34/50 Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief
Document Type: Final Report
Date: 2017 Jan
Session: 34th Regular Session (2017 Feb)
Agenda Item: Item3: Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development
GE.17-00701(E)
Human Rights Council Thirty-fourth session
27 February-24 March 2017
Agenda item 3
Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil,
political, economic, social and cultural rights,
including the right to development
Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief
Note by the Secretariat
In the present report, the new mandate holder, Ahmed Shaheed, presents an overview of his perspective and vision for the mandate, identifying persistent challenges
and emerging trends and presenting an agenda for operationalizing the right to freedom of
religion or belief within and across the United Nations system and beyond. The report
includes an outline of the methods of work and programmatic priorities that will constitute
the guiding framework for the mandate for the next three years consistent with the growing
emphasis placed by the Human Rights Council on the need to address persistent
implementation gaps in compliance with human rights standards.
United Nations A/HRC/34/50
Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion and belief
Contents
Page
I. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 3
II. Towards an agenda for implementation ........................................................................................... 4
A. Role of the Special Rapporteur ................................................................................................ 4
B. Universal periodic review and the right to freedom of religion or belief ................................. 5
C. Treaty bodies ........................................................................................................................... 6
D. Other United Nations-related initiatives ................................................................................. 6
III. Addressing misconceptions about the right to freedom of religion or belief ................................... 9
IV. Recurring and emerging issues of concern ...................................................................................... 12
A. Limitations amounting to coercion or unlawful restriction on manifestations
of religion or belief .................................................................................................................. 12
B. Non-discrimination and equality, and persons and groups in vulnerable situations ................ 14
C. Incitement to violence based on religion or belief ................................................................... 17
V. Conclusions, proposed methods of work and recommendations ..................................................... 18
I. Introduction
1. The mandate of Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief was created by
the Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1986/20 and renewed by the Human
Rights Council in its resolution 6/37, in which it Invited the Special Rapporteur (a) to
promote the adoption of measures at the national, regional and international levels to ensure
the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief; (b) to identify
existing and emerging obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or
belief, and to present recommendations on ways and means to overcome such obstacles; (c)
to examine incidents and governmental actions that are incompatible with the provisions
contained in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of
Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and to recommend remedial measures as
appropriate; and (d) to apply a gender perspective, inter alia, through the identification of
gender-specific abuses, in the reporting process, including in information collection and in
recommendations.
2. In March 2016, the Human Rights Council adopted resolution 31/16, in which it,
inter alia, extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further period of three
years. At its thirty-second session, the Council appointed Ahmed Shaheed as Special
Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. He officially took office on 1 November 2016.
The Special Rapporteur acknowledges the prodigious contributions made to the mandate by
the four previous mandate holders, including Professor Heiner Bielefeldt, and takes the
opportunity to thank him for supporting the mandate beyond the original term as intended
by the Council in 2013. An overview of the activities of the previous mandate holder
between 1 August 2015 and 31 July 2016 is provided in the most recent interim report
(A/71/269, paras. 3 – 8).
3. On 22 September 2016, the previous mandate holder, in collaboration with the
World Council of Churches and the Finnish Ecumenical Council, organized a workshop on
the theme, “Religion and religious freedom in international diplomacy”. The main
objectives of the workshop were to understand the use of religion in foreign policy,
including in the areas of development and humanitarian aid, and to find ways to contribute
to the advancement of religious literacy and the freedom of religion or belief. The previous
mandate holder also presented his report (A/71/269), which included a thematic focus on
the broad range of violations of freedom of religion or belief and their manifold root causes,
to the General Assembly at its seventy-first session.
4. In the present report, his first submitted to the Human Rights Council, the Special
Rapporteur presents an overview of his perspective and vision for the mandate. He
highlights persistent challenges and emerging trends, while emphasizing the need to build
on the sterling work of previous mandate holders to contribute to the implementation of
measures identified for the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or
belief. In the sections below, he reviews the work of human rights experts appointed by the
Council, the special procedures, and the role of the universal periodic review in advancing
this right. He then discusses specific tools and initiatives that could help to effectuate the
priorities and protections identified for the realization of the right to freedom of religion or
belief, and presents the persistent challenges and emerging concerns that form the operative
context in which the Special Rapporteur must work. The mandate holder concludes with an
outline of his methods of work and programmatic priorities that will support an overall
agenda focused on implementation. The agenda, which will be the guiding framework for
the mandate for the next three years, is consistent with the growing emphasis placed by the
Council on the need to address persistent implementation gaps in compliance with human
rights standards.
II. Towards an agenda for implementation
5. In accordance with the increasing emphasis on implementing human rights reforms,
the Special Rapporteur wishes to focus on operationalizing the right to freedom of religion
or belief. The operational approach to human rights implementation includes traditional
institutional undertaking, which focus on laws, courts and other conventional aspects of
compliance, as well as efforts by the State, through policy, programmes and activities, to
translate commitments to human rights into practice. The Special Rapporteur also wishes to
build on existing synergies within the United Nations framework by working with partners
across the wider United Nations human rights system to mainstream the promotion of the
right to freedom of religion or belief in its work, and to increase the salience of the core
principles related to this right.
A. Role of the Special Rapporteur
6. To the extent that the Special Rapporteur serves as the primary focal point within the
United Nations human rights system to promote the right to freedom of religion or belief,
he stresses that the special procedures of the Human Rights Council are most effective
when they work as part of a coordinated and coherent system, as demonstrated by mandate
practice. Such an approach is also in keeping with the holistic conceptualization of human
rights that is necessary for the promotion of the right to freedom of religion or belief.
7. The special procedures have advanced the advocacy and protection functions of the
Human Rights Council by means of official communications (allegation letters and urgent
appeals) with Governments relating to the tripartite obligation of States to respect, protect
and fulfil the right to freedom of religion or belief in all its dimensions. The mandate also
relies on private communications alleging rights violations from victims and their
advocates, and on reports documenting incidents that are incompatible with international
human rights standards, including proposed legislation by Governments or the activities of
non-State actors. The mandate may employ other forms of communication, including press
releases and social media, to advocate on behalf of alleged victims or in relation to various
incidents and situations. These communications reflect the range of violations relating to
the right to freedom of religion or belief that mandate holders seek to address, and identify
the individuals and communities most vulnerable to abuse. They also highlight the range of
challenges facing duty-bearers and rights-holders globally in realizing the right to freedom
of religion or belief.
8. The mandate issued a total of 618 urgent appeals and allegation letters to 87 States
between 2004 and 30 November 2016. The majority of communications during this time
frame addressed restrictions relating to manifestations of the right to freedom of religion or
belief, and discrimination and intolerance based on religion or belief. Since the beginning
of his tenure in November 2016, the Special Rapporteur has issued communications
relating to sectarian attacks on religious minorities, apostasy and blasphemy charges,
discriminatory practices relating to the construction of houses of worship, disruption of
peaceful religious gatherings in private homes, the targeting of religious leaders, censorship
of religious views and the confiscation of religious materials.
9. Sixty-eight per cent of the communications by the mandate on freedom of religion or
belief since 2004 have been jointly issued with other mandate holders. At least 22 thematic
mandate holders have issued 260 joint urgent appeals and 161 joint allegation letters with
the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. The majority of joint
communications were issued with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection
of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, followed by the Special Rapporteur on
torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, the Working
Group on Arbitrary Detention, the Special Rapporteur on minority issues and the Special
Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. The common use of joint
communications demonstrates the high degree of intersectionality between issues
concerning the right to freedom of religion or belief and those covered by other thematic
mandate holders. The cooperation between the mandates also provides an insight into the
nature of violations that have elicited joint responses from the special procedures. The
considerable body of communications represents a potential resource for evidence of
impact and for identifying the variables that are most relevant in producing specific
outcomes, which in turn can lead to more effective ways of utilizing the communications
tool. The Special Rapporteur hopes to increase this cooperation with other thematic
mandate holders, including those focusing on women’s rights and economic, social and
cultural rights.
10. Previous mandate holders have also examined the status of the enjoyment of the
right to freedom of religion or belief in 36 States during the country visits conducted since
1994. Country visits provide mandate holders with a more dynamic way to engage
constructively with States to address the nature of issues that prevent the realization of the
right to freedom of religion or belief. The majority of country visits undertaken by mandate
holders have been to countries located within the Asia-Pacific Group, followed by countries
in the Western European and Others Group. The pattern of country visits is not necessarily
an indication of the seriousness of the situation in a given country; rather, several other
factors, such as the need to cover a diversity of settings and contexts and the willingness
and the capacity of States to respond positively to requests to engage with various human
rights mechanisms, may determine when and where visits are conducted.
11. The mandate holder has also convened or contributed to seminars, conferences and
consultations with a range of objectives, including to map issues, promote dialogue and
advance a better understanding of the challenges facing the promotion and protection of the
right to freedom of religion or belief. These knowledge-exchange activities are critical for
advancing regional, international and multi-stakeholder engagement aimed at increasing
protection for the right to freedom of religion or belief, especially in the light of the
operational approach stressed by the Special Rapporteur.
B. Universal periodic review and the right to freedom of religion or
belief
12. Despite the fact that the right to freedom of religion or belief intersects with a range
of other rights and is integral to the improvement of other fundamental rights and freedoms,
the Special Rapporteur believes it was underrepresented as an issue of concern during the
first two cycles of the universal period review; of the more than 52,000 recommendations
made during the first two cycles of the review, only 1,280 recommendations, or less than
2.5 per cent of the total, addressed the right to freedom of religion or belief (see table
below).1 The majority of the recommendations related to discrimination, including against
religious minorities and women, while less than two dozen addressed the need to reform
anti-apostasy or anti-blasphemy laws. The Special Rapporteur believes the reasons for the
underrepresentation of issues relating to the right to freedom of religion or belief warrants
further investigation and consideration during future review cycles, especially in the light of
1 See UPR Info, Statistics on Recommendations (www.upr-
info.org/database/statistics/index_issues.php?fk_issue=18). A total of 124 States made
recommendations relating to freedom of religion or belief.
the emphasis placed on implementation of review recommendations in resolutions adopted
by the Council in connection with this right.
Recommendations made during the first and second cycles of the universal periodic review: 52,282
Total freedom of religion or belief
recommendations
1 280 (2.45 per cent)
Regional Group First cycle Second cycle Total number
Asia-Pacific Group 199 347 546
Western European and
Others Group
127 282 409
African Group 56 96 152
Eastern European Group 54 94 147
Latin American and
Caribbean Group
12 14 26
Total 448 833 1 281
Number of
recommendations
accepted
260 543 803
C. Treaty bodies
13. The work of the treaty bodies, especially those that address States’ obligations
relating to the right to freedom of religion or belief, are critical to the work of the mandate
holder. The Human Rights Committee – which periodically monitors the compliance of
State parties with article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
main international legal provision protecting the right to freedom of religion or belief,
among other rights – identifies deficits in compliance and makes recommendations on
improvement by means of its concluding observations. In addition, the general comments
made by the treaty bodies, and the jurisprudence from the complaints procedures of these
committees, provide substantive and authoritative content on the normative framework of
fundamental rights.
14. The special procedures play a vital role in ensuring that concluding observations and
other work of the treaty bodies are integrated into the work of their mandates. Where treaty
bodies do not undertake field visits, they could also benefit from the expertise gathered by
the special procedures. Last but not least, the special procedures should follow up on treaty
body recommendations aimed at withdrawing reservations to human rights treaties,
including those to article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, that
are inconsistent with the objective and purpose of the treaties.
D. Other United Nations-related initiatives
15. The annual resolution adopted by consensus by the Human Rights Council on
freedom of religion or belief, together with a comparable resolution of the Third
Committee, highlight the key concerns of the international community with regard to the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief and provide guidance
for the work of the Special Rapporteur. In addition, the Special Rapporteur recognizes the
importance of engaging with the historic consensus achieved with the adoption of Council
resolution 16/18, which brought together divergent views on eliminating religious
discrimination and intolerance on the basis of proposals made on behalf of the Organization
of the Islamic Conference and other stakeholders. The consensus-based approach
guarantees religious pluralism and equality on the one hand, while promoting
intercommunal harmony and calling for the prohibition of incitement to hatred on the other.
In the resolution, the Council also underscored the importance of fostering the conditions
for debate and dialogue, and reinforces protections for freedom of expression by narrowly
construing exceptions to limits on speech deemed tantamount to “incitement to imminent
violence based on religion or belief”.
16. The implementation mechanism for the eight-point action plan of resolution 16/18,
the Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance, Discrimination and Incitement to Hatred
and/or Violence on the Basis of Religion or Belief, has facilitated six rounds of meetings
organized to foster dialogue and practical experience-sharing. The objectives of the Istanbul
Process remain relevant in the light of increasing reports of State actions that are
incompatible with the right to freedom of religion or belief, including the use of blasphemy
and apostasy laws, which render religious minorities and dissenters vulnerable to violence;
increasing scrutiny of religious groups on the grounds of national security; and growing
societal intolerance of religious minorities in a range of countries and regions.
17. Although progress in the implementation of resolution 16/18 has been slow, if not
disappointing, the ongoing consensus achieved by its adoption, which appears fragile from
time to time, should be seen in a positive light and nurtured. States should avoid a return to
the divisive debates that undercut efforts to combat religious discrimination and intolerance
prior to achieving this consensus agreement. In the past few years, some States have
resurrected arguments over sources of discrimination and intolerance, the responsibilities
that the international community should assume, and “whether the solution to intolerance
lies in strengthening the enjoyment of fundamental human rights or in setting clearer limits
thereon”.2 Yet real progress by way of the Istanbul Process requires a comprehensive,
introspective, transparent and inclusive approach to the implementation of the action plan
outlined in resolution 16/18. Most importantly, the legal interpretations of the commitments
undertaken in the action plan must comply with international human rights law.
18. The Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence – a
normative framework spearheaded by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner
for Human Rights and adopted by experts in 2012 – can serve as a road map for the
Istanbul Process in this regard (A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, annex, appendix). The Rabat Plan of
Action aims to clarify the obligations of State and the responsibilities of other stakeholders
under articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; in
doing so, it sets out a framework of measures that include the implementation of legislation,
jurisprudence and policies to combat activities that constitute incitement to violence and
discrimination on multiple grounds, including religion. It recommends the adoption of
comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation with a view to the undertaking of
preventative action to combat incitement to hatred. It identifies three distinct types of
expression: expression that constitutes a criminal offence; expression that is not criminally
punishable but may justify a civil suit or administrative sanctions; and expression that does
not give rise to criminal, civil or administrative sanction but still raises concern in terms of
tolerance, civility and respect for the rights of others. The plan of action also recommends
2 Marc Limon, Nazila Ghanea and Hilary Power, “Fighting Religious Intolerance and Discrimination:
The UN Account”, Religion & Human Rights, vol. 11, No. 1 (2016), pp. 21-66.
that States codify and implement national legislation that provides robust and precise
definitions of key terms, including hatred, discrimination, violence and hostility, drawing
from the guidance and definitions provided in the Camden Principles on Freedom of
Expression and Equality. The Rabat Plan of Action furthermore calls upon States that have
anti-blasphemy laws to repeal them, since such laws stifle and unduly inhibit both the right
to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of religion or belief.
19. The Special Rapporteur notes that the role of parliaments, the judiciary, the media
and other national institutions are critical to the successful implementation of the Rabat
Plan of Action and of Human Rights Council resolution 16/18. Parliaments occupy a
particularly important role in paving the way for successful implementation of the plan of
action. In order to promote equality and combat intolerance, States should establish
independent national human rights institutions that comply with the Paris Principles and
possess the capacity to engage effectively with civil society and help to guide interfaith
dialogue. The plan of action also requires the involvement of an independent judiciary that
can adjudicate cases of incitement to hatred, ensure that criminal sanction for speech is the
exception and not the rule, and guarantee that efforts to secure compliance with the
obligations deriving from article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights by means of alternative measures, such as cultural dialogue and pluralism, are
protected. An independent and objective media can play a critical role in fostering such a
pluralistic environment as well.
20. The Special Rapporteur also welcomes the Fez process initiated by the Special
Adviser of the Secretary-General on the Prevention of Genocide at a meeting in Fez,
Morocco, in April 2015. The initiative has the objective of preventing incitement to
violence that could lead to atrocity crimes. The Fez declaration and draft plan of action
identify a number of activities that community leaders representing different religions or
beliefs could undertake to prevent and counter incitement to violence in situations that risk
leading to atrocity crimes. These options, linked to paragraph 36 of Rabat Plan of Action,
include engaging in dialogue with those who express radical views, countering online and
offline incitement speech though unequivocal messaging, and supporting interfaith
dialogue, education and activities that uphold respect for religious pluralism. The
workshops that have been planned to roll out the Fez plan of action could make a vital
contribution to implementing the positive measures identified in the Rabat Plan of Action,
especially in countries that have experienced, or are currently experiencing, hate speech and
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. For the Fez process to be effective in
activating religious leaders in implementing the Rabat Plan of Action, however, it is
axiomatic that the planned activities must be inclusive of all faith or belief communities.
21. The Special Rapporteur notes that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
presents an additional opportunity to advance respect for the right to freedom of religion or
belief by mainstreaming this right within the context of development work. Given the
intersections between freedom of religion and numerous other rights, such as gender
equality on non-discrimination in access to services, there is clearly a need to increase
religious freedom literacy within the community of development actors (a field in which
numerous faith-based groups have traditionally been very active). This approach is
supported by growing evidence of the links between respect for the right to freedom of
religion or belief and prospects for societal harmony, economic prosperity and political
stability. Such evidence contradicts narratives that equate societal harmony and peace with
restrictive rather than inclusive practices. Over the past decade, there has been gradual
engagement between various development agencies of the United Nations and faith-based
groups through the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on Engaging Faith-Based
Actors for Sustainable Development.3In 2016, the International Partnership on Religion and
Development was established to facilitate engagement of faith-based organizations in
development work. The Special Rapporteur welcomes these efforts and looks forward to
contributing to this process. For such efforts to be successful, however, there is a need to
invest in literacy on both religions and religious freedom to ensure that the engagement of
actors with the development agenda actually advances the cause of human rights. This is
particularly important in the light of the many misconceptions that exist regarding the right
to freedom of religion or belief.
III. Addressing misconceptions about the right to freedom of
religion or belief
22. While noting that addressing chronic issues of intolerance and violent extremism
often requires promoting greater understanding among diverse communities, the Special
Rapporteur believes that continuing reports of the most chronic violations of the right to
freedom of religion or belief, which demonstrate a wide range of misperceptions and
misconceptions about the specific content of this right under international law, requires
long-term investment in the promotion and advancement of literacy regarding this right.
Misperceptions and misconceptions are both the product of the complexity of this right and
the political and ideological dispute over the norms of the international legal framework
that underpin it. While article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
and its interpretation by the Human Rights Committee remain the most detailed articulation
of the international community’s understanding of the core elements of the right to freedom
of religion or belief, and subsequent normative developments have expanded that
understanding, there are a number of areas that are susceptible to dispute.
23. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes the finding by the Human Rights
Committee with regard to the customary character of the right to freedom of religion or
belief, and reaffirms and echoes the declarations of previous mandate holders regarding the
normative framework of the right to freedom of religion or belief.4 He also notes that the
scope, substance and contours of this framework are subject to continuing development,
clarification and evolution. For the purposes of the present report, however, the Special
Rapporteur wishes to highlight some of the most common misconceptions that exist
regarding his mandate, and also what the right to freedom of religion or belief encompasses
(and does not encompass).
24. Individuals, not religions, convictions, belief systems or truth claims, are the right-
holders of the right to freedom of religion or belief. More specifically, this right is not
designed to protect beliefs as such (religious or otherwise), but rather believers and their
freedom to possess and express their beliefs either individually or in community with others
in order to shape their lives in conformity with their own convictions (A/71/269, para.11).
25. Individuals have the right to publicly manifest their religion or belief, alone or
together with others, and the prerogative of deciding whether they wish to manifest their
religious convictions. It is ultimately up to the individual to decide whether he or she
wishes to manifest his or her right to freedom of religion or belief at all and, if so, whether
these manifestations take place in private or in public. This is an important distinction,
3 See United Nations Population Fund, annual report of the United Nations Inter-Agency Task Force on
Engaging Faith-Based Actors for Sustainable Development, 2016.
4 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 24 (1994), para. 8. See also Heiner Bielefeldt,
Nazila Ghanea and Michael Wiener, Freedom of Religion or Belief: An International Law
Commentary (New York, Oxford University Press, 2015).
especially since the right to freedom of religion or belief is not contingent upon recognition
or registration by the State.
26. Although international law does not provide a definition of what a religion is, the
scope of what is protected by the right to freedom of religion or belief must be construed
broadly, covering theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to
profess any religion or belief. It is, therefore, not limited to traditional, mainstream or
“recognized” religions and practices.
27. There cannot be a meaningful right to freedom of religion or belief unless it includes
the freedom to change one’s religion or belief. Although the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights and the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of
Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief are less explicit than article
18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in endorsing the right to change one’s
religion, the Human Rights Committee provided greater clarity in its general comment No.
22 (1993). In particular, it stressed that the right to “have or to adopt” a religion or belief
necessarily entailed the 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. This language – “including the right to change one’s
religion or belief” – is also consistently reflected in resolutions on freedom of religion or
belief adopted by consensus by the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council.5 The
Special Rapporteur notes that this provision refers specifically to the internal dimension of
freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief (often referred to as forum internum),
which enjoys unconditional and unqualified protection and cannot be restricted, limited,
interfered with or derogated from under any circumstances, including during times of
public emergency.
28. Policies or practices that do not, prima facie, target the adoption of a particular
religion or belief may still amount to a violation of article 18 (2) of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights if they are intended to impair an individual’s ability
to freely hold, adopt or change their religion or belief, or if they have such an effect.
Examples of indirect yet impermissible restrictions on the forum internum could include
limitations on access to education, medical care or employment, or family law matters, such
as custody of children, which have the ultimate effect of impairing the individual’s ability
to freely hold, adopt or change his or her religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur notes,
however, that such determinations are highly fact-specific and must be determined on a
case-by-case basis so as to not vitiate substantive provisions of article 18 of the Covenant.
29. The right to freedom of religion or belief encompasses all aspects of religious or
belief-related life, including protections for religious and non-religious convictions,
conscience-based positions and manifestations of the beliefs and practices related to them.
This spectrum, in turn, includes the right to freely, and without undue burden or
unreasonable interference, develop religious or belief-related identities, to bear witness to
one’s beliefs by freely communicating with fellow believers or non-believers, to organize
and enjoy community life based on common or shared beliefs, formal and informal
education related to the transmission of one’s belief system to members of the community
(particularly children) or others, and the management of institutions, such as charitable
organizations, related to these beliefs.
30. While international human rights law allows, with high thresholds, for certain
restrictions related to the manifestation of one’s religion or beliefs (often referred to as
5 See General Assembly resolutions 62/157, 63/181, 64/164, 65/211, 66/168, 67/179, 68/170, 69/175,
70/158 and 71/196; and Human Rights Council resolutions 16/13, 19/8, 22/20, 25/12, 28/18 and
31/16.
forum externum), any and all limitations must be the exception, not the rule. Moreover, the
burden of justification for such restrictions falls on those who wish to impose them, often
Governments or State organs. According to article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, which must be strictly interpreted, all limitations on the right to
freedom of religion or belief must be prescribed by law, and they must be necessary and
directly related to the pursuit of a legitimate aim: the protection of “public safety, order,
health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. These restrictions must
also be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and be proportionate to the realization of
the legitimate aim and, therefore, be the least restrictive among all the adequate measures
that could possibly be applied and, in any case, without vitiating the right itself. Unlike
some other provisions of the Covenant (such as articles 12, 13, 14, 19, 21 and 22), the right
to freedom of religion or belief cannot be restricted on the grounds of national security, and
the non-discriminatory nature of the right ensures that nationality cannot form a basis for
imposing restrictions on minorities, migrants or non-nationals.
31. The right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to equality are intimately
linked. It is not enough only to recognize equality as constituting an underlying principle of
this right; it would be more appropriate to view the right to freedom of religion or belief as
also constituting a right to equality. This right prohibits discrimination on the basis of
religion or belief system, recognized as sacrosanct by a number of human rights
instruments. It must be clear, however, that the right to freedom of religion or belief does
not give the individual – as a right-holder – the power to marginalize, suppress or carry out
violent acts against other individuals and those in vulnerable situations, such as women or
members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, under
the guise of manifesting their religion, or as constituting the “moral high-ground”.
32. While official status or recognition for a particular religion or belief does not per se
violate a state’s article 18 obligations, the pre-eminence enjoyed by religions or State
ideologies should not result in the impairment of this or other fundamental rights
recognized under international law; nor should it result in any discrimination against
persons who do not accept the official ideology or who oppose it. The previous mandate
holder repeatedly stressed that it seemed difficult, if not impossible, that the application of
the concept of an official State religion in practice would not have adverse effects on
religious minorities by way of discriminating against their members (A/HRC/19/60, para.
62; A/67/303, para. 47). It should be noted in this regard that some State parties to
international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, have submitted general reservations that apparently justify certain
restrictions of fundamental rights, or violations of the principle of non-discrimination based
on religious or belief-based principles. In the same manner, however, equality in and of
itself cannot guarantee the right to freedom of religion or belief. For example, “doctrinal
secularism”, which rather than creating an inclusive space for religious pluralism on a non-
discriminatory manner but emphasizes State secularism over the right to freedom of
religion or belief, could engender activities that reduce the space for religious or belief
pluralism. It is pertinent to recall, therefore, that all human rights are interdependent,
interrelated and universal, and must be conceptualized in a holistic manner without
perceiving of a hierarchy of rights.
33. The Special Rapporteur believes that acknowledging and addressing the afore-
mentioned common misperceptions, among others, is critical to protecting and advancing
the most basic and foundational principles of the right to the right to freedom of religion or
belief. Indeed, the corpus of work produced by the mandate over the past 30 years, and
development of the wider human rights framework during that period, together with the
growing body of jurisprudence from treaty bodies and regional human rights mechanisms,
reinforces this finding. Such an exercise will also help to strengthen the mandate holder’s
role in addressing the key challenges of our time by engaging more robustly and
meaningfully with civil society to challenge these misperceptions as a way of countering
violent extremism, mobilizing faith communities to realize a sustainable development
agenda, and increasing religious freedom literacy for the betterment of protections for
religious freedom or belief.
IV. Recurring and emerging issues of concern
34. As a right that is both foundational to and interdependent on the human rights
framework, the global pushback on human rights has generally deepened the worldwide
crisis of the right to freedom of religion or belief. The ability of believers and non-believers
to manifest their faith or convictions faces serious threats from State and non-State actors
alike. Members of religious minority communities, as well as dissidents, are often
confronted with State and non-State actor-induced threats to their freedom, safety and
security.
35. The Special Rapporteur expresses his concern at various reports suggesting that
targeted harassment, intimidation or discrimination against religious groups by government
actors and non-State actors has, and continues to be, prevalent in many countries. He also
acknowledges reports suggesting the imposition of severe restrictions on the right to freely
hold, adopt, change or manifest beliefs by many Governments. This behaviour includes
discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in employment, education and housing,
the destruction of holy sites, verbal and physical assaults, arrest and detention, and
impunity for non-State actors alleged to have perpetrated such violations.
36. At the same time, multiculturalism and corresponding concepts such as tolerance,
respect for diversity, and pluralism are a growing source of contention and are increasingly
being scapegoated by an underlying narrative that maintains there are zero-sum trade-offs
between societal harmony and diversity, pluralism and solidarity, and security and human
rights. Growing intolerance, linked in part to the rise of populist electoral politics and
violence in the name of religion, has led to a reconsideration of the value of respect for and
the appreciation of diversity in a number of regions around the globe, which can, in turn,
have a negative impact on the ability of religious minorities and non-believers to manifest
their beliefs. These trends have been accompanied by a rise in reports of incitement to
discrimination or violence, and in some cases hate crimes, by extremist groups, vigilante
mobs and other non-State actors that often carry out their acts in the name of religion.
37. Moreover, the securitization of human rights, which is largely a State response to
countering violence in the name of religion, further compounds the corrosive conditions
that already undermine the right to freedom of religion or belief. Policies that are adopted to
enhance the capacity of security forces to combat terrorism by limiting fundamental rights,
such as the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly, often have
dire consequences for the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief. The
dilemmas posed by securitization will require close scrutiny during the current tenure of the
mandate holder.
A. Limitations amounting to coercion or unlawful restriction on
manifestations of religion or belief
38. The vast majority of Member States have codified protections for the right to
freedom of religion or belief in their constitutions or legislation. Despite these protections,
however, most States also have laws or regulations on the books that unduly or unlawfully
restrict that same right. This includes statutes criminalizing blasphemy or apostasy (with
punishments for such offences ranging from fines to the death penalty).
39. Notwithstanding the absolute protections covering the right to have, adopt or change
one’s religion or belief (or not have any beliefs at all) under international human rights law,
more than 10 per cent of countries around the world criminalize apostasy. According to the
International Humanist and Ethical Union, there has been a worrying trend worldwide
towards more targeted discrimination and violence against atheists and non-religious
persons in recent years. In particular, 22 countries allow the use of the death penalty for
apostasy and at least 13 have capital punishment for atheists.6 While anyone can run afoul
of these laws because they effectively criminalize dissent and free-thinking, “non-
believers”, humanists and atheists are particularly at risk. Apostates and non-believers are
particularly at risk from non-State actors or religious vigilantes or ”forces”, which are
known to operate with impunity in a number of States.
40. Similarly, anti-blasphemy laws, which prohibit or criminalize the alleged “defamation” of religious beliefs and principles, or those which allegedly insult religious
figures, have a disproportionate impact on members of minority religious communities and
“non-believers”. Blasphemy, which is generally framed as a strict liability offence and
based on vague and overly broad criminal statutes, is increasingly used against political
opponents for their opposition to the Government. Blasphemy is an offence in at least 49
countries punishable with a prison term or in some cases with the death penalty.7 The
Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment no. 34 (2011), noted that blasphemy
laws were incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20 (2). It stressed that “it would be
impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain
religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-
believers”, and that it would also be impermissible for such prohibitions “to be used to
prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and
tenets of faith”.
41. Common and recurring limitations on the manifestation of religious principles or
concepts of belief generally involve the freedom to worship (including at designated places
of worship); religious symbols or iconography (such as the hijab for women in Islam); the
observance of holidays and days of rest; the appointment of clergy; teaching and
disseminating materials (including missionary activity); the right of parents to ensure the
religious and moral education of their children according to their convictions; registration
as a precondition for practicing one’s religion or belief (as opposed to acquisition of a legal
personality and related benefits); communication with individuals and communities on
religious matters at the national and international levels; the establishment and maintenance
of charitable and humanitarian institutions that can solicit or receive funding; and
conscientious objection.
42. Other examples of common types of limitations or restrictions interfering with the
right to freedom of religion or belief include criminal legal sanctions, burdensome
administrative regulations or civil penalties, and discriminatory personal status and family
laws, as well as discrimination in the work place and the challenges related to the
enshrinement of the principle of reasonable accommodation (see A/69/261). The Special
Rapporteur notes that members of minority communities and other persons and groups in
vulnerable situations are often disproportionately affected by restrictions on manifestations
of religion or belief.
6 International Humanist and Ethical Union, Freedom of Thought Report 2016.
7 Ibid.
43. The Special Rapporteur notes that unlawful restrictions imposed by States on
manifestations of the right to freedom of religion or belief are common, recurring and
continue to comprise the majority of violations of this right. A review of information
published by United Nations human rights mechanisms, including the Working Group on
the Universal Periodic Review and the treaty bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee,
shows that many States rely on restrictions as the rule and not the exception, and often fail
to provide any justification for limiting the right to freedom of religion or belief pursuant to
the criteria laid out in article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. When States give a justification for restricting manifestations of this right, they
often do so with vague or overly broad regulations that fail to meet the strict requirements
of article 18 (3).
B. Non-discrimination and equality, and persons and groups in vulnerable
situations
44. Article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights requires
State parties to respect and ensure that all individuals within their territory enjoy the rights
recognized in the Covenant “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex,
language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or
other status”. It is the cornerstone of the principle of non-discrimination in international
human rights law. The principle of non-discrimination applies to both the enjoyment and
lawful restriction of this right. Indeed, in the view of the Special Rapporteur, a claim for
equality for all is inherent to the right to freedom of religion or belief.
45. Nonetheless, a large percentage of discriminatory provisions imposed by States and
actions taken by non-State actors are based on religion or belief, and disproportionately
target religious minorities or, more generally, those deemed “non-believers”. As already
noted, while official status or recognition for a particular religion or belief does not per se
violate a State’s obligations under article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights, the right to freedom of religion or belief is most challenged when the State
assumes the role of guardian or custodian of certain truth claims rooted in a majority
religion (or in a few cases, minority religion). The Special Rapporteur notes that, in certain
States where religion has been given “official” or privileged status, other fundamental
rights of individuals – especially women, religious minorities and members of the LGBTI
community – are disproportionately restricted or vitiated under threat of sanctions as a
result of obligatory observation of State-imposed religious orthodoxy, such as wearing the
hijab or the need to conceal sexual orientation or gender identity. The right to freedom of
religion or belief is further challenged by attempts by States to impose a doctrinal
secularism as noted above, to sanitize the public sphere of concepts associated with
religious or belief systems. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that State-religion
relationships can, both directly and indirectly, lead to the unintended or deliberate
perpetuation of discriminatory practices that undermine the right to freedom of religion or
belief of minority communities.
46. In response, discussions held at the international level on discrimination against
religious minorities have advanced significantly in recent decades, a trend that should be
welcomed and encouraged. Apart from the ongoing need to tackle direct and open
manifestations of discrimination, there is a need for greater sensitivity to more obscure
forms of discrimination, such as prima facie “neutral” rules prescribing certain dress codes
in public institutions. Although they usually do not target a specific community openly,
such rules can amount to discrimination against persons belonging to religious minorities if
those persons (often women) follow their conscience in following a particular dress code.
Similar problems may arise with regard to dietary rules, fasting, public holidays, labour
regulations, public health norms or other issues. Overcoming the various forms of
discrimination in the field of religion or belief, including indirect and structural
discrimination, is a complex task that requires moving beyond mere formal or codified
equality towards the concept of substantive equality, including by adopting practical
measures that ensure reasonable accommodation across various dimensions in the daily
lives of believers and non-believers (A/69/261, paras. 49-66).
47. Discrimination within the context of the right to freedom of religion or belief is not
limited to members of religious minorities or non-believers, and can also apply to members
of religious majority groups and unrecognized or “non-traditional” groups. The Special
Rapporteur notes that previous mandate holders consistently identified other groups,
including women, children, persons deprived of their liberty, refugees, migrant workers
(including domestic workers), internally displaced persons, and members of the LGBTI
community, as persons particularly vulnerable to discrimination on the basis of religion or
belief. Discrimination is often manifested in one of two ways: (a) the individual’s
enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief is restricted or interfered with, either
by the State or by non-State actors, specifically because of their membership in the group;
or (b) their enjoyment of other fundamental rights is restricted or interfered with (again
either by the State or non-State actors) on the basis of religion or belief. It therefore follows
that, in addition to respecting the principle of non-discrimination, Member States also have
a duty to protect individuals from discrimination by third-party non-State actors, including
threats stemming from religious vigilante groups or even terrorist groups. Depending on the
precise nature of the problem, different initiatives may be required, such as legislative
support for religious minorities against discrimination in the workplace, measures to protect
people from forced conversion, and policies for combating violent extremism, vigilantism
or terrorism.
48. It should be noted that, in recent times, some of the most pernicious violations of the
right to freedom of religion or belief have been, and continue to be, carried out by non-State
actors, including mobs, vigilante groups, anti-government insurgents and terrorist
organizations. The threat to the right comes not only from those operating with impunity in
failed or poorly governed States; it can also emanate from laws and policies that
discriminate against religious minorities and dissenters and empower non-State actors to
“punish” them without fear of reprisal.
49. As in the case of previous mandate holders, the Special Rapporteur will continue to
highlight gender-specific abuses against women and girls with regard to the right to
freedom of religion or belief, in accordance with article 3 of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, other human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the mandate’s requirement
to mainstream gender in its work, both substantively and procedurally. This approach will
focus on both discrimination based on gender (and gender identity), which has a negative
impact on a woman’s ability to enjoy her right to freedom of religion or belief, and cases
where the State or non-state actors have sought to justify discrimination on the basis of
gender by relying on religious freedom or “liberty” arguments. Indeed, the Human Rights
Committee, in its general comment No. 28 (2000), found that article 18 of the Covenant
could not be relied upon to justify discrimination against women by reference to freedom of
thought, conscience and religion; it concluded that States parties should therefore provide
information on the status of women with regard to their freedom of thought, conscience and
religion, and indicate the steps they had taken or intend to take both to eliminate and
prevent infringements of these freedoms for women and to protect their right not to be
discriminated against.
50. The Special Rapporteur notes that, while the intersection between the right to
freedom of religion or belief and women’s right to equality may, at times, seem
inharmonious, it is erroneous to assume that these rights are incompatible. Such an
assumption runs the risk of overstating the tensions between these two rights at the
normative level, weakening critical protection gaps and foreclosing the potential for
constructive and synergistic exchange (see A/68/290). It is unquestionable that instances of
forced marriage, female genital mutilation, forced conversion, honour killing, enforced
ritual prostitution, sexual slavery, trafficking and over-policing of dress codes, and the
denial of educational and employment opportunities, have all been justified on the basis of
religious traditions. The Special Rapporteur fully agrees with previous mandate holders that
the right to freedom of religion or belief can never be used to justify violations of the rights
of women and girls, and that “it can no longer be taboo to demand that women’s rights take
priority over intolerant beliefs used to justify gender discrimination” (see A/65/207, para.
69; A/66/156, para. 16; A/68/290, para. 30; A/HRC/16/53, para. 16; and
A/HRC/19/60/Add.1, para. 44). Acknowledging and rebuking these practices, however,
does not mean tacitly accepting an inherent incompatibility between the right to freedom of
religion or belief and gender equality. Instead, the two should be understood in a holistic
manner as mutually reinforcing human rights norms (see A/68/290, paras. 19 and 66).
51. The right of children to freedom of religion or belief is violated in myriad ways by
both State agencies and non-State actors. Human rights abuses affecting children often tend
to be intersectional, such as the abduction and forced conversion of girls from religious
minority communities by armed groups. According to article 14 of the Convention on the
Rights of the Child, the right of the child to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
encompasses rights and duties of parents or legal guardians “to provide direction to the
child in the exercise of his or her right in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities
of the child.” Indeed, the Committee on the Rights of the Child, in its general comment No.
12 (2009), acknowledged that, in order for the rights of the child to be fully realized, their
right to be heard in all matters affecting their well-being and welfare, including matters
related to freedom of religion or belief, must be respected alongside their right to seek and
receive direction and guidance from their parents or legal guardians, which can compensate
for their lack of knowledge, experience and understanding and may be restricted by their
evolving capacities.
52. Religious persecution often results in displacement and a surge in refugee
populations of an extremely large scale. Asylum seekers and internally displaced persons
must benefit from the right to freedom of religion or belief and other human rights
guarantees not only because they enjoy the same protections as others, but because they are
in a particularly vulnerable situation and often at a disadvantage in asserting their rights
owing to displacement or migration, or lack of familiarity with the host language and
political, social and legal context (see A/62/280).
53. The Special Rapporteur notes with concern the increasing number of reports
regarding the failure of States, including those who are party to the Convention relating to
the Status of Refugees, to provide protections to asylum seekers who fear return to their
country of origin because of fear of persecution based on religion or belief. This failure
includes the practice of refoulement, or forcible return, of refugees who fear persecution for
reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political
opinion. As noted by various international mechanisms, including the Human Rights
Committee, the Committee against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights, there
is a strict prohibition in international law on refoulement: article 7 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 3 of the Convention against Torture and
article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights are non-derogable. The afore-
mentioned treaty bodies, as well as the European Court of Human Rights, have affirmed the
jus cogens character of the non-refoulement principle where an asylum seeker faces serious
risk of torture or related ill-treatment. An issue that merits special mention is increasing
intolerance of refugees and asylum seekers of a particular religious affiliation in order to,
for example, maintain the traditional religious make-up of a State or to appease populist
responses to the “other”. It must be emphasized that this action amounts to a
“territorialization” of religion or belief, which goes against both the spirit and the letter of
the right to freedom of religion or belief (A/71/269, para. 78).
C. Incitement to violence based on religion or belief
54. The rise of violence in the name of religion, and its association with extremism,
have necessitated the formulation of strategies and policies to counter violent extremism.
The Special Rapporteur recognizes that it is essential for security agencies to be empowered
to carry out their obligation to combat terrorism and to protect communities against
violence and serious rights abuses. Indeed, terrorist groups have been responsible for some
of the most egregious human rights violations. Non-State actors, such as Islamic State in
Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, or Daesh), have been responsible for widespread and brutal
attacks against Yazidis, Christians, Shia and other persons and groups in vulnerable
situations in the territories they control, reportedly involving up to 10 million people in Iraq
and the Syrian Arab Republic alone. Attacks have included killings, torture, enslavement
and trafficking, rape and other sexual abuse. Similarly, Boko Haram has been responsible
for, inter alia, killings, torture, abductions, violence against children and the use of children
in hostilities.
55. There are, however, also concerns that some of the policies designed to make
communities secure are having a negative impact on human rights and fundamental
freedoms. While the quest for security and efforts to promote human rights are often seen
as conflicting priorities, the failure to reconcile and resolve such tensions might actually
make communities less secure, as acknowledged in pillar IV of the United Nations Global
Counter Terrorism Strategy.8 It is axiomatic that, rather than impose undue restrictions on
the right to freedom of religion or belief, promoting and protecting this right can more
effectively serve to prevent or counter violent extremism. Indeed, respect for the right to
freedom of religion or belief not only sets the context for democratic ideals to thrive but can
also strengthen societal resilience against extremist discourse. Furthermore, measures to
prevent and counter violent extremism must not have any direct or incidental effects that
would result in discrimination, stigmatization or religious profiling (A/HRC/33/29, paras.
31 and 64).
56. The Special Rapporteur believes that certain groups of people in vulnerable
situations, either on account of their faith or because of their exposure to a high risk of
violation of their rights, require additional attention. He also notes that the apparent trend
towards identity-based politics worldwide, which has been accompanied by calls for laws
and practices that effectively discriminate against minorities on account of their religion or
belief, may lead to intolerance, discrimination and incitement to violence based on religion
or belief. The climate of intolerance requires greater attention to the implementation of the
Rabat Plan of Action and its advocacy of a multi-pronged approach, including non-
restrictive measures to address incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
57. Unfortunately, the lack of prosecution of “real” incitement cases and the persecution
of minorities under the guise of domestic incitement laws is pervasive. The Special
Rapporteur notes that the protections afforded in article 20 (2) of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights against incitement to hatred are subject to strict criteria to
ensure that they do not vitiate other rights, including freedom of expression and religion. As
noted above, the Rabat Plan of Action clarifies that article 20 of the Covenant requires a
8 General Assembly resolution 60/288.
high threshold because, as a matter of fundamental principle, limitation of speech must
remain an exception. It proposes a six-element test that should support judicial processes in
assessing whether concrete acts actually amount to “incitement to discrimination, hostility
or violence” and are serious enough to be considered criminal offences: the social and
political context; the speaker (such as his or her status and influence); the intent of a speech
act (as opposed to mere negligence); its content or form (such as style and degree of
provocation); the extent of the speech act (for example, its public nature and the size of its
audience); and the likelihood and imminence of actually causing harm. The Rabat Plan of
Action calls upon States to bring their relevant legislation fully into line with articles 18, 19
and 20 of the Covenant when taking action against incitement.
58. Over the years, the holders of the mandate on the right to freedom of religion or
belief have shown sustained concern over the impact of violence in the name of religion, as
well as overly broad policies and practices by States that target newer religions or
dissidents. They have proposed numerous strategies to deal with the issue of violent
extremism, including promoting interreligious communication and calling for more
consistent and objective reporting by the media (see A/55/280, A/HRC/13/40 and
A/HRC/28/66). Recent programmes on preventing or countering violent extremism have
highlighted the importance of the engagement of young people. The Special Rapporteur is
keen to examine the impact of such measures on youth and children (see A/HRC/33/29,
paras. 42-48).
V. Conclusions, proposed methods of work and
recommendations
59. It is evident from the foregoing overview that, in addition to addressing
traditional restrictions on the right to adopt, hold, change and manifest religion or
belief, three issue areas are likely to occupy the majority of the mandate’s time in the
immediate future. The first two are the politicization and the securitization of freedom
of religion or belief, as noted above; the third is the impact of these two phenomena on
persons and groups in vulnerable situations.
60. The politicization of the right to freedom of religion or belief often aggravate
existing tensions in civil society and between these actors and the State, thereby
increasing the risk of intolerance and incitement to violence and discrimination. The
implementation of the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of
national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence and the Fez process, together with investments in religious
freedom literacy, can all contribute to addressing these challenges. At the same time,
there is a need to undertake a more systematic study of the incidents, patterns,
correlations and causes of intolerance and incitement to violence and discrimination
to identify triggers and to help in the design of policies to operationalize respect and
protection for the right to freedom of religion or belief.
61. The rise in violent extremism in the name of religion has necessitated a range of
preventive policies from States around the world; there is a need both to understand
and to address their impact on the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is
important to identify ways to reconcile the pursuit for greater security against violent
extremism with protecting human rights, and also the ways in which greater respect
for freedom of religion or belief can actually help to prevent violent extremism.
Conceptual and case studies in this regard can help both to clarify the real issues at
stake and to identify pathways to the realization of security and the protection of
human rights.
62. As discussed above, the Special Rapporteur would like to prioritize the
implementation of the right to freedom of religion or belief as the primary objective of
his mandate. This approach is critical to addressing the very serious challenges facing
this right globally, and dovetails the emerging implementation agenda of the Human
Rights Council with regard to the compliance gap in realizing human rights
protections more generally.
63. The wide range of misconceptions that are frequently used to justify violations
of the right to freedom of religion or belief implies that more work needs to be done in
clarifying further the normative content of the right and promoting literacy regarding
what the right actually encompasses. While it is not always clear why States choose to
comply with their human rights commitments without effective enforcement
mechanisms in international law, studies suggest that norm clarification and
simplification can contribute to what has been called the “practicalization” of human
rights. The operational approach to human rights can help to contextualize a norm
and make it more amenable to policy formulation and implementation that is more
local and participatory in nature. Contextualization will, however, require the
identification of practical guidelines that can ensure fidelity to the normative content
and framework of the right to freedom of religion or belief. On issues where
guidelines already exist, such as the Rabat Plan of Action or the Final Document of
the International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to
Freedom of Religion, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination (see E/CN.4/2002/73, annex,
appendix), their application can be further encouraged by emerging national
arrangements for engagement with international human rights mechanisms.9
64. The Special Rapporteur notes that the cooperation of States will be vital to
advance a successful agenda to protect and promote the right to freedom of religion or
belief. Cooperation can take many forms. Opportunities to consult with States
individually and regionally would be useful in identifying both challenges and best
practices in an effort to encourage a “race to the top”. Consultations could also
identify areas where capacity-building can play a transformative role. The
cooperation of States will also be critical in helping to carry out the protective
function of the mandate by ensuring that effective and responsive channels of
communication exist whereby the Special Rapporteur may express his concern
regarding alleged violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief, and country
visits can be conducted in a spirit of constructive engagement and cooperation aimed
at facilitating the realization of the right at the national level.
65. The special procedures of the Human Rights Council are most effective when
they operate as a cohesive system. For the implementation approach/agenda to
succeed, it is imperative that the mandate fully engage with other special procedures
and parts of the United Nations human rights system, including processes related to
the universal periodic review and reviews of States conducted by relevant treaty
bodies, such as the Human Rights Committee.
66. The Special Rapporteur also believes that a systematic study and assessment of
the impact of the mandate and other mechanisms that promote the right to freedom of
religion or belief would make a useful contribution to understanding what approaches
work best to achieve concrete results on the ground. To this end, and to the extent that
9 See Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, National Mechanisms for
Reporting and Follow-up: A Practical Guide to Effective State Engagement with International
Human Rights Mechanisms, Geneva, 2016.
resources are available, the Special Rapporteur intends to undertake such a study
over the next three years.
67. The Special Rapporteur welcomes the greater attention being paid to the
promotion of the right to freedom of religion or belief at the national and
international levels by Governments, parliamentarians, national human rights
institutions, intergovernmental organizations, human rights organizations, faith-based
organizations, and academia. They have raised international awareness about
country-specific issues and problems, increased sensitivity to existing challenges and
emerging trends, encouraged positive actions by States, fostered dialogue and
interfaith communication, created networks of parliamentarians, diplomats, human
rights defenders and academics around the issue of the right to freedom of religion or
belief, and developed tools and frameworks for the advancement of respect for this
right. The Special Rapporteur believes that these efforts and activities can be
harnessed to support even more effective implementation of the right to freedom of
religion or belief, and notes that efforts aimed at identifying interdisciplinary and
multi-sectoral approaches to promoting this right must continue to be bolstered,
including by fostering greater collaboration among these diverse actors.
68. The mandate has had a fruitful relationship with a range of civil society actors
over the past 30 years. Their contributions to the capacity, efficiency and impact of
the special procedures and other human rights mechanisms, and their ability to
generate respect for human rights domestically, has been, and remains, crucial to
bolstering respect for the right to freedom of religion or belief both nationally and
internationally. The Special Rapporteur will, therefore, continue to engage with, and
expand, this network of actors and stakeholders, including existing regional and
national human rights mechanisms, in an effort to benefit from this vital resource.
69. The Special Rapporteur stresses the importance of the roles and responsibilities
of civil society actors, especially religious and community leaders, in generating cross-
boundary cooperation among religions and beliefs and for this engagement to be
grounded in the principles of universality, equality, inclusivity and transparency. He
calls upon all non-governmental human rights organizations working on economic,
social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights, to work with faith- and belief-
based civil society actors, at both the level of the United Nations and on the ground, to
build coalitions that transcend boundaries based on religion or whatever belief.