Aadel Collection
Report submitted by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1996/23
UNITED
NATIONS
Economic and Social Distr.
GENERAL
Council
E/CN.4/1997/91
30 December 1996
ENGLISH
Original: ENGLISH/FRENCH
COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Fifty-third session
Item 19 of the provisional agenda
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE ELIMINATION OF ALL FORMS
OF INTOLERANCE AND OF DISCRIMINATION BASED ON RELIGION OR BELIEF
Report submitted by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur, in
accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1996/23
CONTENTS
Introduction
I. STATUS OF COMMUNICATIONS SENT SINCE THE FIFTY-SECOND
SESSION OF THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
II. IMPORTANCE OF IN SITU VISITS AND FOLLOW-UP
III. DEVELOPMENT OF A CULTURE OF TOLERANCE
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Dimensions of religious freedom
B. Protection and promotion of religious freedom
C. Other conclusions and recommendations
Paragraphs
1- 6
7
44
62
69
70
83
104
- 43
- 61
- 68
- 106
- 82
- 103
- 106
E
Page
2
2
11
14
15
15
17
20
GE.97-lOOlS (E)
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 2
Introduction
1. At its forty-second session, the Commission on Human Rights decided,
in resolution 1986/20 of 10 March 1986, to appoint for one year a special
rapporteur to examine incidents and governmental action 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,
and to recommend remedial measures for such situations.
2. In accordance with that resolution, the Special Rapporteur submitted his
first report to the Commission at its forty-third session (E/CN.4/1987/35)
At that same session, by resolution 1987/15 of 4 March 1987, the Commission
extended for one year the mandate of the Special Rapporteur.
3. From 1988 onwards, the Special Rapporteur submitted yearly reports to
the Commission (E/CN.4/1988/45 and Add.1; E/CN.4/1989/44; E/CN.4/1990/46;
E/CN.4/1991/56; E/CN.4/1992/52; E/CN.4/1993/62 and Corr.1 and Add.1). The
Commission decided twice to extend the Special Rapporteur's mandate for
two years (resolutions 1988/55 and 1990/27) , and then once for three years
(resolution 1992/17) until 1995.
4. Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, who succeeded Mr. Angelo d'Almeida Ribeiro
in 1993, submitted successive reports (E/CN.4/1994/79; E/CN.4/1995/91 and
Add.1; E/CN.4/1996/95 and Add.1-2) to the Commission on Human Rights at
its fiftieth, fifty-first and fifty-second sessions, as well as to the
General Assembly at its fiftieth and fifty-first sessions.
5. By its resolution 1995/23, of 24 February 1995, the Commission on Human
Rights decided to extend the Special Rapporteur's mandate for a further
three years.
6. This report is submitted pursuant to Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1996/23 of 19 April 1996. The Special Rapporteur has considered
the status of communications sent since the Commission's fifty-second session,
the importance of in situ visits and their follow-up, and the development of a
culture of tolerance.
I. STATUS OF COMMUNICATIONS SENT SINCE THE FIFTY-SECOND SESSION OF
THE COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
7. This discussion of the status of communications and replies concerns
communications sent since the fifty-second session of the Commission on Human
Rights, the replies or absence of replies from the States concerned, and late
replies.
8. Because of drastic budget cuts, the Special Rapporteur has been unable
to publish these communications and the replies from States, contrary to the
practice followed since the establishment of the mandate. This constraint is
highly detrimental to the paramount importance of the information and to its
educational function, and ultimately constitutes a form of information
censorship that seriously undermines the Special Rapporteur's mandate.
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 3
Accordingly, the Special Rapporteur has analysed the information and can
provide copies of the communications and replies available at the Centre for
Human Rights in Geneva.
9. Since the fifty-second session of the Commission on Human Rights, the
Special Rapporteur has sent communications to 49 States: Afghanistan,
Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia,
Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burundi, Chad, China (2) , Croatia, Cyprus, Egypt,
Eritrea, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of)
Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Malaysia,
Maldives, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan (2) , Romania,
Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Tajikistan, Turkey,
Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America,
Viet Nam, Yemen and Yugoslavia.
10. Among the communications addressed to States, reference will be made
in particular to the urgent appeals sent to China, Iran (2) , Egypt and
the United Arab Emirates. The urgent appeal sent to China concerns reports
of the detention of the venerable Yulo Dawa Tsering, a Tibetan monk whom
the Special Rapporteur had consulted during his visit to China (see
E/CN.4/1995/1991) and in respect of whom the Chinese authorities had
undertaken to ensure that no negative consequences would result from the
aforesaid meeting.
11. The urgent appeals sent to Iran concern, first, the priest Yusefi, born
a Muslim and converted to Christianity, who was found hanged in circumstances
not yet clarified, which, in view of the murders of Protestant clergymen
in 1994, may legitimately raise questions; and, second, Mr. Moussa Talibi, a
Muslim converted to the Baha'i faith, whose sentencing to death for apostasy
by a revolutionary tribunal follows upon the cases of Mr. Mahrami,
Mr. Mithaqui and Mr. Khalajabadi, all three also being Baha'is and sentenced
to death for apostasy.
12. The urgent appeals sent to Egypt concern the case of Professor Nasr
Hamed Abu Zeid, of Cairo University, declared an apostate by the Egyptian
courts, following a petition by Islamic plaintiffs, on account of his writings
on the interpretation of the Koran, which were deemed anti-Islamic. As a
result, he has been unable to remain married to his Muslim wife.
13. The Abu Zeid case furthermore raises a grave matter of principle. It
concerns the very substance of freedom of conscience, belief and religion, as
well as freedom of opinion.
14. In the consideration of this matter, the Special Rapporteur received the
cooperation of the Egyptian Government, which responded promptly to the two
urgent appeals. The Government's replies and the inquiries and investigations
conducted make it possible to attest, first, that the judicial authorities
enjoy real independence vis-à-vis the official political authorities and,
second, that the executive and legislative branches in Egypt are endeavouring
to contain extremism and intolerance, in particular through progressive and
prudent legislative measures that would deserve to be strengthened on a
continuing basis. In that connection, it is worth noting Act No. 3
of 29 January 1996, which entitles only the public prosecutor's office to
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 4
institute hisba proceedings, as brought by the plaintiffs who claimed to be
acting in the name of Islam against Professor Abu Zeid, and Act No. 68
of 21 May 1996, which specifies the conditions for taking legal action. It
should further be noted that the judgement of the Court of Cassation, rendered
on 5 August 1996 and having the force of res judicata , has led to an action
being brought against the judges, inter alia , for serious breaches of the
rules concerning the competence and functioning of the Court of Cassation
and for neglect of the duties incumbent upon judges. The action seeks, in
particular, to have the Court's judgement declared null and void. In any
event, the judgement may not be enforceable because of a recent judicial
decision the text of which has not yet been communicated.
15. The Special Rapporteur would like to underscore the ceaseless efforts of
the Egyptian authorities to combat intolerance and discrimination based on
religion or belief; those efforts should be welcomed, supported, pursued and
strengthened.
16. The urgent appeal sent to the United Arab Emirates concerns a Christian,
Mr. Elie Dib Ghalib, who is said to have been arrested and subjected to
ill-treatment on account of his marriage to a Muslim. On 29 October 1996, a
court reportedly annulled the marriage and sentenced Mr. Ghalib to 39 lashes
and one year's imprisonment for immoral marital relations. A reply from the
United Arab Emirates is now awaited.
17. Concerning the analysis of the communications, the religious communities
in respect of which violations of religious freedom are alleged to have taken
place may be classified very broadly as follows:
(a) Christianity : Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Bangladesh, Bulgaria,
Burundi, China, Ethiopia, Georgia, Greece, Indonesia, Kuwait, Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Nepal, Nigeria, Romania,
Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Viet Nam, Yemen;
(b) Islam : Bangladesh, Chad, Egypt, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia,
Tajikistan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Yemen;
(c) Buddhism : China, Russian Federation, Viet Nam;
(d) Hinduism : Yemen;
(e) Judaism : Belarus, Turkey;
(f) Other religions, religious groups and religious communities :
(i) Baha'is : Armenia, Indonesia;
(ii) Jehovah's Witnesses : Armenia, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Eritrea,
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Indonesia, Singapore;
(iii) Hare Krishna : Armenia;
(iv) Al Argam : Malaysia;
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 5
(v) Darul Argam : Indonesia;
(vi) Mormons : Ukraine;
(vii) Navajos (Dine) and Apaches : United States of America;
(g) All religions and religious groups except the official or State
religion : Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Israel, Maldives.
18. In the analysis of the communications by topic, six categories of
violations may be identified.
19. The first category concerns violations of the principle of
non-discrimination with regard to religion or belief.
(a) It includes allegations of discriminatory policies and/or laws and
regulations concerning religion and belief:
(i) In Saudi Arabia, those said to be affected are Christians
and Shiites;
(ii) In Brunei Darussalam and Maldives, non-Muslims are allegedly
discriminated against through the legislation;
(iii) In the Lao People's Democratic Republic and the United Arab
Emirates, the authorities are said to be applying a
discriminatory policy against Christians;
(iv) In Israel, Christians and Muslims are reportedly subject to
a similar policy;
(v) In Eritrea, the Jehovah's Witnesses are also alleged to have
suffered discrimination for expressing their religious
beliefs;
(b) A violation of the principle of non-discrimination is found in
Bulgaria's alleged refusal to grant official recognition to religious groups
such as the Bulgarian Evangelical Alliance, most Christian missions,
independent churches and theological institutes;
(c) There are said to be bans on certain religious communities, such
as the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Baha'is and Darul Arqam in Indonesia; the
Jehovah's Witnesses and the Unification Church are also reportedly prohibited
in Malaysia and Singapore;
(d) A communication was sent to the United Kingdom authorities
concerning the publication of articles in the press conveying a negative
and discriminatory image of Muslims. Violations of the principle of
non-discrimination are also to be found indirectly in the five other
categories of violations.
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 6
20. The second category relates to violations of the principle of tolerance
in the area of religion and belief and reflects a concern about religious
extremism.
(a) In Algeria and Yemen, such extremism may threaten an entire
society;
(b) Some categories of persons may be particularly affected:
(i) In Afghanistan and Bangladesh, women are the principal
victims;
(ii) In Chad, artists are a prime target;
(iii) In Egypt, teachers may be taken to court for their writings
by extremists who claim to be acting in the name of Islam;
(iv) Some religious minorities are also affected by religious
extremism in Bangladesh, Mexico, Somalia and Turkey;
(c) It is important to recall that religious extremism, of whatever
denomination, may occur within as well as between religious groups.
21. The third category concerns violations of freedom of thought, conscience
and religion or belief.
(a) The question of conscientious objection is raised directly:
(i) In the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Greece,
conscientious objectors are liable to prosecution;
(U) In Eritrea, the Jehovah's Witnesses, as conscientious
objectors, have lost their citizenship rights;
(iii) In Croatia, Cyprus, the Russian Federation and Singapore,
cases of imprisonment for refusal to perform military
service have been reported;
(iv) Other allegations raise the problem of the absence of legal
recognition of the right of conscientious objection, as in
Eritrea and Singapore;
(v) In the Russian Federation, the law does not provide for
alternative service;
(vi) In Cyprus, some legal provisions recognize conscientious
objection and provide for non-armed military service,
although this is not in conformity with international law;
(b) Some allegations refer to official campaigns aimed at forcing
believers to renounce their faith, as in the Lao People's Democratic Republic;
(c) The freedom to change one's religion is also being violated;
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 7
(i) In Bhutan and Maldives, this freedom is subject to
prohibitions;
(ii) In Kuwait, a Muslim converting to another religion is liable
to prosecution;
(iii) In Mexico, allegations of ill-treatment by members of
communities against converted persons have been reported.
22. The fourth category concerns violations of the freedom to manifest one's
religion or belief:
(a) In Armenia and Japan, some allegations refer to control by the
authorities of religious activities;
(b) This category covers restrictions, or even a ban, on public
manifestations (China, Lebanon, Maldives, Romania) or private manifestations
(China, Saudi Arabia) ; religious beliefs and practices concerning certain
religious groups, certain categories of persons, mainly aliens (Belarus,
Ukraine) , and certain professional bodies, such as the army;
(c) In Bolivia, all religious services other than those of the
official religion are prohibited within the framework of military service;
(d) Violations of the freedom to manifest one's religion or
belief also often involve a ban on proselytizing; in Armenia, Bhutan,
Brunei Darussalam and Maldives, such a ban applies essentially to certain
religious communities and may be the subject of special legislation; in
Morocco and Nepal, prison sentences are also applicable.
23. The fifth category concerns violations of the freedom to dispose of
religious property.
(a) In Albania, Belarus and the United States of America, the
communications sent raise the question of the restitution of goods and
properties to religious communities;
(b) In Israel, the allegations concern restricted access to places of
worship for devout Muslims;
(c) In Bulgaria, China and the Lao People's Democratic Republic, some
places of worship have been closed by the authorities;
(d) In Indonesia, Romania and Turkey, bureaucratic obstacles to the
acquisition of property by certain religious communities have been reported;
(e) Lastly, places of worship seem to be the target of very serious
violations, in particular arson (Indonesia) , desecration (Yemen) , attempted
extortion (Turkey) and destruction (China)
24. The sixth category concerns violations of the right to life, physical
integrity and health of persons (clergy and believers) . There have been many
reported cases of threats (Chad, Yemen) , ill-treatment, arrests and detention
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 8
(Armenia, China, Cyprus, Ethiopia, Georgia, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Viet Nam) and even murders
(Burundi, Mexico, Pakistan, Somalia, Tajikistan, Yemen) . Such violations
also appear in the category of religious extremism.
25. With regard to States' replies to communications other than urgent
appeals, it should be pointed out that the deadline for replies had not
expired, by the time of writing of this report, for 12 States: Afghanistan,
Algeria, Bangladesh, Burundi, Ethiopia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia,
Greece, Lebanon, Nigeria, Pakistan, Turkey and the United States of America.
However, Afghanistan very promptly forwarded a reply to the allegations
submitted to it. The rapidity with which the Afghan authorities responded
deserves to be emphasized.
26. Of the 34 States for which the deadline has expired (Albania, Armenia,
Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Chad, China, Croatia,
Cyprus, Eritrea, Georgia, Indonesia, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, Lao People's
Democratc Republic, Malaysia, Maldives, Mexico, Moldova, Morocco, Nepal,
Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Somalia, Tajikistan,
Ukraine, United Kingdom, Viet Nam, Yemen) , 13 States have replied (Armenia,
Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Croatia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Lao People's
Democratic Republic, Mexico, Morocco, Romania, Russian Federation, Ukraine,
United Kingdom)
27. Concerning the content of the replies, Afghanistan stated that the
Taliban are the most retrograde, obscurantist and backward forms ever known
not only in Afghanistan but in the region. It was added that, after the
taking of Kabul by the Taliban, the High Council of the Islamic State of
Afghanistan had issued a statement reaffirming its commitment to the
principles of democracy and respect for human rights.
28. Armenia outlined its legislation guaranteeing religious freedom and
its manifestations. Concerning acts of religious intolerance against
non-apostolic religious communities, it was stated that measures sanctioning
them had restored religious stability.
29. Brunei Darussalam emphasized its commitment to peace and harmony and
explained that restrictions in the religious field, regardless of the religion
in question, were designed to maintain peace, order and harmony. It was
indicated that non-Muslims could practise their religion and had sufficient
places of worship.
30. Bulgaria made detailed reference to its legislation and policy
concerning religious freedom. Particular emphasis was placed on the
conformity of national legislation with international human rights law.
Concerning the registration of religious communities, it was pointed out that
30 denominations and some 70 religious communities and foundations had been
registered as at 30 August 1996, whereas only 4 denominations and no
foundation had taken advantage of the registration procedure in 1989.
Bulgaria reported 22 communities and foundations as not having obtained
approval to register, including the Jehovah's Witnesses inasmuch as the
prohibition of blood transfusion represents a danger to health and the refusal
to swear allegiance to the national flag infringes national security and the
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 9
law on military service. It is essential, according to Bulgaria, that the
religious communities should not be in a situation at variance with the
national legislation.
31. Croatia, referring to the case of a Jehovah's Witness and conscientious
objector, drew attention to its legislation guaranteeing and instituting
alternative civilian service.
32. Indonesia pointed out that religious tolerance was the very foundation
of the unity of the country, characterized as it was by a very great ethnic
and religious diversity. Indonesian legislation was described as guaranteeing
religious freedom as well as the freedom to establish places of worship. It
was stated that practice was in conformity with that legislation. The
prohibition of the Baha'is, the Jehovah's Witnesses and fundamentalist sects
of Islam is, according to the Indonesian authorities, a measure taken by the
Government in conformity with article 1, paragraph 3, of the Declaration on
the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on
Religion or Belief. Indonesia also considered that the allegations of
unilateral appointment of Muslim, Catholic and Protestant teachers by the
authorities were completely unfounded and that, on the contrary, the principle
of flexibility determined the appointment of teachers of religion. The
allegations of arson concerning two churches and a temple at Banyu Biru and
Nusakarta were also challenged by the Indonesian authorities.
33. Kuwait provided a general response, referring for the most part to its
positive law and stating that judicial cases are examined in accordance with
the laws of the country.
34. The Lao People's Democratic Republic provided information on its
legislation in the area of tolerance and non-discrimination with regard
to religion or belief and denied reports of an official campaign against
Christians. It was, however, emphasized that some Christians and
non-governmental organizations had used religion for political ends, contrary
to the laws in force, and were trying to convert people to Christianity in
exchange for material assistance and promises of exemption from military
service or State taxes. Those responsible for such disturbances of public
order and social stability, whatever their religion, are liable to
prosecution.
35. In its reply concerning the detention and subsequent hospitalization
of a Muslim who had converted to Christianity and been found guilty of
evangelism, Morocco stated that he had left the hospital at Inezgane
on 3 June 1996.
36. Mexico provided detailed information and documentation on State
initiatives and action to promote reconciliation and respect for the religious
freedom of the Chamula and Catholic evangelical religious minorities.
37. Romania disputed the allegations of discrimination against the Romanian
Evangelical Alliance, especially as regards the procedures for approving
construction permits for places of worship. Moreover, it claimed that the two
“Voice of Gospel” radio stations had received authorization from the National
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 10
Radio and Television Council to broadcast, but on another frequency. As for
the restitution of church property taken over by the State in 1948, the
authorities outlined State legislation and policy in that area, which sought
to identify the most appropriate measures for preserving the current social
usefulness of the property in question without creating privileges for certain
religions to the detriment of others.
38. The United Kingdom indicated that State subsidies to private schools
were granted irrespective of the religious denomination of the establishment.
It was stated that, out of three applications for public funding from Muslim
schools, one had been withdrawn and the two others did not meet the criteria
established by the Secretary of State. Concerning the negative image of the
Muslim community in some of the media, it was recalled that freedom of the
press could be monitored by the Press Council.
39. The Russian Federation informed the Special Rapporteur of the release of
conscientious objector Uvan Chaa Dozur-ool Mongushevich.
40. Ukraine drew attention to the absence of restrictions on the activities
of foreign religious organizations and outlined its legislation guaranteeing
the principle of religious tolerance and non-discrimination with regard to
belief or opinion.
41. It will furthermore be noted that, to date, replies to communications
sent within the framework of the report submitted to the fifty-second session
of the Commission on Human Rights are awaited from the following 31 States:
Albania, Algeria, Argentina, Armenia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bolivia, Bulgaria,
Cambodia, China, Cuba, Estonia, Indonesia, Lao People's Democratic Republic,
Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Myanmar, Nicaragua,
Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone,
Singapore, Sudan, Uzbekistan, Yemen.
42. The Special Rapporteur would like to invite States, and especially those
which have not yet replied to communications, to show more cooperation and
more interest.
43. Late replies were, nevertheless, received from the following States:
(a) Germany emphasized the absence of discrimination against the
Church of Scientology and the Universal Life Church, and also the lack of
evidence provided, as well as the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies by the
complainants;
(b) Saudi Arabia considered that the sole aim of the allegations was
to harm the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;
(c) Austria made the following points: “no legal recognition to the
Jehovah's Witnesses as public law corporation”; “the Jehovah's Witnesses not
only object to military service proper but also to alternative service of a
civilian nature . . . Moreover, the Jehovah's Witnesses' refusal to permit
blood transfusion has problematical effects on public order in the field of
health”. The community may, however, practise its faith;
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 11
(d) Belgium indicated that all legally recognized religions were
protected by constitutional law and that the Government, after examining the
criteria for recognition of religions, was to amend the law of 4 March 1870
on temporal power;
(e) China, responding to the urgent appeal of 14 November 1995,
considered illegal the proclamation by the Dalai Lama of a child as
reincarnation of the Panchen Lama, attributed the resignation of
Chadrel Rimpoché from the committee looking for the successor of the
Panchen Lama to health reasons, and underlined the Chinese authorities'
respect for the identification of the child reincarnation of the Panchen Lama;
(f) Japan replied that the purpose of the review of the 1951 Religious
Juridical Persons Law was to adapt it to present conditions and not to control
the religious activities of juridical persons;
(g) Maldives recalled that freedom of religion and conscience were
guaranteed by the national legislation and that it constituted the foundation
of society;
(h) Pakistan stated that inquiries would be made into the
circumstances of the death of Mr. Mukhtar Masih;
(i) Slovenia felt that the question of properties confiscated from the
Catholic Church and their restitution was not a human rights issue;
(j) Ukraine explained that a public establishment had been rented by
the Ukrainian Unionist Church of the Seventh Day Adventists for conferences
of a historical, scientific and religious nature; that the programme had
subsequently been altered for purposes of religious propaganda, causing
political and religious tensions on the eve of celebrations on the fortieth
day after the death of Patriarch Vladimir of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church;
and that finally, in agreement with the authorities, the Unionist Church had
cut short its programme.
II. IMPORTANCE OF IN SITU VISITS AND FOLLOW-UP
44. In situ visits and follow-up are an essential feature of the mandate
on religious intolerance. Visits are of paramount importance, in the
Special Rapporteur's view, both for gathering opinions and comments on all
alleged incidents and government action incompatible with the Declaration, and
for analysing and passing on the experience and positive initiatives of States
pursuant to General Assembly resolution 50/183 and Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1996/23.
45. Since 1994, the Special Rapporteur has visited China, in November 1994,
on the initiative of the People's Republic of China (see E/CN.4/1995/91).
He paid a visit to Pakistan in June 1995 (see E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1) at the
invitation of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. He also
went to Iran in December 1995 (see E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.2)
46. The Special Rapporteur visited Greece in June 1996 (see A/51/542/Add.1)
at the invitation of the Greek Government, and Sudan in September (see
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 12
A/51/542/Add.2) at the invitation of the Sudanese Government and pursuant
to General Assembly resolution 50/197 and Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1996/73. The two reports on these visits he submitted to the
General Assembly at its fifty-first session are also before the Commission
on Human Rights at its current session for information.
47. The thrust of the report on Greece (A/51/542/Add.1) can be summarized in
the following remarks.
48. The Greek Constitution guarantees freedom of belief to all whilst
freedom of worship, although constitutionally protected, may be subject to
certain limitations owing to the establishment of the Eastern Orthodox Church
as the “dominant religion”, the uncertainties surrounding the notion of a
“known religion”, and the fact that proselytizing is banned. This situation
has definite repercussions on religious minorities.
49. The Catholic, Protestant and Jehovah's Witness minorities are confronted
to varying degrees with a general climate of intolerance. Subject to direct
or indirect, often insidious attacks, they tend to be consigned to the
sidelines both in religious matters and in professional life and education.
The State does not always appear to be independent enough of the dominant
Orthodox Church. Among the Christian minorities, the plight of the Jehovah's
Witnesses gives the greatest cause for concern: adherents are often convicted
and fined or, worse, imprisoned, and they suffer social ostracism which
sometimes takes the form of physical and verbal abuse. This is certainly
not unconnected to their religious militancy as expressed through their
proselytizing activities, their conscientious objection to military service
and the various public demonstrations they stage which challenge the Orthodox
Church and aspects of State legislative and political activity.
50. The Jewish minority, by contrast, seems to escape discrimination, but
like the other minorities it decries the indication of religion on identity
cards (which has not yet been banned despite an appeal by the European
Parliament)
51. The situation of the Muslim minority in western Thrace, despite some
positive developments in, for example, higher education, has not budged,
and there have been tensions and serious blocks, as can be seen in the way
“muftis” are appointed, the way religious property is managed and the status
of religious and mother-tongue instruction. Serious religious malaise is
spreading, and is increasingly being taken up for reasons evidently nothing
to do with religion. The status of the Muslim minority in western Thrace is
intrinsically both a religious and a political question in which religion is
often turned to political ends. The situation is best explained by political
relations between Greece and Turkey. Most people the Special Rapporteur has
met who have no governmental ties, whatever their political stripe, emphasize
that the Muslim minority in Thrace is a hostage to relations between Greece
and Turkey: Turkey regards them as political pawns and Greece pays little
heed to the community, which has long been kept on the sidelines and subjected
to both visible and latent forms of intolerance. The fate of the Muslims in
Thrace is still bound up with that of the Greek minority and Orthodox
Patriarchate in Constantinople, which are said to suffer intolerance and
discrimination in Turkey.
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 13
52. The thrust of the report on the Sudan (A/51/542/Add.2) may be conveyed
in the following remarks.
53. It is laid down in the Sudanese Constitution that “Islam is the religion
which guides the great majority of the Sudanese. It is the basis of the laws,
rules and policies of the State. Every individual, however, is free to adopt
other revealed religions, such as Christianity or traditional religious
beliefs. Religious freedom shall be guaranteed by the State and its laws.”
On the other hand, Sudan is known to have a grand tradition of tolerance, and
Islam was not brought to the country by conquest.
54. After the coup d'etat in 1989, Sudan embarked on a new political
experiment in which religious discourse appears to be increasingly
significant. Dr. Tourabi, the Chairman of the Sudanese parliament, believes
that Islam is not just a religion but an entire civilization, a way of life
which touches on all aspects of existence and cannot be contained within the
narrow confines of places of worship. The message of Islam is addressed to
all mankind and transcends frontiers and time. This view of Islam may have
consequences for religious freedom. The religious aspect of the conflict in
the south, originally very limited and sometimes purely latent, has become a
source of antagonism. The actions of the authorities throughout the country,
including the south, seem to indicate a policy of Islamization and
Arabization. According to oft-confirmed reports, Christians and Jthimists, but
also Muslims who do not toe the official line, suffer numerous restrictions on
their religious freedom or are exposed to discrimination, even persecution, in
other areas of their lives.
55. Since 1996, when a political charter clearly based on citizenship, not
religion, was adopted, it would appear that there has been a review resulting
in positive changes in, among others, the religious area, underpinned by a new
type of political communication and public relations. Among other things,
this review is helping to bring about a solution in the south of the country.
International pressure, the country's economic situation and a concern to
minimize tension are said to be the reasons for this new line - but how far
the change extends can be judged only by events on the ground, which seem so
far to indicate a continuing clash between traditional Sudanese tolerance and
intolerant, discriminatory tendencies and behaviour based on religion or
belief. The report gives a less terse account, taking into consideration the
allegations made and the various different points of view, in the light of
established international standards of religious freedom and tolerance.
56. After reporting to the General Assembly, the Special Rapporteur paid a
visit to India in December 1996 under his mandate on religious intolerance at
the invitation of the Indian Government (see E/CN.4/1997/91/Add.1).
57. As regards future visits, the Special Rapporteur expects to visit
Australia and Germany in 1997 at the invitation of the authorities concerned.
58. Requests for visits were also sent to Turkey in 1995 and to Indonesia
and Mauritius in 1996, but to date the Special Rapporteur has had no reply.
Turkey has the matter under consideration but has not yet ventured to reply.
To a request for a visit in 1995 the Vietnamese authorities replied that they
were considering the matter; a definitive response from them is expected.
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 14
There are questions hanging over Turkey and Viet Nam which, in the Special
Rapporteur's view, require thorough consideration as soon as possible.
59. Following up on visits already made is another important aspect of the
mandate.
60. For this reason, the Special Rapporteur embarked in 1996 on follow-ups
to his visits to China, Iran and Pakistan. Letters were sent to the permanent
missions of the three countries asking for comments and information on action
the authorities had planned or taken on the Special Rapporteur's
recommendations (see A/51/542, annex I). He has had a reply from the Chinese
authorities (see A/51/542, annex II), to whom he is duly grateful. The
Iranian authorities have also cooperated, in consultations in Geneva, and the
Special Rapporteur looks forward to receiving their comments and information
in response to his letter. Lastly, he has noted the cooperative attitude of
the Pakistani authorities at the latest session of the Commission on Human
Rights and is hoping for a reply to his follow-up letter.
61. The Special Rapporteur counts on cooperation from all States in enabling
him not only to make in situ visits but especially to follow up the visits
already made.
III. DEVELOPMENT OF A CULTURE OF TOLERANCE
62. As all forms of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or
belief have their birth in the human mind, so it is at human minds that
action should initially be directed.
63. Education may be the prime means of combating discrimination and
intolerance. It can be decisive in inculcating values predicated on human
rights and fostering tolerant, non-discriminatory attitudes and behaviour, in
individuals and groups, thus helping to spread the culture of human rights.
In this sense, schools play an essential part in people's upbringing.
Particular attention thus needs to be paid, throughout the world, to what
school curricula and school books have to say about religious freedom and
tolerance.
64. The Special Rapporteur is firmly convinced that lasting progress in
tolerance and non-discrimination in matters of religion or belief can be
brought about largely in school.
65. Accordingly, he conducted a survey, by means of a questionnaire
addressed to States, on freedom of religion and belief from the standpoint
of the curricula and textbooks used in primary or elementary and secondary
educational institutions. The results of such a survey could help to shape
an international educational strategy, centred on the definition and
implementation of a common minimum curriculum of tolerance and
non-discrimination, for combating all forms of intolerance and discrimination
based on religion or belief.
66. The Special Rapporteur has received replies from the
following 79 States: Albania, Algeria, Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Austria,
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 15
Bahrain, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso,
Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Denmark,
Djibouti, Ecuador, Egypt, France, Germany, Guatemala, Holy See, Honduras,
India, Indonesia, Iraq, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Lesotho,
Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco,
Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Norway, Oman,
Pakistan, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania,
St. Lucia, San Marino, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden,
Switzerland, Thailand, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Tunisia,
Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
United States of America, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yugoslavia and Zambia.
67. Recalling Commission on Human Rights resolution 1994/18, which
encouraged him to examine the contribution that education could make to
the more effective promotion of religious tolerance, and Commission
resolutions 1995/23 and 1996/23 and General Assembly resolution 50/183, all of
which stress the importance of education in ensuring tolerance of religion and
belief, the Special Rapporteur invites all States which have not yet done so
to reply to the questionnaire he sent them in order to give the results of the
survey the fullest possible scope.
68. The Special Rapporteur emphasizes once again that suitable resources
must be made available for the mandate on religious intolerance if the
information received is to be turned to proper advantage, analysed and used to
further the objective sought.
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
69. Besides his analysis of communications and replies from States and
the various visits he has made, the Special Rapporteur wishes to proffer
conclusions and recommendations on, in particular, some aspects of religious
freedom and the protection and promotion of that freedom.
A. Dimensions of religious freedom
Right to change religion
70. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights sets forth, in article 18, the
principle that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and
religion”, and clearly states that such a right “includes freedom to change
his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others,
and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching,
practise, worship and observance”.
71. The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination follow in the direction set by the 1948 Declaration but do not
explicitly restate the right to change religion.
72. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
offers general recognition of the right “to have or to adopt” a religion of
one's choice.
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 16
73. The 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and
of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief also makes general provision for
the “freedom to have a religion or whatever belief of [ one's] choice”. Like
the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, it contains no
formal, explicit statement of the right to change religion, but the omission
cannot be interpreted as betokening an intention to dilute the provisions of
the 1948 Declaration.
74. The World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna, June 1993), while
acknowledging concerns about specifics and invoking national legislation,
strongly reaffirmed the universal nature of human rights.
75. The variety of formulations used to refer to the acknowledgement and
development of religious freedom do not amount to a denial of the right to
change religion.
76. Lastly, many formulations address a single point. They have cast doubt
on the underpinnings of religious freedom and lent support to those who
believe that religious freedom cannot extend to recognition of the right to
change religion.
77. It is now established that religious freedom cannot be dissociated from
the freedom to change religion.
78. As long ago as 1986, Elisabeth Odio Bénito wrote of the 1948 and 1981
Declarations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
that, although they varied slightly in wording, all meant precisely the same
thing: that everyone had the right to leave one's religion or belief and to
adopt another, or to remain without any at all. That meaning, she added, was
implicit in the concept of the right to freedom of thought, conscience,
religion and belief, regardless of how the concept was presented.
79. In its general comment 22 on article 18 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights Committee reached the same
conclusion. It observes that the freedom to “have or to adopt” a religion or
belief necessarily entails a freedom to choose a religion or belief, including
the right to replace one's current religion or belief with another or to adopt
atheistic views, as well as the right to retain one's religion or belief.
80. The Special Rapporteur therefore emphasizes once again the right to
change religion as a legally essential aspect of religious freedom.
The right to conscientious objection
81. The right of conscientious objection is intrinsically bound up with
religious freedom.
82. The Special Rapporteur reminds States of Commission on Human Rights
resolution 1989/59, often reaffirmed, which recognizes “the right of everyone
to have conscientious objections to military service as a legitimate exercise
of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion as laid down in
article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as well as article 18
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. The Commission
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 17
recommends that States “with a system of compulsory military service, where
such provision has not already been made, [ . . . 1 introduce for conscientious
objectors various forms of alternative service” which “should be in principle
of a non-combatant or civilian nature, in the public interest and not a
punitive nature”.
B. Protection and promotion of religious freedom
Religious freedom and human rights
83. Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief is inseparable
from the general question of respect for all human rights, which cannot be
truly promoted in the absence of democracy and development. Consequently,
action to promote human rights must include measures to establish, strengthen
and protect democracy as an expression of human rights at the political level
and, at the same time, measures to contain and progressively eliminate extreme
poverty and promote the right of individuals and peoples to development as an
expression of human rights and human solidarity in the economic, social and
cultural areas. In other words, as the World Conference on Human Rights put
it, “democracy, development and respect for human rights and fundamental
freedoms are interdependent and mutually reinforcing” . Any separation of the
elements of this tripartite concept, like any selectivity in this area, is apt
to reduce human rights to a topic of variable substance and scope, and that
could have unfavourable repercussions on the mechanisms and procedures for
protecting human rights, including religious freedom.
Religion and politics
84. Most religions have an implicit or explicit political dimension. This
sometimes makes the problems of protecting religious freedom difficult to deal
with and raises the question of the relationship between politics and religion
and, in particular, between the State and religion.
85. Religion may be taken up by a State. The State may be the means by
which a religion is expressed. It will then be subordinate to that religion,
to the point of having no independent will beyond that of the religion. This
may lead to the State's being subsumed by the religion. In such a case, the
institutions of State are at the service of a religious will - or a will
attributed to a religion. Schools are enlisted to ensure that the religion
prevails, offering military or paramilitary training where necessary. Places
of worship may be used to brief, mobilize and recruit the faithful so that
nothing in public or political life escapes the religion's embrace.
“Political” parties - where they exist - may compete with each other or the
State by a variety of means to enforce or help enforce a religious (or
ostensibly religious) policy. In such circumstances, there is little
likelihood that religious freedom will yield the fruits expected of it.
86. A State may be of a religion; a religion, in turn, may be of a State -
its to manipulate. The State enshrines the religion in order to have it at
its service, provide it with the things it may need, channel it, contain it
and, hence, very often dominate and even subjugate it. In any event, the sway
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 18
of the religion will not extend far unless the State wishes it to or unless
extremist religious or political movements seize on religion as a means of
salvation.
87. Situations of both types exist, and are not always easy to manage.
88. Between the two extremes mentioned above, religion may adapt to a
variety of intermediate situations ranging from militant secularism to a
situation where the State and religion interact. What remains true is that,
irrespective of history and geography, religions do - to differing degrees -
play a part in the culture of a society and in human civilization. It is not,
therefore, correct to exclude it completely from public life. Neither,
however, is it correct for a religion to take over, or to identify itself with
politics or culture. In other words, sociological, cultural and political
considerations cannot but encourage interaction between the State and
religion, it being understood that such interaction cannot encompass extreme
positions and that wisdom lies in moderation.
89. Jthti-religious clericalism and religious clericalism are just as likely
to polarize religion as politics. Politics must remain independent and
political, albeit sensitive to religion. Religion must remain independent and
religious, albeit sensitive toward the political sphere. The crucial point is
always to strike a balance that takes account of religion's cultural and
sociological dimension without lending itself to subordination, domination or
subjugation; in relations with its citizens the State must, whatever happens,
stand aloof from ideology and religion, since citizenship of any kind implies
and represents a relationship to a State, and to a State alone.
Religious freedom and religious extremism
90. Besides what he has said in the section entitled “Religion and politics”
the Special Rapporteur wishes to emphasize that hatred, intolerance and acts
of violence, including those motivated by religious extremism, may give rise
to situations that threaten or somehow compromise international peace and
security, infringing human rights and the right to peace as internationally
established, particularly by General Assembly resolution 39/11 dated
12 November 1994, “Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace”.
91. Upholding the right to peace is a good reason for developing
international solidarity so as to stifle religious extremism.
92. Extremism in any religion, wherever it appears, openly or latently,
covertly or overtly, and potentially or explicitly violent, merits a hard look
at the causes - including economic and social causes - and at its immediate
and longer-term effects: a hard look without selectivity or ambivalence,
leading to the definition and observance by States of a basic set of standard
rules and principles governing their conduct and behaviour towards religious
extremism.
Religious freedom and sects
93. The Special Rapporteur wishes to comment on the phenomenon of sects and
how they relate to religious freedom.
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 19
94. The term “sect” seems to have a pejorative connotation. A sect is
considered to be different from a religion, and thus not entitled to the same
protection. This kind of approach is indicative of a propensity to lump
things together, to discriminate and to exclude, which is hard to justify and
harder still to excuse, so injurious is it to religious freedom.
95. Religions cannot be distinguished from sects on the basis of
quantitative considerations, saying that a sect, unlike a religion, has a
small number of followers. This is not in fact always the case. It runs
absolutely counter to the principle of respect and protection for minorities,
which is upheld by both domestic and international law and morality. Besides,
following this line of argument, what are the major religions if not
successful sects?
96. Nor can it be said that sects, as compared with religions, are typically
more eccentric in doctrine and practice. There is ample scope here for
subjectivism and arbitrariness. Any religion includes some elements that are
irrational and mysterious - even, on occasion, close to spirit-worship. All
religious beliefs are in essence respectable provided they are sincere and
held in good faith, and no one has any business to deride, criticize or
condemn them for what they are - which is not to say that one cannot pass
judgement on what they do.
97. Again, one cannot say that sects should not benefit from the protection
given to religion just because they have had no chance to demonstrate their
durability. History contains many examples of dissident movements,
schisms, heresies and reforms that have suddenly given birth to religions or
religious movements.
98. All in all, the distinction between a religion and a sect is too
contrived to be acceptable. A sect that goes beyond simple belief and appeals
to a divinity or, at the very least, to the supernatural, the transcendant,
the absolute, or the sacred, enters into the religious sphere and should enjoy
the protection afforded to religions.
99. In actual fact, the fairly widespread hostility towards sects can be
largely explained by the excesses, the breaches of public order and, on
occasion, the crimes and despicable conduct engaged in by certain groups and
communities which trick themselves out in religion, and by the tendency among
the major religions to resist any departure from orthodoxy. The two things
must be treated separately. Sects, whether their religion is real or a
fiction, are not above the law. The State must ensure that the law -
particularly laws on the maintenance of public order and penalizing swindling,
breach of trust, violence and assaults, failure to assist people in danger,
gross indecency, procurement, the illegal practice of medicine, abduction and
corruption of minors, etc. - is respected. In other words, there are many
legal courses open and they afford plenty of scope for action against false
pretences and misdirection. Beyond that, however, it is not the business of
the State or any other group or community to act as the guardian of people's
consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious belief or
conviction.
E/CN. 4/1997/91
page 20
100. It is important to recall here some comments made by the Human Rights
Committee in its general comment of July 1993 on article 18 of the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee pointed
out that “the freedom of thought and the freedom of conscience are protected
equally with the freedom of religion and belief. The fundamental character of
these freedoms is also reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be
derogated from, even in time of public emergency”
101. The Committee felt that restrictions on displays of religious freedom
should be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed, and
must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they
were predicated. They must not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or
applied in a discriminatory manner. The Committee believed that limitations
on the freedom to manifest a religion or belief for the purpose of protecting
morals must be based on principles not deriving exclusively from a single
tradition.
102. The problems raised by the question of sects are many and varied, and
require a great deal of attention, effort and tolerance. This, for example,
is the case when the philosophy on which a religious community claims to
operate conflicts with the obligations implicit in belonging to a single
nation, or with laws on health. Finding a solution requires great tolerance
so that compromises can be arrived at that reconcile the need for freedom of
religion with the equal need to retain the religious community concerned as
part of the nation, and to ensure that the law, or at least something
equivalent to the law, is respected.
103. The Special Rapporteur recommends a high-level intergovernmental meeting
to consider and arrive at a collective approach to sects and religions that
respects human rights. Within the Commission, too, a study on the phenomena
of sects and religious freedom is strongly to be recommended. In any event,
over the coming years the question of sects should be given sustained
attention, both in matters of definition and delimitation and at the level
of specific instances and how they are handled.
C. Other conclusions and recommendations
104. In the context of setting up a documentation centre in the Centre for
Human Rights at Geneva, the Special Rapporteur recommends that a department
on religious freedom and human rights should be set up in order to increase,
channel and target information on the religious situation throughout the
world, in accordance with the mandate on religious intolerance, with a view to
the establishment under the urging and guidance of the Special Rapporteur of
the databases necessary for more thorough analysis and investigation in the
area of religious freedom.
105. The Special Rapporteur wishes to express his gratitude to States for
their cooperation and the opportunities for fruitful dialogue he has been
given. He has particularly appreciated the efforts of those Governments which
have tried to shed light on allegations submitted to them and have initiated
or responded positively to the suggestion of in situ visits. The replies thus
provided, and governmental cooperation over visits, have been of valuable
assistance to the Special Rapporteur in forming an authoritative opinion on
E/CN.4/1997/91
page 21
the situation of religious freedom in particular countries. The Special
Rapporteur is also grateful to those States which have cooperated more fully
and closely in the recently initiated follow-up procedure to such visits.
106. Non-governmental organizations are due particular thanks for their
excellent cooperation; the Special Rapporteur wishes to stress their dynamic
role in relation to the mandate on religious intolerance. Their contribution
is of paramount importance both in the day-to-day management of information
and in the preparations for and conduct of in situ visits. The Special
Rapporteur pays tribute to the professionalism and dedication to human rights
shown by international and national non-governmental organizations from both
North and South. The mandate on religious intolerance is today on an upswing
as the questions under consideration, the States concerned and the visits made
all multiply. It is essential to encourage and sustain this upswing, for the
benefit of human rights in general and religious freedom and tolerance in
particular.
