that all religious traditions teach that people
should treat their neighbours as they would be treated themselves, whatever their
differences might be in race, religion, etimic origin, nationality, economic level, age
and gender.
127. The Year of Dialogue among Civilizations also illustrates the contribution of
UNESCO to interreligious dialogue. UNESCO has undertaken various activities in
this field. In 1994, a Declaration on the Contribution of Religion to the Culture of
Peace was adopted under its auspices and in 1995, the Declaration of Principles on
Tolerance was adopted. UNESCO has launched programmes on intercultural and
interreligious dialogue, basing its approach on a new dimension of the concept of
dialogue. To the relevant traditional but reductionist approach to dialogue through
mutual knowledge has been added the concept of interaction. In effect, mutual
knowledge can reinforce identities, while interaction highlights proximity and
pluralism. The Malta Declaration of 1997 suggested, inter alia, that collaboration
should be promoted between academics and individuals involved in the
interreligious dialogue on the ground with a view to combining reflection and action
in order to extend the dialogue to families, communities and all levels of society,
thus giving the dialogue a wider impact. UNESCO has also established institutes
and chairs on mutual knowledge among religions, spiritual traditions and their
specific cultures. The meeting held in Malta under UNESCO auspices in 1997 also
recommended to that agency, States and the communities concerned that they should
promote studies on the image and perception of the other in religious texts; promote
research on the ways in which communities have used religious texts to justify
conflicts; and review the textbooks used in schools, including religious schools, in
order to eliminate any religious stereotyping. Finally, the Director-General of
UNESCO established the International Committee for Interreligious Dialogue to
advise on the development and implementation of activities to promote
interreligious and intercultural dialogue. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of
religion or belief was requested to make a contribution as a member of the
Committee. In that capacity, he participated in the International Congress on
Interreligious Dialogue and the Culture of Peace at Tashkent in September 2000.
128. The High Commissioner for Human Rights has also made a contribution to the
promotion of interreligious dialogue. For example, in November 1998, the Office of
35
A156/253
the High Commissioner held a seminar on “Enriching the Universality of Human
Rights: Islamic perspectives on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The
High Commissioner participated in the Oslo Conference on Freedom of Religion or
Belief in August 1998, among others, and has sent messages, in particular to the
Nuremburg conference in September 1999 on “Human rights: Promoted by religion,
threatened by religion”. She also signed the Geneva Spiritual Appeal of 24 October
1999 at an inter-faith religious service attended by representatives of various
religions and the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Office of the United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the World Health Organization. On 15
June 2001, a special publication entitled Sacred rights: Faith Leaders on Tolerance
andRespect was issued, as a result of the Milleimium World Peace Summit, as part
of the preparations for the Durban conference. In this context, the High
Commissioner called on religious leaders to establish an “annual interreligious and
international day of celebration of diversity to put emphasis on the enriching
character of human diversity.” Finally, it should be noted that the Durban and
Madrid conferences, in accordance with the wishes of the High Commissioner for
Human Rights in particular, are taking place within the framework of the Year of
Dialogue among Civilizations, and therefore the dialogue among religions.
129. The Special Rapporteur also wishes to recall the relevance of the
recommendations made at the Seminar on the encouragement of understanding,
tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief organized in
December 1984 by what was then known as the United Nations Centre for Human
Rights:
“The seminar recommended that:
“(h) Religious bodies and groups at every level have a role to play in the
promotion and protection of religious freedoms or beliefs. They should foster
the spirit of tolerance within their ranks and between religions or beliefs. Inter-
faith dialogue based on the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief should be
pursued at all levels. The seminar also recommends that the text of the
Declaration be disseminated to their members as a basis for instruction and
that religious bodies consider recommending a common day of prayer or of
dedication to the aims set out in the Declaration. Other groups are similarly
recommended to consider a day of dedication to the aims of the Declaration.”
130. In addition to his contribution to the UNESCO Committee and to the various
events mentioned above (conferences, seminars, etc.), the Special Rapporteur has
always been concerned with encouraging interreligious dialogue. For example, he
has made specific recommendations in his reports on in situ visits, whether so-called
traditional missions or visits to the major communities of religion or belief In that
regard, it should be specified that this “new” category of visits, for instance the visit
to the Vatican in 1999, has the particular purpose of examining activities undertaken
in the area of interreligious dialogue and offering a pathway for all towards the
objectives, methods and mechanisms of interreligious dialogue. The Special
Rapporteur has also included the question of interreligious dialogue into his general
reports and into the framework of the Madrid international consultative conference
on school education in relation to freedom of religion or belief, tolerance and non-
discrimination (see above).
36
A156/253
11/. Report on cooperation with the Commission on Human
Rights, United Nations human rights mechanisms,
specialized agencies of the United Nations system and
non-governmental organizations
A. Follow-up to Conmiission on Human Rights initiatives
Contribution to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination,
Xenophobia and Related Intolerance
131. Pursuant to relevant resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights
(resolutions 1999/78, 2000/14 and 2001/5 on racism, racial discrimination,
xenophobia and related intolerance, 1999/39 and 2000/33 on the implementation of
the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination
Based on Religion or Belief and 2001/42 on the Elimination of All Forms of
Religious Intolerance), the Special Rapporteur was invited to participate actively in
the preparatory process for the World Conference against Racism, firstly by
formulating recommendations concerning religious intolerance that would have a
bearing on the Conference and, secondly, by initiating studies.
132. Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur submitted to the Preparatory Committee
for the World Conference at is first session (1-5 May 2000) a study entitled “Racial
discrimination and religious discrimination: identification and measures”. 6 A second
study entitled “Racial discrimination, religious intolerance and education” 7 was
submitted to the Preparatory Committee at its second session (21 May-i June 2001).
In these two studies, 8 the Special Rapporteur made concrete and specific
recommendations, including in the area of prevention.
133. In its resolution 2001/42, the Commission on Human Rights noted that the
Special Rapporteur had undertaken two separate studies on religious discrimination
and racism as a valuable input to the preparatory process for the World Conference
against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and
suggested that his recommendations on religious intolerance which had a bearing on
the World Conference be considered during the preparatory process for the World
Conference.
134. The Special Rapporteur will also make a contribution at the World Conference
itself It should also be stressed that as agreed with the High Commissioner for
Human Rights, the conference on school education in relation to freedom of religion
and belief, tolerance and non-discrimination will provide follow-up to the Durban
Conference.
2. Follow-up to resolutions on defamation
135. In 1999, the Commission on Human Rights, pursuant to its resolution 1999/82
on defamation of religions, expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of
religions and at the fact that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with
human rights violations and with terrorism, emphasizing the role of the media with
regard to such phenomena. The Commission on Human Rights accordingly called
upon the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance to take into account the
37
A156/253
provisions of the resolution in his reports, inter alia. The same approach was used
the next year in Commission resolution 2000/84 of 26 April 2000.
136. At its most recent session, the Commission adopted resolution 2001/4 on
combating defamation of religions as a means to promote human rights, social
harmony and religious and cultural diversity. This resolution no longer refers to the
Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance, and calls upon the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in the
Dialogue among Civilizations, inter alia through: (a) integrating them into topical
seminars and special debates on the positive contributions of cultures, as well as
religious and cultural diversity; and (b) collaboration by the Office of the High
Commissioner with other international organizations in holding joint conferences
designed to encourage this dialogue and promote understanding of the universality
of human rights and their implementation at various levels.
137. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that his mandate has always been
concerned with the issue of defamation which essentially constitutes a violation of
freedom of religion and belief It is clear from the Special Rapporteur's general or
mission reports 9 that, since 1988, the following evolution has taken place:
(a) Until the end of the cold war, a policy, in the eastern bloc, of encouraging
an a-religious or even anti-religious ideology, inter alia through the defamation of
religion, generally perceived as “the opium of the people”;
(b) Since the end of the cold war, general disappearance of such defamation
policies from all but a few States which, although their policy is no longer to combat
religion, in practice put religion entirely in the service of politics and in so doing
orchestrate, inter alia, defamation campaigns against any religious community or
individual that contests State interference;
(c) Rise of atheism, particularly in the West, and questioning of the role of
religion in society and public institutions, articulated either through the legitimate
exercise of the right to criticize, or through the defamation of religion;
(d) In recent years especially since the Gulf War and the intensification of
armed conflict in the occupied territories a media campaign, on the part of some
broadcasters, of Islamophobia on an international scale, not to mention similar
attacks on other religions, albeit limited to certain States;
(e) Finally, one constant: defamation often stems from interreligious, as well
as intra-religious intolerance and/or ignorance, often in the context of an adversarial
relationship between majority and minorities.
138. The Special Rapporteur thus shares the concerns expressed by the Commission
on Human Rights concerning the undermining of religion through defamation.
However, he wishes to stress the importance of ensuring that efforts to combat
defamation are not used as an excuse to restrict freedom of expression and the right
to criticize, which would be contrary to human rights.
3. Follow-up to resolutions on women
139. The Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly have always
accorded special attention to the situation of women with regard to religion in their
resolutions governing the mandate on the freedom of religion and belief.
Accordingly, the resolutions have condemned practices which violate women's
38
A156/253
rights and constitute discrimination, with some resolutions emphasizing the harmful
role played in that regard by religious extremism. Resolutions have also echoed the
Vienna World Conference on Human Rights in its call upon all Governments to take
all appropriate measures in compliance with their international obligations and with
due regard to their respective legal systems to counter intolerance and related
violence based on religion or belief, including practices of discrimination against
women.'°
140. Since 1996, the Commission in its resolutions on the mandate on the freedom
of religion and belief has furthermore emphasized that the Special Rapporteur
should incorporate a gender perspective in the preparation of reports, including in
data collection and the formulation of recommendations, and highlight gender-
specific violations. Resolutions not specific to the mandate have also requested all
special procedures to adopt a similar approach, for example, Commission on Human
Rights resolution 2001/50 of 24 April 2001, on integrating the human rights of
women throughout the United Nations system.
141. Accordingly, in the framework of his general reports, the Special Rapporteur,
in his review of communications, has created a category devoted to violations
against women. The status of women with regard to religion has clearly, however,
been an ongoing concern of the Special Rapporteur since the creation of the mandate
in 1988, as demonstrated both in communications concerning cases or situations
involving intolerance or discrimination against women, and in mission reports
(through the examination of legislation, policies affecting women, a review of their
situation, and the formulation of recommendations (see above, section hA)). The
Special Rapporteur also appeared before the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women in February 1998 to outline his approach to the status
of women with regard to religion and to engage in an exchange of views. He also
focused on this vulnerable group in the context of the international consultative
conference on school education in relation to freedom of religion and belief,
tolerance and non-discrimination in Madrid (see section lilA).
142. In the two studies submitted to the World Conference against Racism (see
section lilA), the Special Rapporteur focused on the status of women. The Special
Rapporteur will also submit to the Commission on Human Rights at its next session
a study on freedom of religion or belief and the status of women with regard to
religion and traditions currently being edited.
143. In the study, the Special Rapporteur explains that norms inherited from our
ancestors and our past tend in all religions to discriminate against women. As one
author Katarina Tom a evski points out, we tend to label such norms as “part of the
culture” and to accept their discriminatory aspects. When practices or norms that are
discriminatory against women are based on or imputed to religion this excuse is
considered exculpatory for in such cases there can be no discussion. From the point
of view of the victims of such discrimination, however, our behaviour may not
appear quite as respectable as we might wish.
144. This study reveals that there are many cultural practices some similar or
comparable, some different to be found among several peoples having many
diverse religious traditions. A number of these practices are contrary to religious
teaching. Many religions have combated cultural practices which undermine the
status of women. They have managed either to abolish such practices, or to indicate
the path to be followed, by limiting abuses, regulating some and tolerating others,
39
A156/253
but always taking into account constraints and resistance to change in various
societies, localities and eras. In order to take account of this process that is driven
and initiated by religions, and also interrelationships between cultures and religions
and, consequently, the requirement of the universality of the rights of women, the
responsibility of States and the international community is vital.
145. Any policy must take the cultural dimension into account; it is possible to
modify negative cultural practices, regardless of whether or not they have a religious
basis, without undermining the cultural specificities of peoples or the requirement of
universality of human rights. However, it must always be borne in mind that the task
is complicated by the fact that it is not merely a question of combating laws,
regulations and policies, but also of combating cultural practices that are rooted in
collective memory and in the deep ancestral beliefs of people, including women
themselves, and that, sometimes these harmful practices, although often contrary to
religions, are perpetuated in the name of religion, or imputed to religion.
146. Not all traditions are equally valid, and those which run counter to human
rights must be combated. It is essential to distinguish between tolerance, which is
necessary, and blind acceptance of customs which may involve degrading treatment
or blatant violations of human rights. In order to ensure that freedom of religion
does not undermine women's rights, it is vital that the right to difference which that
freedom implies should not be interpreted as a right to indifference to the status of
women. As Eleanor Roosevelt said, “Where, after all, do human rights begin? In
small places, close to home”.
147. Lastly, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his recommendation that all relevant
United Nations mechanisms should formulate and adopt a plan of action to combat
discrimination against women imputed to religions and traditions.
B. Cooperation with Uiiited Nations human rights mechanisms and
the specialized agencies of the Uiiited Nations
148. Cooperation with United Nations human rights mechanisms has since creation
of the mandate of course primarily and logically involved both the thematic and
geographical special procedures mechanisms. Such cooperation comprises
consultations and exchange of information and expertise for the elaboration and
submission of communications, as well as for the preparation and conduct of
missions. It has been institutionalized through aimual meetings of special
rapporteurs in Geneva and is also usually of an informal and ad-hoc nature. With
regard to the treaty monitoring bodies, the jurisprudence of the Human Rights
Committee concerning freedom of religion and belief and its manifestations has
always been a source and point of reference for the activities of the mandate.
Cooperation is also under way with the Committee on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women (see section IVA), and with the Committee on the
Rights of the Child and the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,
these three committees being concerned with the freedom of religion and belief The
joint meeting of special rapporteurs and representatives of treaty monitoring bodies
held in Geneva on 21 June 2001 provided a further opportunity for strengthening
and broadening such cooperation.
40
A156/253
149. Cooperation with the specialized agencies has essentially been developed with
those agencies that are more or less directly concerned with the mandate on the
freedom of religion and belief As explained in the chapters on inter-religious
dialogue (see section TuB) and the international consultative conference on school
education in relation to freedom of religion and belief, tolerance and non-
discrimination (see section lilA), UNESCO is a real partner in so far as it plays a
significant role with regard to religions. The Special Rapporteur also benefits from
the cooperation of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the
United Nations Information Centres in the preparation and conduct of in situ visits
(both with regard to logistics and the exchange of information on the country's
human rights situation).
150. With a view to achieving deeper cooperation and better mutual understanding
and to promoting the exchange of expertise, the Special Rapporteur decided to invite
to the Madrid conference United Nations human rights mechanisms (such as those
relating to special procedures, treaty monitoring bodies and national human rights
institutions), as well as United Nations specialized agencies concerned with
questions of education and freedom of religion or belief
C. Cooperation with non-governmental organizations
151. The Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize the essential role of non-
governmental organizations, which have continued their efforts, devoted initially to
the elaboration and adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, to promote
observance of that Declaration, making an invaluable contribution to the fulfilment
of the mandate relating to freedom of religion and belief
152. The General Assembly and the Commission on Human Rights have applauded
this contribution in their respective resolutions (55/97 and 2001/42), and have
welcomed and encouraged the continuing efforts of non-governmental organizations
and religious bodies and groups to promote the implementation of the Declaration,
to foster freedom of religion and belief and to highlight cases of religious
intolerance, discrimination and persecution.
153. Those non-governmental organizations, some of which represent a religion or a
belief, while others have a general mandate relating to human rights or a specific
mandate relating to freedom of religion or belief, play a dynamic role both as
regards day-to-day information management and as regards the preparation and
realization of in situ visits and the progress made in the fulfilment of the mandate.
154. Their collaboration is both institutional, through the Committee on Non-
Governmental Organizations at the United Nations in New York and Geneva, with
regard specifically to the mandate relating to freedom of religion or belief, and
informal, through ad hoc consultations.
155. The non-governmental organizations are also especially active in providing
support for bolstering the human and financial resources allocated to the mandate. In
August 1998, for example, the Oslo Conference on Freedom of Religion or Belief
was organized on the initiative of non-governmental organizations for the specific
purpose of supporting the cause of freedom of religion or belief
41
A156/253
156. They are thus serious partners in furthering the realization of the mandate;
their enriching contribution must be emphasized and welcomed.
11/. Conclusions and recommendations
157. While 2001 marks the twentieth aimiversary of the adoption of the Declaration
on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on
Religion or Belief, the situation with regard to freedom of religion and belief
throughout the world is most distressing, especially if one refers to the successive
resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly,
particularly the most recent one, whereby the Commission on Human Rights noted
with alarm that serious instances of intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of
religion or belief, including acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by
religious intolerance, occurred in many parts of the world and threatened the
enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
158. However, an assessment of the activities of the mandate since its creation, in
the area of management as well as prevention, can afford a better perspective and a
more balanced view of the evolution of the situation with regard to freedom of
religion or belief A comparative analysis of general and mission reports and
communications sent within the framework of the mandate since 1988 shows, to be
sure, intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in various
parts of the world, but also positive situations and cases with respect to the 1981
Declaration and, in particular, improvements in certain fields and in certain
countries. Such an analysis shows the following developments:
(a) A gradual decline in anti-religious policies or policies of total control of
religious life in the name of a political ideology since the end of the cold war. In the
case of many States that have abandoned “hard-line” Marxist ideology, this trend
has been reflected in the restoration of normal relations between State and religion,
while for certain others, renewed close bonds with the traditional church have
ensued. In a very small number of States, on the other hand, a policy of hostility to
religion has persisted, but is more subtle; although, outwardly, the official policy is
one of recognition of religion, in fact, religion is used as a tool and becomes a
prisoner of policy;
(b) The maintenance of discriminatory or intolerant policies with regard to
minorities in States having an official religion; or anti-religious secularism;
(c) A marked increase in policies against minorities which are described as
sects;
(d) An increase in extremism affecting all religions, whether Islam,
Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism. In many cases, such extremism has gradually
become a characteristic of non-State entities; sometimes these are fanatical and
obscurantist groups, sometimes they are groups whose conscious goal it is to use
politics in order to impose their own religious interpretation on society; but very
often they are professional extremists who use religion for political ends. Quite
often, however, such extremist activism is based on the active or tacit complicity of
national and foreign State entities;
(e) A gradual shift towards non-belief within society, characterized by a
growing militancy that enters into competition or even into conflict with religions;
42
A/56/253
( I ) The persistence of discrimination and intolerance ascribed to religion or
to traditions relating to women, and resulting from State policies; from non-State,
especially extremist, entities; or, in a more general and subtle manner, from the
resistance of society as a whole to change and from the patriarchal nature of the
State;
(g) Very marked progress in the interreligious dialogue with a view to
conflict prevention and management and also to reconciliation;
(h) The victims of intolerance and discrimination on grounds of religion or
belief are quite diverse: they may be believers or non-believers, communities of
religion or belief or they may belong to society at large. Particularly affected,
however, are vulnerable groups, such as women and minorities.
159. This assessment is thus a source of concern but, as is often the case, also of
hope.
160. The Special Rapporteur must therefore tirelessly continue not only his role of
management in the field of freedom of religion or belief, but also his preventive
role. Indeed, it is essential to take day-to-day short-term action, by reporting to the
international community any incident incompatible with the 1981 Declaration; but it
is also vital to work for the long term by attacking the roots of intolerance and
discrimination through prevention.
161. The change in the title of the Special Rapporteur from “Special Rapporteur on
religious intolerance” to “Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belier on
the occasion of the renewal of the mandate at the most recent session of the
Commission on Human Rights (see resolution 2001/42) obviously reflects full
recognition of the role of that mandate in management and prevention, which are
complementary and indispensable activities.
162. Of course, the action, and especially the fmdings, of the Special Rapporteur fit
within a larger, more complex context. Indeed, the implementation of the 1981
Declaration cannot be separated from the larger question of respect for human
rights, concerning which no real gains can be made in the absence of democracy and
development. One might therefore consider that action for the promotion of human
rights should involve, on the one hand, action for the establishment, consolidation
and protection of democracy, as an expression of human rights on the political level,
and, on the other, action aimed at limiting and reducing extreme poverty and
promoting the rights of individuals and peoples to development, as an expression of
human rights and of economic, social and cultural solidarity among human beings.
In other words, as noted at the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna,
democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms
are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
163. Conscious of this context, the Special Rapporteur expanded his activity in the
field of freedom of religion or belief, substantially increasing the number of States
to which communications were sent; greatly augmenting the number of
communications, including those sent to a single State; instituting the urgent appeal
procedure; making a greater number of requests for visits so as to ensure that an
average of two missions are carried out each year; and creating a procedure for
follow-up of the recommendations contained in his mission reports.
43
A156/253
164. The Special Rapporteur also added to his mandate the dimension of
prevention, by encouraging and taking part in interreligious dialogue activities
(deciding to accord priority to this question during his “traditional” in situ visits;
instituting visits to the main religious communities or communities of beliefs; and
participating in the UNESCO International Congress on Inter-religious Dialogue and
a Culture of Peace) and investing considerable effort in the elaboration of a strategy
of prevention in the context of school education through the organization of an
international consultative conference on school education in relation to freedom of
religion and belief, tolerance and non-discrimination, to be held in Madrid in
November 2001.
165. In addition to actions undertaken within the framework of this twofold
perspective of management and prevention, the Special Rapporteur decided to
propose to the international community concrete measures regarding specific
priority questions, namely extremism and the status of women from the standpoint
of religion or tradition:
(a) Extremism, whether its invocation of religion is genuine or fictitious and
whether it adopts, provokes or maintains violence or takes on less spectacular forms
of intolerance, represents a violation of freedom and religion alike. It is not
exclusive to any society or any religion. The Special Rapporteur has recommended
that in the face of this ever-growing and all-pervasive menace to peace that breaks
up society and poses a particular threat to vulnerable groups (women and
minorities), the international community should react firmly, combating it in
particular through the elaboration and adoption of a baseline of commonly accepted
rules and principles of conduct and behaviour towards religious extremism;
(b) Concerning the status of women, the Special Rapporteur recommends
that the international community should support the elaboration and adoption, by all
the relevant mechanisms of the United Nations, of a plan of action against
discrimination and intolerance against women allegedly prescribed by religion or
tradition; he further urges the implementation of the recommendations made in his
study, currently being published, on the status of women in relation to religion and
tradition.
166. As shown by this assessment, the mandate relating to freedom of religion or
belief, from its creation to the present, has managed to adapt to challenges and
developments in the field of intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of
religion or belief, such as the growing role of non-State entities as perpetrators of
violations; the development of religious extremism; and special treatment to be
accorded to vulnerable groups, in particular minorities and women. It has also
adapted to specific problems identified by the Commission on Human Rights, such
as defamation, racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and the related intolerance.
167. The efforts made under the mandate to respond to an ever-changing situation
have certainly yielded definite results, visible in the short and medium term and
ultimately in the long term. Those efforts must, however, be redoubled in view of
the magnitude of the task. Yet such an enterprise requires a minimum of human and
financial resources within the framework of the mandate relating to freedom of
religion or belief
44
A156/253
168. For these reasons the Special Rapporteur also deems it necessary, within the
framework of this assessment, to draw attention to the logistics and methodology of
the mandate:
(a) Concerning logistics, it is essential to increase the financial and human
resources allocated to the mandate. While there has been a more than tenfold
increase in activities since the inception of the mandate, resources have remained
essentially unchanged. The Special Rapporteur was fortunate enough to receive
voluntary contributions from Norway and the Holy See in 1999, and to have the
support of Spain since the year 2000 for the organization and holding of the Madrid
conference on school education. More financial means are needed, however, in order
to enable the Special Rapporteur to have at his disposal a minimum of human
resources for carrying out the management and prevention activities of the mandate
more rapidly and efficiently;
(b) As for the methodology, the Special Rapporteur believes that his general
reports should systematically cover all States and all religions or beliefs. They
should contain analyses of each State in order to take into account, when reviewing
instances and situations of intolerance and discrimination, the economic, social,
cultural, historical and political context. This would also reflect and make for a
better understanding of how States and societies evolve with regard to religion or
belief and the issues surrounding freedom of religion or belief This approach would
help, in particular, avoid any selectivity as to States or sets of circumstances and
would result in a better analysis of problematic cases or situations and thus be more
equitable. Implementation of this methodology would, of course, require appropriate
resources to be available.
169. The twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the
Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or
Belief marked, in particular, by the Madrid conference on school education and the
change in the Special Rapporteur's title, has provided an opportunity not only to
prepare this assessment of the situation of human rights and freedom of religion or
belief, but also to establish a solid basis and a springboard for forging ahead into the
twenty-first century by discouraging violations of the 1981 Declaration and thereby
promoting freedom and the expression of the diversity of religion or belief, thanks
to not only to the cooperation of States, the Commission on Human Rights and the
General Assembly, the United Nations human rights mechanisms, the specialized
agencies of the United Nations system, but also to the support of non-governmental
organizations.
45
A156/253
Notes
EICN.4 11988 195.
2 See EICN.412000165.
EICN.412001163.
EICN.411988145 and Add.1, EICN.411989144, EICN.411990146, EICN.411991156,
EICN.411992152, EICN.411993162 and Corr.1 and Add. 1, EICN.411994179, EICN.411995191 and
Add. 1, EICN.411996195, EICN.411997191, EICN.41199816, EICN.411999158, EICN.412000165,
EICN.412001163; A1501440, A1511542, A1521477, A1531279, A1541386 and A1551280 and Add.1
and 2.
See A/CONF.157/24 (Part I), chap. III , sect. 2, para. 33.
6 AICONF I189IPC.1 17.
AICONF I189IPC.2 122.
8 The two studies are summarized in document EICN.412001163.
Reports on Pakistan (EICN.4 11996 195 1Add.1), Sudan (A/51/542/Add.2), Germany
(E/CN .4/1 998/6/Add.2), the United States of America (E/CN.4/1 999/58/Add. 1) and Australia
(E/CN .4/1998/6/Add. 1).
See A/CONF.157/24 (Part I) , chap. III, sect. JIB, para. 22.
46
A156/253
Annex
Late responses and additional information
A. Late responses
Azerbaijan
In response to a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 17),
Azerbaijan, apart from a reminder of its role in the field of human rights and a brief
description of the situation of religious organizations, stated:
“It should be recalled that, in accordance with the law, in 1999, the
Passports Department of the Ministry of the Interior refused to issue a
domestic passport to a group of women wishing to wear the hijab on the
identification card photo to be affixed to these documents.
“By a decision of 23 June 1999, the Nassimi district court in the town of
Baku declared that the complaint filed by this group, composed of eight
women, was admissible. It ordered the Passports Department to issue them
passports with photographs in which the parties concerned were wearing the
h ijab.
“By a decision of 10 August 1999, the Civil Chamber of the Court of the
town of Baku rejected the appeal filed by the procurator who participated in
the investigation of the case.
“Since the Vice-President of the Supreme Court of the Azerbaijani
Republic filed an appeal, the civil chamber of the Supreme Court overturned
the decision of the Nassimi district court and the decision of the civil chamber
of the Court of Baku and dismissed the complaint by the group of women
against the Passports Department of the Ministry of the Interior.
“Thus, by decision of the Supreme Court on 22 September 1999, the
above court decisions were invalidated and the petition was dismissed on the
grounds that, pursuant to the decree applying the law of the Azerbaijani
Republic concerning departure from and entry into the country as well as
passports, citizens must present standard-format identification photographs to
the relevant organs of the Ministry of the Interior of their place of residence,
printed from a single negative, in which they are shown face forward, head
uncovered and with the same physiognomy and the same accessories as those
of their daily life (such as glasses, beard or moustache).
“This decision was confirmed by the legislative and legal affairs service
of the Executive Office of the President of the Azerbaijani Republic in its
letter of 16 August 1999.
“The Supreme Court so informed the President of the National
Committee of the Assembly of the Citizens of Helsinki, Ms. Arzou
Abdoullaleva, in a letter of 30 June 2000.
* The information provided in the present annex follows on from that included in the report of the
Special Rapporteur of 13 Febmary 2001 to the Commission on Human Rights (EICN.412001163).
The paragraph numbers in parentheses refer to that report.
47
A156/253
2. The Special Rapporteur stresses that the wearing of the hijab or any other
distinguishing elements causes a problem only insofar as it uses religion for other
purposes, directly or indirectly expresses attitudes of intolerance towards others or
can reasonably cause serious threats to the public order. If it blends in with the
country's form of dress, and is observed normally, it should not give rise to
limitations, reservations or objections, even where official documents are concerned.
3. In view of the above elements, it should be noted that the decision of the
Supreme Court is in accordance with the laws of the Azerbaijani Republic with
regard to departures, arrivals and passports, on the one hand, and the issuance of
identification papers to Azerbaijani citizens, according to which these citizens must
be represented without a head covering in the photographs affixed to the passports
and other identification papers.
Belarus
4. Regarding the communication of the Special Rapporteur (para. 18), Belarus
replied:
“The question of the fulfilment of military service in Belarus is governed
by article 57 of the Constitution and by the law of 5 November 1992 on
compulsory universal military service.
“Under article 57 of the Constitution, it is the responsibility and sacred
duty of every citizen of the Republic of Belarus to defend the Republic of
Belarus. The procedure governing military service, the grounds and conditions
for exemption from military service and the substitution thereof by alternative
service are determined by law.
“The law on compulsory universal military service and military service
provides for both conscription into the military service and conscription into
alternative service and the fulfilment of such service in one form or another
(article 1, sect. 5 and article 14, sect. 3).
“Since the draft law on alternative service is in the process of being
adopted by the organs of the State, the question is governed by decision No. R-
98/2000 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus of 26 May
2000, concerning certain aspects of the application of article 57 of the
Constitution.
“The provisions of this decision are as follows:
“(a) The Constitutional Court notes that, in accordance with the
Constitution and the law on compulsory universal military service (articles 1
and 14), Belarusians are entitled, inter alia on grounds of religious beliefs, to
do alternative military service, in accordance with modalities governed by an
appropriate mechanism. There is thus an urgent need to adopt the draft law on
alternative service or to supplement the law on compulsory universal military
service by amending it as necessary in order to set up an appropriate
mechanism for ensuring the exercise of the right to do alternative service.
Pending the legal settlement of the questions concerning the grounds and
conditions of alternative service, and the fulfilment of alternative service, the
Constitutional Court agrees, in view of the exceptional circumstances, that the
competent authorities, in accordance with articles 31, 57 and 59 and other
48
A156/253
provisions of the Constitution, should take the necessary measures to ensure
that Belarusians fulfil their responsibility to defend the country in a manner
that does not conflict with their religious beliefs;
“(b) The authorities called upon to decide on the cases of refusal of
military service should determine whether the person concerned chooses to
exercise his constitutional right to do alternative service on the grounds of
religious beliefs or because he refuses to do his military service in conditions
that do not guarantee respect for his religious convictions. In each specific
case, the authorities are bound both to do an exhaustive and appropriate
examination of all the circumstances surrounding the case and to guarantee
respect for the rights and freedoms of persons who wish to fulfil their
responsibility to defend their country in a manner that is different but
acceptable, and to prevent any abuse by individuals who might wish to use it
as a pretext to shirk their military responsibility;
“(c) It should be noted that, in accordance with article 10 of the law of
30 March 1994 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus,
decisions taken by this court in its area of competence, which is defined in
article 5 of that law, are enforceable in Belarusian territory for all organs of the
State, administrations and institutions and all the agents of the State and the
citizens.
“The religious association of Jehovah's Witnesses, to which Mr. Hulai
belongs, has carried out its activities in Belarus since 1997. It has some 20
communities. Enjoying the freedom to express their beliefs in the same
conditions as the members of other religions, the Jehovah's Witnesses
proselytize so actively that their communities have doubled in number over the
past five years. Their followers do not participate in social and political life,
they forbid their children to celebrate certain holidays (such as birthdays and
the New Year) and refuse to fulfil their civic duties set forth in the law.
“Mr. Hulai was found guilty for refusing to respond when he was called
up to military service. The criminal chamber of the regional court of Gomel
sentenced him to one year in prison and gave him a one-year suspended
sentence.
“The defendant explained his refusal, invoking his membership in the
Jehovah's Witnesses and the fact that his religious beliefs prevented him from
fulfilling his military service.
“Mr. Hulai's religious beliefs were duly taken into consideration at the
time he was called up and it was proposed that he should do service that did
not require taking an oath or bearing arms in order to enable him to fulfil his
duty to defend the Republic of Belarus.”
5. The Rapporteur looks forward to the adoption of the draft law on alternative
service and draws attention to the need to conform to relevant international norms
and resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights regarding conscientious
objection.
49
A156/253
Bhutan
6. With regard to the communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 19),
Bhutan replied:
“Freedom of religion is enshrined in the laws of the country and
Bhutanese are free to profess and practise any religion of their choice. While
Buddhism and Hinduism are the two major religions practised in the country,
there is no discrimination against any other religion.
“The Royal Government of Bhutan neither discourages nor prohibits the
practice of any religion or religious activity. In accordance with National
Assembly resolutions that were adopted to prevent discord within the
community, proselytization is not permissible in Bhutan. Such resolutions were
prompted by complaints of community leaders that activities of missionaries
aimed at converting poor and illiterate villagers through the use of material
and other incentives threatened to create social and communal tensions.
“Relations between the various religious communities in Bhutan are
harmonious and have been spared the violence and animosity between different
religious communities that is witnessed in other parts of the world.
“With regard to the specific query received from the United Nations
Special Rapporteur on the question of religious intolerance that a proposal to
construct a church in Bhutan was not accepted by authorities, according to the
records of the Royal Government, such a request has never been received.
There is no restriction on the establishment of any place of worship, provided
that prior approval of the Government is obtained to ensure that the building of
places of worship does not create disharmony in any given community and
conforms with local construction codes.”
China
7. In reply to the Special Rapporteur's initial communication (paras. 26 and 27),
China explained:
Trial of Li Chang et aL
“On 26 December 1999, the principal leaders of the Falun Gong sect, Li
Chang and a few others, appeared in the court of first instance before the
intermediate people's court No. 1 of the municipality of Beijing.
“It was established during the trial that Li Chang, Wang Zhiwen, Ji
Liewu and Yao Lie were followers and active collaborators of Li Hongzhi, the
chief guru of Falun Gong. On the pretext of spiritual meditation, by falsifying
identities and deifying Li Hongzhi, these men created the Falun Gong sect,
drafted its charter, invented its initiation rites and evangelical precepts and
perpetrated a number of illegal acts in its name.
“They used the sect to sow superstition among gullible people, which had
grave and, at times, fatal consequences. According to information received, in
late August 1999, more than 1,400 Falun Gong followers entered into a trance
and committed suicide, performed self-mutilation, or refused all medical
treatment, resulting in their death.
50
A156/253
“They used subterfuge to obtain State secrets. During a search made
under a warrant, the police found 37 documents classified top secret in the
homes of the accused.
“Through the sect structures, they proselytized, preached and
disseminated the sect publications. This brought in 45,130,000 yuan in profit.
“They organized huge gatherings of Falun Gong followers to storm
government and commercial buildings, disrupt work and daily life and threaten
social prosperity.
“The court found that, as a result of such conduct, the accused Li
Chang, Wang Zhiwen, Ji Liewu and Yao Lie were guilty of the following
offences: (a) organization and operation of a sect with a view to disrupting the
legal order; (b) organization and operation of a sect with a view to causing
death through reprehensible acts; and (c) theft of State secrets. All these
offences are particularly serious. Li Chang, Wang Zhiwen and Ji Liewu, who
are the main guilty parties, and Yao Lie, their accomplice, all deserved to be
punished under the law. However, Li Chang and Yao Lie, having, during the
detention period, voluntarily acknowledged in great detail the facts of which
they were accused, revealed the reprehensible conduct of Li Hongzhi and of
the sect and expressed sincere regret, were given lighter or reduced sentences.
Yao Lie's sincere repentance also earned him a lighter sentence for the theft of
State secrets.
“In accordance with the relevant provisions of the Penal Code of the
People's Republic of China and the comments made by the People's Supreme
Court and the Office of the Procurator-General with regard to the specific
application of the law to offences involving the organization and operation of
religious sects, the intermediate people's court no. 1 of the municipality of
Beijing, having found the accused guilty of organizing and operating a sect
with a view to disrupting the legal order, organizing and operating a sect with a
view to causing deaths by reprehensible act and stealing State secrets, handed
down the following sentences:
(a) Li Chang was sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment and stripped of
his political rights for 5 years;
(b) Wang Zhiwen was sentenced to 16 years' imprisonment and
stripped of his political rights for 4 years;
(c) Ji Liewu was sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment and stripped of
his political rights for 2 years;
(d) Yao Lie was sentenced to 7 years' imprisonment and stripped of his
political rights for 1 year.
“The attorneys retained by the families of Li Chang, Ji Liewu and Yao
Lie, the attorney automatically assigned to Wang Zhiwen by the court and the
four defendants themselves have presented their arguments to the court. The
public, the press and the relatives of the four defendants have been admitted to
the trial, which was public, and to the sentencing. None of the defendants has
appealed the sentence.”
51
A156/253
8. The Special Rapporteur recalls that, in any case, freedom of thought is an
absolute freedom and no one should be judged on any matter related to it, or claim
to be its guardian. The manifestations of freedom of thought can be subject to
limitations under international law, it being understood that equitable justice must
allow room for the disputes resulting from such limitations, always bearing in mind
the principle of proportionality between the offence and the penalty and the
reasonable and legitimate character of both the prosecution and the punishment. The
following clarifications were also provided by China:
Clarifications
“Falun Gong is not a religion; it is a sect that has concocted
gibberish based on borrowings from Buddhism, Taoism and
Christianity for the purpose of hoodwinking the gullible. Falun Gong
has assumed the outward trappings of a religion in order to better
blaspheme against religion. The first Falun Gong guru, Li Hongzhi, has
declared that medicines are not to be used to treat diseases and has
solemnly proclaimed that the Earth will explode in the forthcoming
apocalypse. By plundering the masses, he has amassed a private fortune.
It is estimated that Falun Gong excesses have caused over 1,600 deaths.
Many more people have left their home in a complete spiritual daze,
breaking all ties with their families. Their right to health, even to life, is
thus seriously compromised.
“What is more, Falun Gong has also stolen State secrets,
orchestrated attacks against the media, harassed public services and
disrupted traffic, generally undermining law and order with its excessive
behaviour. Its actions reveal that far from being a religion sheltering
behind human rights instruments, Falun Gong is a social, scientific and
human heresy that is a serious threat to society. Such actions have been
denounced by religious thinkers, scientists and ordinary citizens alike.
“By taking measures against Falun Gong, the Government of China
seeks merely to safeguard the rights and freedoms of its citizens in order
that they might freely exercise their religious beliefs. It deeply respects
the universal principles of human rights and aims to promote and protect
fundamental freedoms and rights, including freedom of worship.
International human rights instruments such as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, while emphasizing rights and freedoms, also explicitly provide
for necessary limits on the exercise of certain rights in order to preserve
national security, public safety, law and order, public health and the
rights and freedoms of others.
“Many countries in different parts of the world have taken strict
measures against organized sects whose activities undermine public
interest and threaten social cohesion. The Chinese authorities have done
no more than that. In today's world, all sorts of fanatical movements are
appearing like malignant tumours in the body. No responsible
Government can afford to ignore the threat thus hovering continually
over the well-being of all. The legal measures implemented by the
Chinese Government against Falun Gong and its leaders are by no means
52
A156/253
exceptional when compared with the practice of other nations, and are
fully in line with international human rights instruments.
“Situation of the Karmapa and clar tications
“Fifteen-year-old Urgyen Trinley Dorje was ordained seventeenth
Gyalwa Karmapa at a quiet ceremony in the Chub monastery in Lhasa,
Tibet, in September 1992, with the approval of the Ministry for Religious
Affairs.
“Urgyen Trinley Dorje, the seventeenth living Buddha of the
Karmapa order, left the Chub monastery in December 1999 with a small
group of followers, leaving behind a letter in which he explained that he
was going abroad to secure the traditional ‘Black hat' and sacred
attributes of the living Buddha: ‘In acting thus, I betray neither my
country nor my people, nor my monastery nor its great priests'.
“Freedom of religious belief is a fundamental right of the Chinese
people. The Constitution clearly stipulates that ‘Citizens of the People's
Republic of China enjoy freedom of religious belief No State organ,
public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or
not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens
who believe in, or do not believe in, any religion'. In regions containing
national minorities, such as Tibet, the Government of China is especially
concerned to protect religious beliefs and traditional culture. Currently,
Tibet is home to more than 1,700 monasteries, temples and sacred sites.
More than 46,000 monks and nuns attend to a variety of religious
activities, and each year, major religious festivals are celebrated. It is
preposterous to claim that the Karmapa left Tibet as a result of
restrictions imposed by the Chinese authorities in religious matters.”
9. With regard to a second communication (paras. 24 and 26), China
replied:
“The case ofJiang Surang
“Jiang Sunian is actually Jiang Surang, a 31-year-old male from
Cangnan County, Wenzhou, Zhejiang Province. While Jiang is indeed a
Catholic, he is not a priest. During the second half of 1997, he engaged in
fraudulent activities which netted him some 120,000 yuan renminbi. On 5
April 2000, in accordance with article 12, section 1, and article 225 of the
Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China, the Cangnan County
People's Court sentenced him to six years' imprisonment for fraudulent
activities.
“Freedom of religious belief is a fundamental right of the Chinese
people. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China clearly
stipulates that ‘Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom
of religious belief No State organ, public organization or individual may
compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may
they discriminate against citizens who believe in, or do not believe in,
any religion'. Similar provisions protecting religious freedom and
prohibiting any discrimination against citizens whether or not they are
believers are contained in criminal law, civil law, legislation governing
53
A156/253
regional autonomy for national minorities and military service,
compulsory education legislation, the electoral law relating to the
People's Congress and the law establishing village committees. No one is
prosecuted or imprisoned in China for his or her religious beliefs.
However, citizens who break the law are not exempt from prosecution on
the grounds of their religious beliefs. Jiang Surang was sentenced
because he broke the law, which has nothing to do with his religious
beliefs.”
“The situation concerning China attitude towards Falun Gong
“According to the communication a total of 35,000 Falun Gong
practitioners were arrested. Investigations have revealed that, the figure
actually referred to the number of meetings (not persons) held since July
last, at which a person appearing in a public place in Beijing for the
purpose of causing trouble had been requested to or made to leave.
Falun Gong followers have congregated on several occasions on
Beijing's Tiananmen Square, violating municipal bans and public
security restrictions, and disrupting law and order. They were invited by
the authorities to leave and were sometimes made to leave. The
Government seeks to educate them, and provides them with free food and
beverages, and makes transportation available to them so that they may
return home, or pays their return trip. The allegation that 35,000 Falun
Gong adepts were arrested is completely false.
“According to the same communication, 84 Falun Gong
practitioners were sentenced to up to 18 years imprisonment. It should be
stressed that the practising of Falun Gong in private by an individual in a
manner that does not affect the public interest or the rights of other
citizens is not an offence. However, everyone knows that a small number
of Falun Gong followers have been prosecuted for breaking the law, for
engaging in fraudulent activities and for repeated public order offences in
the context of the sect. Four of them are Li Chang, Wang Zhiwen, Ji
Liewu and Yao Lie leaders of the movement and actively collaborate
with Li Hongzhi in organizing the sect and spreading superstition among
gullible people, often with fatal consequences. Moreover, they have:
(a) Stolen a total of 37 classified documents;
(b) Illegally published sect propaganda;
(c) Amassed illegal profits totalling 45,130,000 yuan renminbi;
(d) Organized gatherings in Beijing and Tianjing for the purpose
of harassing the public administration and disrupting ordinary
professional activities and law and order.
“The perpetrators have been charged with: (a) organizing and using
a sect to prevent exercise of the law; (b) organizing and using a sect for
illicit acts resulting in the deaths of a number of individuals and
(c) stealing State secrets, all of which are very serious offences. Li
Chang, Wang Zhiwen and Ji Liewu, the main guilty parties, and Li Jie,
their accomplice, all deserved to be punished in accordance with the law.
However, since Li Chang and Yao Lie while in detention voluntarily
54
A156/253
provided information, admitted their crimes, revealed the evil character
of Li Hongzhi and his sect, and sincerely repented, Li Chang was
awarded a light sentence, and Yao Lie a reduced sentence. Yao Lie's
sincere repentance also won him a lighter sentence for the crime of
obtaining State secrets.”
10. With regard to a third communication (para. 28), China replied, inter alia:
“The facts
“On 1 October 2000, successive waves of Falun Gong members,
disregarding restrictions imposed by the security forces and Beijing city
authorities, came to Tiananmen Square to spread trouble. The police
asked them to leave. Some were taken to the police station and given a
lecture. They were then fed, lodged and given enough money to return
home. It is untrue that 600 Falun Gong members were arrested.
“Clar t ications
“In taking measures against Falun Gong, the authorities are
scrupulous in ensuring that their methods do not violate the law. After all,
the great majority of Falun Gong followers are concerned above all with
their physical well-being. Since they are being duped, they have no idea
of the evil intentions of the sect's main organizers. The Chinese
authorities stand ready to help them by means of non-violent, non-
discriminating persuasion. Their rights are all fully respected.”
Côte d'Ivoire
11. In response to the Special Rapporteur's communication (para. 29), Côte
d'Ivoire replied, inter alia:
“Côte d'Ivoire is unquestionably the victim of a persistent
misinformation campaign which seeks to give the impression that the country
has suddenly become xenophobic, is torn by ethnic and religious conflicts and
on the brink of civil war.
“In actual fact, this is not the case. Côte d'Ivoire remains one of the few
countries in which foreigners account for over 30 per cent of the population of
approximately 15 million. The new Head of State, Mr. Laurent Gbagbo, in
taking office on 26 October 2000, clearly reaffirmed that: ‘I wish to reassure
the people of this country, whatever their origins, political and religious
opinions and convictions, that the President of the Republic is at the disposal
of all, namely, of Côte d'Ivoire. As I officially take office, I wish to take this
opportunity to appeal to all Ivorians to unite and to respect the principles and
values forgiveness, tolerance and solidarity that make our nation great'.
“This profession of faith was translated into reality by the President of
the Republic a few days later, when he sent Minister of State Boga Doudou,
Minister of the Interior and Decentralization, to Burkina Faso to reassure the
authorities of that sister country of his strong determination to ensure the
safety of the numerous citizens of Burkina Faso (estimated at three million)
some of whom had had a brush with the indigenous peoples of Tabou in the
south-west of Côte d'Ivoire.
55
A156/253
“I should like', continued the Head of State, ‘to assure all the inhabitants
of the sub-region that I am personally committed not only to strengthening the
historic ties between the Côte d'Ivoire and its neighbours, but also to shaping
our common future together.'
“The misinformation campaign provoked surprise and consternation
among the Ivorian people who had hitherto been famous for their hospitality;
Côte d'Ivoire is unusual in that it is a secular country in which nationals from
many countries of the sub-region and also from Lebanon and Syria have
coexisted peacefully for decades along with nationals from the different
regions of Côte d'Ivoire who have settled far from their homelands.
Furthermore, in many villages, Mandé communities (commonly known as
Dioulas) have established themselves and been free to build mosques alongside
temples and churches.
“In addition to hosting foreign nationals, Côte d'Ivoire is still the
preferred host country for many refugees from the Great Lakes, Liberia and
Sierra Leone. Unlike some countries which confine such people to camps, Côte
d'Ivoire has welcomed these ‘African brothers in need' into the heart of its
communities.
“For these reasons, the people of Côte d'Ivoire have difficulty
understanding why they are accused of xenophobia when compared with those
countries whose Governments have been known to engage in massive forced
expulsions of foreigners, or who openly discriminate in favour of their own
nationals. Such attitudes are unknown in Côte d'Ivoire.
“Regarding the events to which you refer, which allegedly took place on
26 and 27 October 2000, in fact, the presidential election took place on Sunday
22 October 2000, in a atmosphere of calm. After the polls closed, the
Chairman of the National Electoral Commission began, on Monday, 23
October 2000, in a live broadcast on Ivorian television, to announce the results
that had reached the headquarters of that institution. This continued with total
transparency until late at night, whereupon it was promised that the operation
would resume on Tuesday, 24 October 2000.
“On Tuesday, 24 October, the transparency observed in the publication of
the results suddenly gave way to silence on the part of the Electoral
Commission, creating a climate of uneasiness and irritation among the
population, which was eager to know the outcome of the vote.
“Given this situation, which was strange to say the least, the Front
Populaire Ivoirien (FPI, socialist opposition) candidate, Mr. Laurent Gbagbo,
who, like many of his fellow citizens, interpreted this unexplained silence as a
manoeuvre on the part of the chief of the ruling junta, appealed to him and, in
an effort to spare the Ivorian people a fate similar to that of Yugoslavia, urged
him not to thwart the democratic process.
“Unfortunately, the chief of the ruling junta did not heed the appeal,
despite the fact that on the eve of the presidential election he had given
assurances, in a radio and television message, that the election would be
transparent and that in the event of a defeat he would leave office.
56
A156/253
“The chief of the ruling junta responded to the republican appeal to step
down honourably, addressed to him by candidate Laurent Gbagbo, by
abolishing the Electoral Commission, arresting its Chairman and, even more
gravely, by having his own victory announced by Mr. Bamba Cheich Daniel,
Director-General of Territorial Administration of the Ministry of the Interior
and Decentralization. Flanked by members of the armed forces, Mr. Daniel
denounced the shortcomings of the Commission, whose place he himself had
just taken.
“It was precisely for the purpose of foiling this deception that candidate
Laurent Gbagbo, who through his representatives in the polling stations and on
the Electoral Commission was apprised, in real time, of the various voting
results, issued an impassioned appeal to Ivorian patriots to oppose the chief of
the junta, who had just organized a ceremony in the presidential palace, in
which he had proclaimed himself President of the Republic.
“After being dispersed by the police, which had been deployed in
considerable array on 24 October 2000, very early on the following day the
Ivorian patriots, coming from every quarter of Abidjan as well as towns in the
interior, bare-handedly forced General Robert Guei to step down, some of
them paying with their lives.
“The Ivorian patriots were just savouring that victory, so dearly yet so
proudly won over the military regime, whose rule had been marked by
numerous barbaric acts committed against civilian populations, when, to their
great surprise, there rang out over foreign radio stations appeals by the
Rassemblement des Républicains (RDR), calling upon its militants to oppose
the victory of candidate Laurent Gbagbo and thereby calling into question the
presidential election of 22 October 2000. RDR candidate Alassane D.
Ouattara, had not been permitted to stand in the election, pursuant to a ruling
handed down by the Supreme Court on 6 October 2000. Yet it should be
mentioned that the ruling had not been contested in any way by RDR, with the
exception of a call by RDR for a citizens' boycott of the election of 22 October
2000.
“These are specific facts which can be readily verified. Thus it was the
appeal made by RDR to contest the victory of the Front populaire ivoirien
(FPI) candidate and the presidential election that gave rise to the unfortunate
events that took place on 25 October 2000 and only on that day, not on 25 and
27 October as mentioned in your letter events that resulted in human deaths
and the profanation of churches, temples and mosques. In other regions,
regrettable situations such as this have given rise to long-term conflicts.
“In our deeply peace-loving country, in addition to the appeal for calm
immediately put out by FPI (Mr. Lida Kouassi Moise) and by RDR
(Mr. Amadou Gon Coulibaly), the Head of State decided to organize a
Martyrs' Day, celebrated on 9 November. In addition, he immediately set up,
under the chairmanship of the Grand Mediator of the Republic, a Mediation
Committee for National Reconciliation, which has begun its task.
“It should be pointed out in this connection that the other highly
influential group in Ivorian politics, the Parti démocratique de la Côte
d'Ivoire/Rassemblement démocratique africain (PDCI/RDA), which, following
57
A156/253
the rejection of its candidates, had also appealed to its members to conduct a
peaceful boycott of the presidential election of 22 October 2000, disassociated
itself from RDR, which had urged its members to contest the victory of
candidate Laurent Gbagbo, despite the fact that Mr. Gbagbo had long been an
adversary of PCDI/RDA.
“Côte d'Ivoire, which had up to that time been considered a haven of
peace and stability and recognized as the driving force in the sub-region of
countries making up the West African Economic and Monetary Union
(WAE vllJ), has had a vital steadying effect in West Africa.
“Indeed, it welcomed the efforts made by the United Nations, the
Organization of African Unity (OAU), the European Union, the International
Organization of la Francophonie and the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) to bring about a rapprochement among political
leaders and support the transition process. Those efforts bear witness to the
interest of those bodies in Côte d'Ivoire. Quite independently, however, the
nation's legislators drafted a new Electoral Code and a new Constitution,
which were adopted on 22 and 23 July 2000 by an enormous vote of more than
86%. Article 35 of that Constitution establishes the conditions of eligibility for
the office of president, which all the political parties, including RDR,
requested their active members to approve.
“This popular decision, the transparency of which was hailed by the
international community, should suffice to put an end to the debate and
speculation that preceded and followed the election, the tone of which in many
ways irritated the sovereign people of Côte d'Ivoire, which is still the most
integrationist country of ECOWAS and intends to remain so.
“It is above all the intention of the Ivorian people, in adopting that
Constitution, to entrust a single office, that of President of the Republic, to a
citizen of well established origins; that is not something that should serve as a
pretext for the propagation of shrewdly orchestrated, malicious reports on Côte
d'Ivoire and its people.
“The clashes to which you allude are the consequence of an insidious,
hateful campaign spread gradually both in Côte d'Ivoire and abroad,
suggesting that Ivorians of the Muslim faith are ostracized by the Christian
population in the south. Issues were lumped together intentionally, the
rejection of the candidature of the RDR candidate being likened to the
rejection of all Muslim populations in Côte d'Ivoire. Communities belonging
to that religion in neighbouring countries then felt that they must side with
those populations, and they too were determined to take a stand in the national
political debate.
“It is worth pointing out, for your information, that contrary to the
allegations made by a certain segment of the press and by politicians, the
north, which has been qualified as exclusively Muslim, does include
Christians. This is evidenced by the fact that, on 20 January 2001, eight priests
from that region of Côte d'Ivoire will be ordained with pomp in the sanctuary
of Marial Notre Dame de la Presentation, at FerkessCdougou.
“The Christian presence in the north is manifest, there are resident
bishops (Korhogo, Katiola and Bondoukou, in the north-east) who, in addition
58
A156/253
to their mission of evangelization, play a pioneering role in social issues for
the benefit of the population (schools, health care centres, etc.). Similarly, in
the south, which in the same clichéd manner is dubbed ‘Christian', one finds
some of the country's finest mosques, including the one currently approaching
completion in the heart of Abidjan and the one at Yamoussokro, whose imams
are highly respected.
“No split can exist in a country which is truly secular, which gives equal
importance to the celebration of Christian and Muslim holidays, and in which a
number of Muslim associations such as (a) the Conseil Supérieur Islam ique
(CSI); (b) the Conseil National Islamique (CNI); (c) the Conseil Supérieur des
Imams; and (d) the Ouma Islamique operate with full freedom, and which
have at their disposal a Government-authorized radio station and have
television broadcast time every Thursday evening. Since independence,
moreover, the Government has attached importance to the organization of the
pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, where it has opened an embassy. It grants financial
support to denominational schools, and Christian schools are open, without
any discrimination, to children of Muslim families.
“However, the Head of State, Mr. Laurent Gbagbo, realizing that in some
cases the situation has gone out of control, has taken concrete measures,
setting up a Mediation Committee for National Reconciliation, in which all
religious and political sensibilities are represented, and creating another
committee composed of bishops, imams and pastors to prepare a list of all
religious buildings that have been profaned or destroyed. Such actions clearly
show his will to reconcile all the inhabitants of Côte d'Ivoire. The Forum of
the Nation, whose creation was announced by the President of the Republic
during his New Year's address on 31 December 2000, is in accord with the
same line of thinking.
“One is pleased to note that the tense situation observed on 25 October
and on 4 and 5 December 2000 is abating, much to the satisfaction of the
people of Côte d'Ivoire, who were relieved to learn of the appeal made by
RDR on 30 December for participation in the regional and municipal elections
scheduled for March 2001.”
Russian Federation
12. To a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 41), the Russian
Federation replied:
“It has been established that a group of individuals broke into an
assembly of the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that was in progress in a
building located at 69 Lenin Avenue in Volgograd with the intention of
preventing those present from exercising their right to manifest their religion.
A member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, Mr. D. I. Kalinine, filed a complaint
with the competent departments of the Ministry of the Interior.
“On 21 September 2000, the office of the public prosecutor for the
Krasnooktyabrsky district (municipality of Volgograd), where this complaint
was filed, instituted proceedings under article 148 of the penal code of the
Russian Federation. The leadership of the congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses
was informed of that action.
59
A/59253
“At present, the instigators and perpetrators of the acts in question are
undergoing a number of examination proceedings.
“The district administrative services, acting jointly with the police
authorities and other competent bodies, have undertaken to implement a series
of measures aimed at preventing manifestations of extremism and fostering a
spirit of tolerance.”
Geo a
13. In connection with two communications from the Special Rapporteur (paras.
47 and 48), in addition to a detailed review of its legislation and of its policy in the
field of human rights, in particular freedom of religion or belief (including a speech
by the President of Georgia condemning incidents affecting minorities, including
Jehovah's Witnesses, Evangelists, Baptists and the Hare Krishna movement and
reporting government measures in that area), Georgia explained:
“Case 1
“The information received by you about the interruption of a Baptist
church service is true. The head of the Baptist Organization appealed to the
Deputy Secretary of the National Security Council of Georgia on Human
Rights Issues, Ms. it Beridze. At her request the Ministry of Internal Affairs
studied the case. The Head of the Tianeti Police Department, Mr. Gigauri, was
reprimanded and given appropriate instructions.
“Since the incident, the Baptists have been conducting their church
services in peaceful and calm conditions.
“The President of the Baptist Organization, Mr. Songulashvili, sent a
letter on 14 September 2000 to the Deputy Secretary of the National Security
Council. He wrote: ‘I would like to thank you for your successful intervention,
since the Baptist community is deeply interested in building up the democratic
society in our country and will participate as much as possible in this
process'.”
“Case 2
“Before receiving your letter, no official information on the incident
involving Jehovah's Witnesses Sergi Barsegiani and Vladimer Mirikiani and
the followers of Basil Mkalavishvili was available to the services of the
Ministry of Internal Affairs.
“Reviewing the information, three units of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs took appropriate measures and later it was stated that Sergi Barsegiani,
born in 1979 and a resident of the Vazisubani district of Tbilisi, and Vladimer
Mirikiani, born in 1980 and a resident of the Gldani district of Tbilisi, were
questioned and declared that they were Jehovah's Witnesses. On 2 or 3 August
2000, at about 11 a.m. (as stated later), they were approached by cars owned
by Basil Mkalavishvili and Givi Khutulishvili; four men and eight women got
out of the cars and physically and verbally abused the Jehovah's Witnesses,
tearing up religious literature belonging to them and taking away their personal
documents. They threw powder made of some unknown material into
S. Barsegiani's eyes, which later made Bersegiani's eye sore. He went to
60
A156/253
Gldani District Polyclinic No. 31, where the necessary examination and
treatment were given.
“The Chief Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs is conducting
an inquiry into the case in order to find out legal ways to resolve it. A court
medical examination has been arranged to determine the degree of health
damage. Additional information on the decision taken will be sent to you.
“Case 3
“On 22 September 2000, the Fourth Police Department of the Gldani-
Nadzaladevi district of Tbilisi was petitioned by inhabitants of Kacharava
Street complaining that in their neighbourhood Hare Krishna meetings were
being held and that there was constant loud noise from the prayers and music.
This invaded their privacy and they demanded that the activity be stopped.
“Based on the complaint, the police searched a house located at 16
Kacharava Street owned formerly by the brothers Jimsher and Zaza
Gabadashvili. The two brothers, who were in conflict with the head of the Hare
Krislma Association, I. Jijavadze, currently lived in their parent's flat at 7
Nutsubidze Street, Flat 24. During the search of the house at 16 Kacharava
Street, Hare Krishna literature translated into Georgian weighing
approximately 150 tons was found in the cellar. The literature had been
brought into Georgia at various times before 1993. When requested to by the
police, the persons in the house, including I. Jijavadze, were unable to produce
adequate documentation showing the origin of the literature. Some 2,900
packets of literature were therefore removed. The removal was found legal by
decision of the Gladani-Nadyaladevi Court, which ruled that the material had
been brought into Georgia illegally without appropriate customs clearance.
“On 4 and 24 October 2000, the couple Tomaradze and G. Darchia and a
lawyer defending I. Jijavadze appealed to the Gldani Region Procurator on the
issue. They demanded that criminal proceedings be brought against the police,
who had confiscated the Hare Krishna literature illegally. On the basis of the
complaint, the Procurator checked the materials at the police station.
“On the basis of the complaint, I. Jijavadze was questioned. He indicated
that he was a follower of Vedic culture, that he was internally displaced from
Sukhumi (Abkhazia, Georgia) and currently lived in Tbilisi with his wife. He
had arrived in Tbilisi on the instructions of his spiritual leaders residing in
Sweden and Switzerland, Robert Companiolli and Seta Prabu, and had
received instructions from them to head the Veda Cultural Centre in Georgia.
“He stated that the Veda Cultural Centre had been registered in Georgia
in 1992 in the Gldani-Nadzaladevi district of Tbilisi and that the literature
confiscated by the Gldani-Nadzaladevi District Police Department had been
sent to Georgia from Moscow in 1990-1993. The books had been kept in the
chapel storeroom and had not been used for commercial purposes. The only
aim was to disseminate the books among their followers. He appealed for re-
registration of the Association to the Gldani District Court, but the Court did
not grant his appeal.
“I. Jijavadze also stated that the Constitution of Georgia allowed such an
association to function without any official registration. As President of the
61
A156/253
Association he considered that the books had been confiscated illegally by the
police.
“In the process of further examination, Jimsher and Zaza Gabadashvili
explained that the house at 16 Kacharava Street in Tbilisi, had been bought
from citizen Gurchemelia in 1991. Both of the brothers had been followers of
Vedic culture in the house at 16 Kacharava Street. The Veda Cultural Centre
had been founded and registered in 1992 according to Decision No. 726 of
Gldani District Municipality. Until 1995, the Centre had been led by Otar
Nachkebia and later by lakob Jijavadze.
“Now they were against having the Veda Cultural Centre in their house
and demanded that the house be vacated by its followers and their cellar of its
literature.
“Citizen Laura Gurchumelia was also questioned. She proved that she
used to own a private house at 16 Kacharava Street and because of hard
economic conditions she had had to sell it later to Jimsher and Zaza
Gabadashvili. The head of the Fourth Police Department of Gldani district, Gia
Zodelava, stated that on 22 September 2000, the police had been petitioned by
the inhabitants of Kacharava Street complaining against the activities of the
Hare Krishna followers. The citizens had mentioned in their complaint that the
loud prayers taking place 24 hours a day invaded their privacy. Only after that
had the police taken the decision to search the house to investigate what was
alleged in the complaint. On 23 September 2000, Gia Zodelava and the Head
of Administrative Police, J. Kbilashvili, had personally visited the house at 16
Kacharava Street, where they had met the President of the Hare Krishna
Association, lakob Jijavadze. To their request for relevant documentation the
Association appeared not to be registered at all, but later while examining the
premises they had discovered 150 tons of literature. The precise amount of
literature was indicated by the President of the Association, I. Jijavadze. The
police asked for documents relating to the literature but none could be
produced. On further examination of the issue, the police discovered proof that
the books were being sold as basic books of the Bible. On 24 September, the
police began the process of removing the books, an action ruled lawful by the
Gldani District Court. Part of the confiscated literature was kept in the
storerooms of the Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
“On 5 October 2000, the Deputy Secretary of the National Security
Council of Georgia on Human Rights Issues, Ms. R. Beridze, was petitioned by
followers of Hare Krishna. The case was under investigation and the Deputy
Secretary had received all the available information on the case. On 29
November, the Procurator refused to re-open the case on the matter for lack of
any indication of a crime. The Procurator of Gldani District ordered the return
of the literature. Despite the successful criminal proceedings and the return of
the literature, clearly some of the material had been damaged. The Hare
Krislma Association had suffered moral and economic damage. They can bring
a civil case and compensation may be made for the damage.”
62
A156/253
Hungary
14. In connection with a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 52),
Hungary replied:
“The National Assembly of the Republic of Hungary, with the adoption
of the budget for the years 2001 and 2001, Act CXXXIII of 2000, in paragraph
110 (1) s, has repealed the phrase, those churches ‘having a contract with the
State', referred to by the Special Rapporteur in his letter, from the law on value
added tax (VAT) (Act LXXIV of 1992, para. 71 (8)). The above-mentioned
provision ceased to have effect as at 1 January 2001. As a result of this
amendment, all registered churches in Hungary are entitled to claim back the
sales tax (VAT) from the State.”
India
15. In reply to a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 72), India
explained:
“Case of M r Ashish Prabash
“On 10 June, one Ashish Prabash, a trained preacher working for the
Jesus Film Ministry, a wing of the India campus Crusade for Christ, was found
dead in his rented room in the village of Kaniawali, Jalandhar district. Prabash
had been touring the rural areas of the Punjab, showing films on Christ. The
case was registered on 10 June 2000 under the relevant provisions of the
Indian Penal Code and the matter is under investigation.
“Case of Brot her George Kuzhikandan
“In the night of 6 to 7 June, Brother George, warden of Assisi Boys
Hostel of St. Paul's Memorial Convent School, Nawada, Narhauli Police
Station, Mathura, was found murdered by unknown assailants while he was
sleeping in the open premises of the hostel. The assailants had also ransacked
the residence of the principal, who was out of the station. A police case was
registered and investigations are ongoing. The Government of the Indian State
of Uttar Pradesh has also instituted a judicial inquiry under a sitting High
Court Judge.”
16. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank India for this information and would
like to receive information concerning the judicial follow-up in these two cases.
Iran (Islamic Republic ol)
17. In connection with a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 77),
the Islamic Republic of Iran replied:
“All persons referred to in the report have been accused of spying and
none of them convicted in connection with their belief
“There has not been any confirmation of the death sentence against the
four persons and, according to the latest information, Mr. Sirus Dhabihi-
Muqaddam was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment; Mr. Hidayat Kashifi
Najafabadi was sentenced to five and half years' imprisonment; Mr. Ataullah
63
A156/253
Hamid Nasirizadeh, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and Mr.
Manuchehr Khulusi has been released. In this regard, I would like to underline
that my Government on various occasions offers amnesty to prisoners. Hence,
it is hoped that the three persons behind bars would enjoy such an opportunity
and be released in the near future.”
18. The Special Rapporteur would like to thank the Islamic Republic of Iran for
this information and expresses the wish to see the accused persons released as soon
as possible.
Italy
19. Italy has replied as follows to a communication from the Special Rapporteur
(para. 81):
“I have the honour to confirm that Italy is making efforts to ensure full
compliance with the resolution in the context of its commitment against any
form of discrimination. I wish, in particular, to make it clear to you that Italy
has never made its immigration policy subject to criteria of a religious or
cultural nature. Within the limit of its possibilities, Italy is committed to
accepting any one who applies, in accordance with Italian legislation, for
permission to live and work in Italy.”
20. The Special Rapporteur commends the Italian Republic on its policy with
respect to religion but would like to see more sustained attention paid to excesses,
irrespective of who is responsible.
Uzbekistan
21. In connection with a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 111),
Uzbekistan has replied:
“The Evangelical Christian Baptist Church itself applied to the
Khokimiyat (Governing Body) of the Tashkent region for its registration in the
year 2000. However, because the papers were incorrectly prepared and in the
absence of some necessary documents required by internal legislation and
regulations, it was recommended to prepare the papers and to apply to the
Khokimiyat of Gazalkent. According to information available, the Evangelical
Christian Baptist Church is currently preparing all the necessary papers that
need to be transmitted to the Khokimiyat of Gazalkent for its most careful
consideration.
“The location that has been chosen by the Evangelical Christian Baptist
Church for its summer camp does not meet the sanitation norms and other
requirements for living accommodation. In that regard, the Khokimiyat of the
Tashkent region has expressed its readiness to provide places in sanatoriums
and summer camps both for members of the Evangelical Christian Baptist
Church and for members of other confessions on a basis of equality.
“There are people of over 100 nationalities residing in Uzbekistan. In that
regard, the Government of Uzbekistan pays great attention to issues relating to
religious and confessional activity. A number of legislative acts have been
adopted to regulate and facilitate the activity of religious organizations. In that
regard, in order to avoid any delay and for facilitation and speedy settling of
64
A156/253
this particular matter from its beginning it would be more efficient to procure
the services of a professional lawyer familiar with the provisions of the
internal legislation who could help in the preparation of all the appropriate
papers.
“Whatever the circumstances, the Government of Uzbekistan makes
every effort to ensure that all confessions in Uzbekistan are treated without any
prejudice and on the bases of equality, respect and privileges.”
22. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank Uzbekistan for this specific and very
useful information.
Lao People's Democratic Republic
23. In connection with a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 123),
the Lao People's Democratic Republic has provided the following explanation:
“The allegation is false and groundless. Such allegation is deliberately
fabricated for political ends with the mere aim of discrediting the image of the
Lao Government and misleading the Christian community around the world
about the reality of the situation in the Lao People's Democratic Republic. The
fact is that more that 150 churches are operative in the Lao People's
Democratic Republic and none of them has been shut down. The Lao Christian
believers practise their religion freely, go to the church of their choice and live
in harmony with other religious communities such as Buddhists, animists,
Muslims, Baha'i and so on.
“As you are aware, article 30 of the Constitution of the Lao People's
Democratic Republic clearly stipulates that the Lao people have the right to
profess or not to profess any religion. It should be emphasized that no such
harsh or draconian laws as allow the Government or individuals to arbitrarily
force people to denounce their religious beliefs of their choice or launch a
campaign or programme to shut down churches in Laos. And as a matter of
policy, the Government does not practise or condone the practice of religious
discrimination.
“Since the foundation of the Lao People's Democratic Republic on 2
December 1975, the Lao Government has attached great importance to the
questions of peace, stability and national unity, which are prerequisites for
national construction and development. Towards that end, the Government has
pursued a policy of peace, friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance
among the Lao communities of all ethnic groups. Any alternative contrary to
the above-mentioned policy would be detrimental to the interests of the Lao
people and is not acceptable to the Lao Government and people.”
24. The Special Rapporteur, while thanking the Lao People's Democratic
Republic for its reply, had hoped to receive specific information on the allegations
that were submitted to him.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
25. In reply to a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 124), the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has provided the following
explanation:
65
A156/253
“The Government of the United Kingdom is taking the problem of
religious discrimination very seriously. It will introduce legislation to outlaw it
in employment and training. A question on religious identity will be included
in this year's census. And we are awaiting research findings to help inform our
thinking about other ways of tackling the problem. There is also protection
under the new Human Rights Act.
“The Government will be introducing legislation that outlaws
discrimination in the workplace and in training on the grounds of religion by
autumn 2003. This will implement the provisions of a European directive that
was agreed in October last year.
“The Government is alive to the concerns that have been expressed about
the issue of religious discrimination in other areas and to the case for it to be
made subject to the law. This issue raises many difficult, sensitive and
complex questions. There is no ‘quick fix' solution.
“We commissioned research to assess the current scale and nature of
religious discrimination, and the extent to which it overlaps with racial
discrimination, in England and Wales. We also commissioned research into the
policy options for tackling the problem.
“We expect to publish the research findings in the first quarter of this
year. These will inform our thinking about other ways of tackling the problem.
“The UK Government has been in direct communication with the Islamic
Human Rights Commission about their questionnaire and report. We took
careful note of the findings; however, the results need to be treated with
considerable caution, as they extrapolate from a response rate of less than 2 per
cent.
“Education for Muslim students (such as alleged exclusion from, or
discrimination within, educational establishments because of the
performance of religious requirements; the alleged lack of clear
guidelines and procedures by the Department for Education and
Employment to deal with complaints in that area)
“Government policy is that pupils from etimic or religious minorities
should have the same opportunity as all others to benefit from what schools
can offer them. Low expectations, intolerance, prejudice and racism have no
place whatsoever in our schools or educational institutions. Schools should aim
to preserve and transmit our national values in a way that accepts Britain's
ethnic and religious diversity and promotes understanding and racial harmony.
“The Department will be introducing a statutory programme of study for
citizenship for all 11-16-year-olds from September 2002 as part of the National
Curriculum. This programme will ensure that for the first time, 11-14-year-old
pupils will be taught about ‘diversity of national, regional, religious and etimic
identities in the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and
understanding'; 14-16-year-olds will be taught about ‘the origins and
implications of the diverse national, regional, religious and ethnic identities in
the United Kingdom and the need for mutual respect and understanding'.
“Head teachers have a legal duty to take measures to prevent all forms of
bullying among pupils. We have updated and re-issued our “Anti-Bullying
66
A156/253
Pack” and video, which provide advice and guidance on successful strategies
to prevent and tackle all forms of bullying in school, including racist bullying.
“Religious education must be provided for all pupils attending a
maintained school. Syllabuses are drawn up by agreed syllabus conferences,
which include representation from religious faiths and denominations
represented in the local area. This should help to ensure that the wishes of faith
communities are taken into account in designing the content of the syllabus.
“Parents have the right to withdraw children from religious education if
they wish. For pupils who have been withdrawn, schools can allow alternative
religious education according to a particular faith or denomination.
“Alternatively, parents can withdraw their children from school to
receive elsewhere religious education of a kind the school is not able to
provide. These provisions apply to all those, whether Christian, Muslim or
members of other faiths, who wish their children to receive religious education
solely in accordance with their own belief and traditions.
“Responsibility for responding to the religious and cultural backgrounds
of pupils rests with individual local education authorities and schools. Schools
should be sensitive to cultural and religious requirements and to sex
discrimination issues when setting their uniform policies. It should therefore
be possible for schools to make arrangements for Muslim girls, who are
required by their religion to dress modestly, to wear appropriate clothing in
school colours.
“The Department recognizes the cultural and religious needs of Muslim
parents and children. Arrangements for religious education and collective
worship are flexible, taking into account major Muslim religious festivals.
Facilities are provided for Muslim prayers; halal food is available in school
meals and the hijab can be worn. In order to avoid Muslim festivals, the
Qualification and Curriculum Authority consults Muslim groups when setting
dates for national examinations.
“Employment for Muslim students (such as alleged failure at job
applications only on the basis of religious dress for men and women;
alleged dismissal for expressing a religious identity at work as well as
alleged harassment and intimidation at work)
“The UK Government is pleased that the Council of Ministers of the
European Community agreed on 17 November to the Directive Establishing a
General Framework for Equal Treatment in Employment and Occupation. It
seeks to combat discrimination and harassment in employment on (among
others) the grounds of religion and belief.
“It is a framework directive. It is for member States to identify particular
issues that need to be specified within their legislation and other measures
established under this directive. Ministers are committed to consulting widely
to ensure that these measures are both helpful and workable. They recognize
that protection from discrimination is of particular importance to members of
minority religions who feel particularly vulnerable due to the visible signs of
their religions. The specific instances raised (workplace harassment and
intimidation, unjustified rejection of job applicants solely on grounds of their
67
A156/253
religious dress and dismissing workers for expressing a religious identity at
work) are therefore useful examples of the issues we are identifying to
examine whether they should be within the scope of this work.
“The Directive represents an important step forward in combating such
discrimination and will ensure that employment opportunities across Europe
are not denied to individuals on the basis of their faith.
“Media incitement of hostility against Muslims
“Regulation of the press. Newspapers and periodicals remain wholly
independent of the Government. The responsibility to decide what, and what
not, to publish, subject to the general law, is theirs. The Government believes
that a free press is a cornerstone of democracy and as such does not wish to
control the editorial content of newspapers or magazines. For this reason, the
Government has no plans to introduce legislation to regulate the press.
“Newspapers operate a system of self-regulation through the Press
Complaints Commission (PCC), which is an independent body set up by the
newspaper industry to ensure that British newspapers and magazines follow
the industry's code of practice. The Code includes provisions on discrimination
and requires that all members of the press have a duty to uphold the highest
ethical standards. The Government believes that self-regulation is working.
The Government expects the press to abide by the rules and commitments
enshrined in the PCC's Code of Practice, and continues to monitor alleged
press abuses and the PCC's handling of them.
“Television. Under the United Kingdom's Broadcasting Act 1990,
licensed services are required to observe the following:
“(a) That nothing is included in its programmes that offends against
good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to
disorder or to be offensive to public feeling;
“(b) That due impartiality is exercised with respect to the contents of
any of its programmes that are religious programmes and that in particular any
such programmes do not involve:
“(i) Any improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of those watching
the programme; or
“(ii) Any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those
belonging to a particular religion or religious denomination.
“The BBC's Producers' Guidelines on the portrayal of religious groups
states that people and countries should not be defined by their religions unless
it is strictly relevant and that thoughtless portrayal can be offensive, especially
if it implies that a particular faith is hostile or alien to all outside it. For
example, footage of chanting crowds of Islamic activists should not be used to
illustrate the whole Muslim world.
“The Guidelines also state that words such as ‘fundamentalist', ‘militant'
and ‘Islam ist' should be used with great care.
68
A156/253
“The Independent Television Commission's programme code states that
every attempt must be made to ensure that the belief and practice of religious
groups are not misrepresented and that programmes about religion are accurate
and fair. Programmes and follow-up material to programmes must not
denigrate others' beliefs.”
26. The Special Rapporteur thanks the Government of the United Kingdom for the
detailed and specific information which is of admirable quality and relevance.
However, while underlining the necessity to respect press freedom he would like to
draw attention to the stereotypes and clichés which continue to figure in certain
media outlets with respect to particular minorities, including the Muslim minority.
The State must remain vigilant in that connection and take action in the event of any
lapses by the organs concerned.
Ukraine
27. In connection with a communication from the Special Rapporteur (para. 145),
Ukraine has replied as follows:
“In Ukraine, it is possible to perform alternative (civilian) service instead
of military service; the purpose of civilian service is to enable those concerned
to fulfil their duties to society and, by its nature, is not punitive.
“Alternative service, in terms of its complexity and the responsibilities
involved must be equivalent to compulsory military service. In that connection
we consider it proper to introduce a balance between the two forms of service
by specifying for each of them a different legal duration (for conscripts, active
military service is 18 months or, for the holders of higher education degrees,
12 months; in the case of alternative service, these periods are 27 months and
18 months, respectively). In most cases, civilian service is performed in the
area where the person concerned resides, in other words in a place from which
he can return home every day.
“The labour relations between the people concerned and the State are
defined by a written contract of employment of a specific duration and are
governed by labour legislation. Civilian service takes the form of a period of
general employment. Anyone choosing this option may be offered work
corresponding to his profession or trade. He may also enrol in a secondary or
higher education establishment or engage, inter alia, in a correspondence
course or in extramural studies.
“These few examples suffice to show that alternative service is an
activity of a professional nature governed by labour legislation and that its
duration makes it a proper alternative solution and not a supposed punishment
for refusing to bear arms on grounds of religious conviction.
“Article 2 of the Ukrainian Alternative (Civilian) Service Act
acknowledges the right of anyone belonging to a religious organization whose
activities are in keeping with domestic legislation and for whom a prohibition
on bearing arms is an article of faith to perform civilian service.
“Under article 8 of the Ukrainian Freedom of Conscience and Religious
Organizations Act, religious organizations established in Ukraine, including
those that have not been constituted in the country, are free to register their
69
A156/253
statutes (so as to obtain legal personality) or not to do so. Anyone belonging to
a religious community which has not registered its statutes has an equal right
to perform civilian service instead of compulsory military service if the latter
is contrary to his religious convictions. The claim that the Ukrainian
Alternative (Civilian) Service Act applies only to members of officially
registered religious communities, and the claims made concerning the practical
application of the Act, are therefore not in keeping with reality. Nor has it been
found that the State religious affairs bodies have failed to comply with the time
limits for the consideration of issues relating to the registration of the statutes
(articles of incorporation) of religious communities.
“The Ukrainian Constitution and national legislation in force governing
questions relating to freedom of conscience and religious activity, refute the
claim that foreigners may not engage in religious activities in Ukraine other
than within the ‘strict' framework of the organizations that invite them to the
country with the consent of the authorities.
“Under articles 26, 34 and 35 of the Constitution, foreigners who are
legally in Ukraine enjoy the same rights and freedoms and have the same
obligations as Ukrainian citizens. Their freedom of opinion and conscience is
guaranteed. Any foreigner in Ukraine may (on an equal footing) profess his
religion individually or collectively, take part in religious services and perform
other religious acts connected with his faith provided he complies with
Ukrainian legislation. Foreigners may not, under any circumstances, advocate
religious intolerance or offend the religious convictions of Ukrainian citizens,
or of foreigners or stateless persons domiciled or temporarily living in
Ukraine. Interference in religious services or other activities governed by the
canonical law of religious organizations is prohibited. That does not apply only
to foreigners. Under article 5 of the Ukrainian Freedom of Conscience and
Religious Organizations Act, it is illegal for anyone this applies to State
bodies, social organizations and religious organizations and also to
individuals to interfere in the activities of religious organizations or of their
representatives provided that those activities are conducted in accordance with
the law.
“Foreign religious leaders (Catholic priests, ministers of religion,
preachers and teachers) may come to Ukraine to preach or engage in other
religious activity, at the invitation of religious organizations which need the
services of such persons and with the agreement of the State body that
registered the statutes of the organization in question.
“Thus, in 1998, the State Committee for Religious Affairs considered
1,148 applications from religious organizations and centres for permits to
invite foreigners to Ukraine to engage in religious activities such as providing
leadership or instruction to communities, or for humanitarian activities, in
particular charitable work; the Committee issued permits for such purposes for
3,793 foreign nationals, and its local agencies did the same for 7,716
foreigners.
“During the first half of 1999, the State Committee for Religious Affairs
received 961 such applications from religious organizations and centres; it
approved the issuance of invitations to 1,939 foreigners to come to Ukraine to
engage in religious activity, or in some other type of work carried out jointly
70
A156/253
by several Churches, and its regional and local agencies did the same for 4,235
persons. These figures show that foreign missionaries, preachers and others are
coming in increasing numbers to Ukraine at the invitation of religious
organizations.
“During the period 1998-1999, the Government bodies for various
reasons which were fully explained, refused outright to authorize 61
representatives of foreign religious organizations to engage in religious
activities in Ukraine.
“Approval for foreign priests, ministers and other religious leaders to
engage in religious activity, instruction or other activity at the invitation of
religious organizations which need the services of such persons, and with the
agreement of the State bodies that have registered the statutes of those
organizations, is withheld only in cases where the proposed religious activity
falls outside the scope of a foreigner's right, as recognized by the Constitution,
to engage in such activity, or where the activity is intended to fulfil personal
religious needs. This practice is not at variance with the provisions of the
instruments adopted by the United Nations with respect to freedom of
conscience and religion since it does not impair the right of any foreigner to
profess his faith on a personal basis, either individually or collectively.”
28. The Special Rapporteur thanks Ukraine for its specific and detailed response.
He wishes to draw attention to the difficulties of assessing the duration of civilian
service, particularly in view of the fact that the general tendency seems to be to
reduce differences between the duration of civilian and military service.
Viet Nam
29. Viet Nam has replied as follows to a communication from the Special
Rapporteur (para. 146):
“Tran Thai Son was arrested in 1978 due to his sabotage activities related
to the United Front for the Liberation of Oppressed Races (FULRO), a
reactionary force. In 1980, he was released on the ground of a health condition.
After being released, Son did not return to Dong Nai, where he was a pastor,
but moved to Ho Chi Minh City to continue sabotage activities. On 8 January
1983, he was again found guilty in a criminal case. Despite such acts, Tran
Thai Son was absolved by the court for health reasons.
“The fact that he has not been allowed to have a church for official
preaching is a matter of internal decision by the local Protestant Congregation
for his infringement upon the requirements of a pastor; the Government has no
jurisdiction.”
B. Additional information
Azerbaijan
30. Azerbaijan has provided the following information further to its response to a
communication from the Special Rapporteur (paras. 13 to 16):
“The Government of Azerbaijan has in every way taken steps to resolve
the issues concerning Jehovah's Witnesses described in your report. The six
71
A156/253
women fired from their place of work have been fully reinstated and the
negative comments made in the work records have been officially expunged.
“Furthermore, the Government officially registered Jehovah's Witnesses
in January 2000 and has made attempts to ensure that they can carry out their
worship without hindrance. Aside from minor irregularities with the
importation of literature, no reports of harassment or hindrance of their
religion of any kind have been reported since registration.”
31. The Special Rapporteur thanks Azerbaijan for its response which is evidence
of the continuing progress of religious freedom in that country.
Egypt
32. Further to the information in its reply to a communication from the Special
Rapporteur (paras. 30 to 32), Egypt has provided the following explanations:
“On 31 March 1999 a Christian merchant and a Muslim became involved
in an ordinary argument concerning a trade dispute in the market of the village
of Al-Kosheh.
“The argument degenerated and some premises and traders' stalls were
destroyed; shots were exchanged killing 21 people, 20 of them Christians and
one Muslim, and 50 wounded, 27 of them Christians and 23 Muslims.
“Ninety-six defendants were brought to trial. In December 2000, 92
defendants were found innocent and the four others were sentenced to terms of
imprisonment of between 1 and 10 years. The grounds for the court's decision
in this case were as follows:
“(a) The indictment did not include any incontrovertible evidence that
any of the defendants who were cleared had committed the crimes of which
they were accused, either in an isolated action or during an illegal assembly;
“(b) The names of many defendants had been given by victims who were
witnesses for the prosecution, without any argument of fact or law; this
destroyed the probative value of their testimony which was therefore rejected
by the Prosecutor's office;
“(c) None of the defendants had been arrested during or following the
commission of the criminal acts of which they were accused, despite the
presence of a large number of police officers at the time when the incidents
took place;
“(d) None of the implements or weapons used during the incidents, and
none of the merchandise stolen on that occasion, was found at the home of any
of the defendants;
“(e) The accusations were based merely on suppositions or assumptions;
“(1) The accusations were overstated to the point of being contrary to
reason and logic;
“(g) The sums reported under the heading of damage and theft were
exaggerated or submitted unjustifiably late;
72
A156/253
“(h) There were inconsistencies between, on the one hand, the accounts
given by many of the victims, and the police reports and investigations of the
Prosecutor's office, and, on the other, between the various accounts
themselves; either the accounts conflicted concerning a particular action or
because it was claimed that a particular defendant attacked several victims
simultaneously, whereas the latter were far away from one another at the time;
“0) The statements of certain witnesses for the prosecution were at
variance with the conclusions of the forensic expert;
“(j) It was impossible to identify certain defendants because of the
number of demonstrators and the multiplicity of places of assembly, both
inside the village and outside it.
“The Prosecutor's office has filed an application for judicial review of
the facts and the case will be retried.”
73
