The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues
Identifieur interne : 000F24 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 000F23; suivant : 000F25The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues
Auteurs : Michael WienerSource :
- Religion & Human Rights [ 1871-031X ] ; 2007.
Url:
DOI: 10.1163/187103107X218911
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Wiener, Michael" sort="Wiener, Michael" uniqKey="Wiener M" first="Michael" last="Wiener">Michael Wiener</name></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44</idno><date when="2007" year="2007">2007</date><idno type="doi">10.1163/187103107X218911</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">000F24</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">000F24</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</title><author wicri:is="90%"><name sortKey="Wiener, Michael" sort="Wiener, Michael" uniqKey="Wiener M" first="Michael" last="Wiener">Michael Wiener</name></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Religion & Human Rights</title><title level="j" type="sub">An International Journal</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">RHRS</title><idno type="ISSN">1871-031X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1871-0328</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007">2007</date><biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1-2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="3">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="17">17</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">1871-031X</idno></series><idno type="istex">DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/187103107X218911</idno><idno type="href">18710328_002_01-02_s001_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">1871-031X</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader></TEI><istex><corpusName>brill-journals</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>rapporteur</json:string><json:string>human rights</json:string><json:string>special rapporteur</json:string><json:string>para</json:string><json:string>jahangir</json:string><json:string>rhrs</json:string><json:string>mandate holders</json:string><json:string>wiener</json:string><json:string>special rapporteurs</json:string><json:string>wiener religion</json:string><json:string>ribeiro</json:string><json:string>allegation</json:string><json:string>asma jahangir</json:string><json:string>asma</json:string><json:string>religious intolerance</json:string><json:string>general assembly resolution</json:string><json:string>abdelfattah</json:string><json:string>human rights council</json:string><json:string>urgent appeals</json:string><json:string>general assembly</json:string><json:string>december</json:string><json:string>iccpr</json:string><json:string>mandate</json:string><json:string>human rights resolution</json:string><json:string>international court</json:string><json:string>special rapporteur jahangir</json:string><json:string>racial discrimination</json:string><json:string>thematic</json:string><json:string>intolerance</json:string><json:string>thematic studies</json:string><json:string>special procedures</json:string><json:string>democratic republic</json:string><json:string>michael wiener</json:string><json:string>international covenant</json:string><json:string>advisory opinion</json:string><json:string>angelo vidal ribeiro</json:string><json:string>interim report</json:string><json:string>operative para</json:string><json:string>religious communities</json:string><json:string>high commissioner</json:string><json:string>mandate holders ribeiro</json:string><json:string>response rate</json:string><json:string>member states</json:string><json:string>world conference</json:string><json:string>social council</json:string><json:string>mandate practice</json:string><json:string>legal process</json:string><json:string>mandate holder</json:string><json:string>opinio iuris</json:string><json:string>state practice</json:string><json:string>param cumaraswamy</json:string><json:string>religious minorities</json:string><json:string>school education</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Michael Wiener</name></json:item></author><subject><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>LETTERS OF ALLEGATION AND COUNTRY VISITS</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF MANDATE HOLDERS</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL</value></json:item><json:item><lang><json:string>eng</json:string></lang><value>SUBSIDIARY MEANS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF RULES OF LAW</value></json:item></subject><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><qualityIndicators><score>5.512</score><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageSize>595.22 x 842 pts (A4)</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>false</refBibsNative><keywordCount>6</keywordCount><abstractCharCount>0</abstractCharCount><pdfWordCount>7311</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>45142</pdfCharCount><pdfPageCount>22</pdfPageCount><abstractWordCount>1</abstractWordCount></qualityIndicators><title>The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</title><refBibs><json:item><host><author></author><title>RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 3</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>9</last><first>37</first></pages><author></author><title>RHRS</title></host><title>1-2_f2_3-17</title></json:item><json:item><host><author><json:item><name>Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo</name></json:item></author><title>Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance from</title><publicationDate>1993</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><author></author><title>Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territorypdf>) as well as the Separate Opinions of Judge Rosalyn Higgins (paras. 23 and 40</title><publicationDate>2004-07-09</publicationDate></host><title>International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, paras. 57 and 133 (>www.icj-cij.org</title><publicationDate>2004-07-09</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><author></author><title>pdf>) and of Judge Nabil Elaraby</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><author></author><title>Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), International Court of Justice</title><publicationDate>2002-07-10</publicationDate></host><title>206 and 209, >www.icj-cij</title><publicationDate>2002-07-10</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name>Maritime Land</name></json:item><json:item><name>Nigeria Boundary Between Cameroon</name></json:item></author><host><author></author><title>Rejoinder of the Federal Republic of Nigeria</title><publicationDate>2001-01</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2001-01</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>2</last><first>611</first></pages><author></author><title>Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)</title><publicationDate>2005-04-25</publicationDate></host><title>Counsel of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Tshibangu Kalala 21 as well as footnotes 9 and 32, >www.icj-cij See, however, the different approach in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Counsel of Serbia and Montenegro Xavier de Roux</title><publicationDate>2005-04-25</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>9</last><first>39</first></pages><author></author><title>RHRS</title></host><title>1-2_f2_3-17</title></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>68</last><first>40</first></pages><author></author><title>Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance Asma Jahangir paras paras</title></host><title>Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief 36 Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief</title></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>52</last><first>51</first></pages><author></author><title>paras</title></host><title>Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, Interim report prepared by Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief (UN Doc</title></json:item><json:item><author><json:item><name> Report Submitted By Asma</name></json:item><json:item><name> Jahangir</name></json:item></author><host><pages><last>58</last><first>57</first></pages><author></author><title>paras</title><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></host><title>Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (UN Doc</title><publicationDate>2005</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><pages><first>79</first></pages><author></author><title>Special Rapporteur appointed in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution</title><publicationDate>1986-03-10</publicationDate></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>68</last><first>67</first></pages><author></author><title>paras</title><publicationDate>2006</publicationDate></host><publicationDate>2006</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><pages><last>156</last><first>151</first></pages><author></author><title>paras</title><publicationDate>1986-03-10</publicationDate></host><title>Special Rapporteur appointed in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution para. 73; Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief [Mr</title><publicationDate>1986-03-10</publicationDate></json:item><json:item><host><author></author><title>RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 17</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>2</last><first>1</first></pages><author></author><title>RHRS</title></host></json:item><json:item><author></author><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>9</last><first>34</first></pages><author></author><title>RHRS</title></host><title>1-2_f3_18-30</title></json:item></refBibs><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><volume>2</volume><pages><last>17</last><first>3</first></pages><issn><json:string>1871-031X</json:string></issn><issue>1-2</issue><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><eissn><json:string>1871-0328</json:string></eissn><title>Religion & Human Rights</title></host><publicationDate>2007</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2007</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1163/187103107X218911</json:string></doi><id>DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44</id><score>0.017058566</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</title><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt><respStmt><resp>Références bibliographiques récupérées via GROBID</resp><name resp="ISTEX-API">ISTEX-API (INIST-CNRS)</name></respStmt></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><availability><p>© 2007 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</p></availability><date>2007</date></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</title><author xml:id="author-1"><persName><forename type="first">Michael</forename><surname>Wiener</surname></persName></author></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Religion & Human Rights</title><title level="j" type="sub">An International Journal</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">RHRS</title><idno type="pISSN">1871-031X</idno><idno type="eISSN">1871-0328</idno><imprint><publisher>BRILL</publisher><pubPlace>The Netherlands</pubPlace><date type="published" when="2007"></date><biblScope unit="volume">2</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">1-2</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="3">3</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" to="17">17</biblScope></imprint></monogr><idno type="istex">DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1163/187103107X218911</idno><idno type="href">18710328_002_01-02_s001_text.pdf</idno></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2007</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><textClass><keywords scheme="keyword"><list><head>keywords</head><item><term>SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS</term></item><item><term>LETTERS OF ALLEGATION AND COUNTRY VISITS</term></item><item><term>CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW</term></item><item><term>PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF MANDATE HOLDERS</term></item><item><term>UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL</term></item><item><term>SUBSIDIARY MEANS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF RULES OF LAW</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2007">Created</change><change when="2007">Published</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2016-10-10">References added</change><change xml:id="refBibs-istex" who="#ISTEX-API" when="2017-01-17">References added</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus brill-journals not found" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="http://dtd.nlm.nih.gov/publishing/2.3/journalpublishing.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="2.3">
<front>
<journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="e-issn">18710328</journal-id>
<journal-title>Religion & Human Rights</journal-title>
<journal-subtitle>An International Journal</journal-subtitle>
<abbrev-journal-title>RHRS</abbrev-journal-title>
<issn pub-type="ppub">1871-031X</issn>
<issn pub-type="epub">1871-0328</issn>
<publisher>
<publisher-name>BRILL</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>The Netherlands</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>
<article-meta>
<article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1163/187103107X218911</article-id>
<title-group>
<article-title>The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</article-title>
</title-group>
<contrib-group>
<contrib contrib-type="author">
<name>
<surname>Wiener</surname>
<given-names>Michael</given-names>
</name>
</contrib>
</contrib-group>
<pub-date pub-type="epub">
<year>2007</year>
</pub-date>
<volume>2</volume>
<issue>1-2</issue>
<fpage>3</fpage>
<lpage>17</lpage>
<permissions>
<copyright-statement>© 2007 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-statement>
<copyright-year>2007</copyright-year>
<copyright-holder>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</copyright-holder>
</permissions>
<self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:href="18710328_002_01-02_s001_text.pdf"></self-uri>
<kwd-group>
<kwd>SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS</kwd>
<kwd>LETTERS OF ALLEGATION AND COUNTRY VISITS</kwd>
<kwd>CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW</kwd>
<kwd>PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF MANDATE HOLDERS</kwd>
<kwd>UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL</kwd>
<kwd>SUBSIDIARY MEANS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF RULES OF LAW</kwd>
</kwd-group>
<custom-meta-wrap>
<custom-meta>
<meta-name>version</meta-name>
<meta-value>header</meta-value>
</custom-meta>
</custom-meta-wrap>
</article-meta>
</front>
<body>
<p>Religion and Human Rights Volume 2 (2007) RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd i RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd i 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM</p>
<p>Religion and Human Rights Editor-in-Chief Dr. Nazila Ghanea University Lecturer in International Human Rights Law, University of Oxford, UK Editorial Board Professor Gudmundur Alfredsson Professor of International Law, Director, Raoul Wallenberg Institute, Sweden Professor Kevin Boyle Professor of Law, University of Essex, UK Professor Malcolm Evans Professor of Public International Law, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Law, University of Bristol, UK Ven. Dr. Michael Ipgrave Archdeacon of Southwark, UK Professor Javaid Rehman Professor of Law, Brunel University, UK Alan Stephens Director of Research, Clemens Nathan Research Centre, London, UK Book Review Editor Dr. Alexandra Xanthaki Senior Lecturer in Law, School of Social Sciences and Law, Brunel University, UK RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd ii RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd ii 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM</p>
<p>Religion and Human Rights An International Journal Volume 2 (2007) Leiden • Boston RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd iii RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd iii 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM</p>
<p>Note to Contributors Style Sheet – Articles must be typed, double-spaced throughout on A4 paper, allowing good margins. North American authors may use standard North American paper size. Authors are also encouraged to send articles electronically. – Articles are published only in English. – Please use British spelling. – An abstract should be submitted and will be published along with the article. – Obtain full style sheet from the Managing Editor before submission. – Headings should follow the following format: I. Formal Requirements for the prompt release of vessels and crews A. Introduction B. Information and Consultation C. Th e Proceedings 1. Nature of the Proceedings 2. Preliminary Proceedings (a) Abuse of Rights (b) Local Remedies Prospective authors should submit their proposals and manuscripts by email to Dr Nazila Ghanea at editor.relhr@conted.ox.ac.uk or by post (including a disc with a Word and RTF version of the submission and an email address) to Dr Nazila Ghanea, International Human Rights Law, Univer- sity of Oxford, Rewley House, 1 Wellington Square, Oxford OX1 2JA, UK. © 2007 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, Th e Netherlands. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission of the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal personal use is granted by the publisher provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to the Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd iv RHRS 2,1-2_prelims.indd iv 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM 9/21/07 2:07:56 PM</p>
<p>© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 00.0000/000000000X000000 Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 1–2 www.brill.nl/rhrs Religion Human Rights Religion and Human Rights—An International Journal Outline Issue 1–2, Volume 2, 2007 Documents and findings of the 25th Anniversary Commemoration of the adoption of the 1981 Declaration of elimination of intolerance and discrim- ination based on religion or belief. Th e Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief— Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues, Michael Wiener 25th Anniversary Commemoration of the adoption of the 1981 UN Declaration on the elimination of intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, A Report, Jeroen Temperman Speeches by: Mr Bacre Ndiaye, Director of the Human Rights Procedures Division, UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Ms Asma Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief Mr Piet de Klerk, Ambassador At Large for Human Rights, Netherlands Min- istry of Foreign Affairs Professor Th eo van Boven, Emeritus Professor, Professor of International Law, Faculty of Law, Maastricht University, Th e Netherlands Workshop outlines: Workshop 1: Freedom of Religion or Belief vis-à-vis Freedom of Expression. Ms Widney Brown, Amnesty International, Senior Director, International Law, Policy and Campaigns, Mr Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, Barrister, President, Malaysian Human Rights Society, Workshop 2: Change of Religion or Belief, Enabling the Environment Ms Asma Jahangir, UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of reli- gion or belief Ms Diane ʿ Ala ʾ i, Representative, Bahá ʾ í International Community Workshop 3: Protection of Religion or Belief, Who Benefits? Ms Felice Gaer, Chairperson, US Commission on International RHRS 2,1-2_f1_1-2.indd 1 RHRS 2,1-2_f1_1-2.indd 1 9/21/07 2:08:14 PM 9/21/07 2:08:14 PM</p>
<p>2 Outline / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 1–2 Religious Freedom Mr Alain Garay, Avocat à la Cour de Paris Workshop 4: Propagation of Religion or Belief, Dr Cornelis (Dennis) de Jong, Expert in the field of religion or belief, and Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs Professor Malcolm Evans, Dean, University of Bristol, UK All Recommendations from the 4 workshops, submitted to the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief for consideration Appendices: Prague Declaration on Freedom of Religion or Belief United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief Biographies of Key Speakers, Organisers and Workshop Facilitators RHRS 2,1-2_f1_1-2.indd 2 RHRS 2,1-2_f1_1-2.indd 2 9/21/07 2:08:15 PM 9/21/07 2:08:15 PM</p>
<p>© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2007 DOI: 10.1163/187103107X218911 Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 www.brill.nl/rhrs Religion Human Rights Th e Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues Michael Wiener * Associate Human Rights Offi cer, UN Offi ce of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Abstract Th e Role of the UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief has already been outlined by Carolyn Evans in the first issue of Religion and Human Rights on pages I:75–96. In the meantime, a doc- toral thesis on the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was submitted by Michael Wiener to the Law Faculty at Trier University in Germany. Th e following article is the annotated English summary of this 350 pages strong thesis which has recently been published with the title Das Mandat des UN- Sonderberichterstatters über Religions- oder Weltanschauungsfreiheit—Institutionelle, prozedurale und mate- rielle Rechtsfragen (Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2007). It explores various legal issues of the mandate in terms of institutional, procedural and substantive questions that have arisen in the Special Rapporteur’s mandate practice from 1986 to 2006. Keywords UN Human Rights Council; Special Rapporteurs; privileges and immunities of mandate holders; letters of allegation and country visits; customary international law; subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law I. Institutional Issues A. Development of the Mandate Th e thematic mandate of the ‘Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance’ was created by the UN Commission on Human Rights in its resolution 1986/20 on 10 March 1986 and subsequently the mandate has been gradually expanded. According to the initial resolution, the Special Rapporteur was appointed for one year in order to examine incidents and governmental actions in all parts * Dr. Michael Wiener LL.M. (London), Ass. iur., Dr. iur. (Trier) has been working in the Special Procedures Branch of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) in Geneva since November 2006. Th e research of his doctoral thesis on the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief was supervised by Prof. Dr. Gerhard Robbers at Trier University in Ger- many. Th e views expressed in the present English summary of this thesis (October 2006) are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 3 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 3 9/21/07 2:08:37 PM 9/21/07 2:08:37 PM</p>
<p>4 M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 of the world and to recommend remedial measures against intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief. In carrying out his mandate the Spe- cial Rapporteur was requested to “seek credible and reliable information from Governments, as well as specialized agencies, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations, including communities of religion or belief ”. 1 During the first reporting stage (from 1986 to 1987), the initial mandate holder Mr. Angelo Vidal d’Almeida Ribeiro from Portugal managed to clear up the fundamental objections against the mandate which had been raised by some member states of the UN Commission on Human Rights. Having secured the continuation of the mandate, Mr. d’Almeida Ribeiro in the second reporting stage (from 1988 to 1993) started reproducing his correspondence with the Gov- ernments, thus reporting on individual cases and naming the countries concerned. Th is approach had to be temporarily abandoned due to financial constraints and due to the introduction of page limits during the third reporting stage (from 1994 to 1999), but the second mandate holder Mr. Abdelfattah Amor from Tuni- sia successfully introduced new working methods such as urgent appeals, in situ visits and interim reports to the UN General Assembly. In addition to the tradi- tional task of combating all forms of religious intolerance, Mr. Amor focussed on the promotion of the freedom of religion or belief and on prevention activities. Th e gradual enlargement of the mandate through resolutions by the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly was manifested in the year 2000, when the title was renamed as ‘Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief ’. 2 Taking up this development during the fourth reporting stage (from 2000 to 2003), Mr. Amor enriched the mandate with new approaches such as drafting thematic studies and initiating an international consultative conference on ‘School Education in Relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination’, which adopted the 2001 Madrid final document. 3 Th e current mandate holder, Ms. Asma Jahangir from Pakistan, took this acquis as the starting point during the fifth reporting stage (from 2004 to 2005), introducing a detailed reproduction of the correspondence with the Governments together with legal observations in a separate addendum to her annual reports to the Com- mission on Human Rights. Th e current reporting stage (since 2006) is marked by 1 Commission on Human Rights resolution 1986/20 of 10 March 1986, operative para. 4. For a detailed discussion of the wording of this resolution see Michael Wiener, Das Mandat des UN- Sonderberichterstatters über Religions- oder Weltanschauungsfreiheit—Institutionelle, prozedurale und mate- rielle Rechtsfragen (Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien, 2007), pp. 20–28. 2 See Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/33 of 20 April 2000, operative para. 11, approved by Economic and Social Council decision 2000/261 of 28 July 2000; General Assembly resolu- tion 55/97 of 4 December 2000, operative para. 11. 3 Th e Madrid Final Document is published in the Appendix of the Report submitted by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/33 (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/73), Appendix. RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 4 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 4 9/21/07 2:08:37 PM 9/21/07 2:08:37 PM</p>
<p>M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 5 the transition from the Commission on Human Rights to the new UN Human Rights Council, which has been established on 15 March 2006 as a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. 4 It remains to be seen in which direction the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief will evolve within this new institutional framework, especially because the Human Rights Council is requested to review and, where necessary, to improve and to rationalize all mandates by June 2007. Th is development from 1986 to 2006 illustrates how much the mandate depends on the commitment and the establishing of priorities by the individual mandate holder. Each of the Special Rapporteurs d’Almeida Ribeiro, Amor and Jahangir have left his or her imprint on the mandate, gradually enlarging it in cooperation with the Commission on Human Rights, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the General Assembly. Th e reporting practice has shown that Special Rapporteurs can play a role as ‘eyes and ears’ 5 of the Commission on Human Rights, and that they can also function as its ‘brain and mouth’ within the limits of their mandate. B. Legal Status of Mandate Holders Th e selection of mandate holders is traditionally left to the chairman of the Com- mission on Human Rights, who is only supposed to consult within the Bureau before appointing a Special Rapporteur. Th is non-transparent and politicized selec- tion process has been criticized and it is to be reformed by the Human Rights Council. Initially, there was no time limit for mandates but in 1999 any individu- al’s tenure in a given mandate, whether thematic or country-specific, was restricted to six years. 6 At the renewal of the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief in 2001, however, Mr. Amor fell under a transitional provi- sion and consequently he could stay in his mandate until 2004 for a total period of eleven years. Th e option to discontinue or merge certain special procedures might arise in the framework of the mandate review process in 2007 by the Human Rights Council. Mandate holders may be susceptible to legal risks in terms of national civil actions (e.g. defamation law suits) or penal prosecution (e.g. charges of blasphemy or proselytism) as well as personal attacks. In respect of words spoken and acts done by them in the course of the performance of their mission, these experts are 4 See General Assembly resolution 60/251 of 15 March 2006 and Economic and Social Council resolution 2006/2 of 22 March 2006. 5 For examples of this description as ‘eyes and ears’ see the summary records of the Commission on Human Rights (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/SR.33, para. 26 and UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/SR.59, para. 45) and of the Economic and Social Council (UN Doc. E/1995/SR.51, p. 12). 6 See Commission on Human Rights Chairperson’s Statement of 29 April 1999 (UN Doc. E/1999/23, para. 552). RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 5 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 5 9/21/07 2:08:37 PM 9/21/07 2:08:37 PM</p>
<p>6 M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 accorded immunity from legal process of any kind which continues to be accorded notwithstanding that the persons concerned are no longer employed on missions for the United Nations according to Article VI Section 22 (b) of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. 7 However, under the conditions of its Article VI Section 23, the Secretary-General shall have the right and the duty to waive the immunity of any expert. Even if the Secretary-General has confirmed that the expert acted within the scope of his or her functions and has consequently informed the government of the member State in question, the mandate holder’s immunity does not seem to be adequately protected because several national courts have not accepted the Secretary-General’s finding as bind- ing or because they ordered a mandate holder to bear the legal expenses. Although Mr. Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers from 1994 to 2003, was indemnified by the United Nations for any costs, expenses or damages arising out of the proceedings in Malaysia 8 it does not seem to be a satisfying solution that the United Nations should need to submit a claim for reimbursement to the Government. Th e two pertinent advisory opinions, delivered by the International Court of Justice in 1989 (Mazilu case 9 ) and 1999 (Cumaraswamy case 10 ), have elucidated certain aspects and notions of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, but carrying out a mandate still lacks sufficient legal secu- rity. A potential lacuna of the protection is triggered by the ICJ statement that national courts may set aside—albeit only “for the most compelling reasons” 11 — the finding by the Secretary-General concerning the expert’s immunity. Th e UN Secretariat’s reasoning of an exclusive authority of the Secretary-General in mat- ters of assertion and waiver of immunity would have offered a higher standard of protection for the Special Rapporteurs, leaving it up to the Government to refer the difference to the ICJ according to Article VIII Section 30 of the 1946 Con- vention. Furthermore, the two advisory opinions of the ICJ have not developed transparent criteria, which could be used by national or international courts in order to scrutinize the Secretary-General’s finding or to evaluate themselves the adherence to the limits of the mandate. In this regard the set of criteria used in 7 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, adopted on 13 February 1946. 8 See the letter dated 22 May 2003 from the Secretary-General to the President of the Economic and Social Council (UN Doc. E/2003/78): “Th e United Nations therefore maintains, in order to fulfil its obligations to hold Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy financially harmless, that the Government of Malaysia should reimburse the Organization in the amount of US$ 118,145.91 for the legal expenses it paid on behalf of Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy in connection with the four lawsuits.” 9 Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations , 15 December 1989, International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1989 , p. 177. 10 Difference relating to immunity from legal process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights , 29 April 1999, International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1999 , p. 62. 11 Ibid. , p. 87 (para. 61). RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 6 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 6 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM</p>
<p>M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 7 the US-American precedent case of Gerritsen v. Escobar Y Cordova 12 might be transferred to the interpretation of the Convention on the Privileges and Immu- nities of the United Nations. Several UN regulations which have been passed since the ICJ advisory opin- ion in 1999 serve to clarify the limits of the mandates and thus they may partly prevent the emergence of disputes. 13 At the same time, they restrict the carrying out of a mandate and consequently any guidelines should only be introduced to the extent that they are imperative. It should not be overlooked that the Spe- cial Rapporteurs’ monitoring role also involves asking awkward questions and denouncing human rights violations in certain countries. Of course it is an important factor for the discussion that the criticized Governments, enterprises, religious communities or individuals may defend themselves against allegations. However, this should not lead to an intimidation of the mandate holders or to their self-censorship and ultimately to a dilution of the special procedures’ con- trolling function. Special procedures were established as subsidiary organs of the Commission on Human Rights according to article 7 section 2 UN Charter and thus they used to be linked to the principle organ ECOSOC. As the Commission on Human Rights was replaced in June 2006 with the Human Rights Council, the latter is now a subsidiary organ of the General Assembly. Although special procedures holders are appointed as ‘independent experts’ in their individual capacity it has been the practice of the Commission on Human Rights to be able to instruct the mandate holders and to correct their reports. In view of this potential influence it is possible to attribute the reports and the acts done by them in the course of their mandate to the United Nations. Apart from these internal instructions from the Commission on Human Rights, however, mandate holders are not subject to any external orders, neither from their home Governments nor from any other UN member state. Considering the universal nature of their mandates, the thematic special procedures are allowed and even obliged to carry out mandate related investigations also in their home countries if there are pertinent allegations. Th e mandate holder’s risk of being sued or prosecuted appears to be increased in his or her country of origin or place of residence. During their mandate and even after its termination they are accorded immunity from legal process of any kind in respect of words spoken or written and acts done by them in the course of the performance of their mission. As Special Rapporteurs are appointed in their per- sonal capacity, a potential change of nationality does not influence their position as mandate holders. 12 Gerritsen v. Escobar Y Cordova , 721 F.Supp. 253–259 (C.D.Cal. 1988). 13 Regulations Governing the Status, Basic Rights and Duties of Officials other than Secretariat Officials, and Experts on Mission , adopted by General Assembly resolution 56/280 of 27 March 2002 ( see also the commentary in UN Doc. ST/SGB/2002/9). RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 7 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 7 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM</p>
<p>8 M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 II. Procedural Issues Th e resolutions by the Commission on Human Rights, ECOSOC and the Gen- eral Assembly have only occasionally instructed the Special Rapporteur on free- dom of religion or belief with regard to procedural matters. Consequently, the three mandate holders d’Almeida Ribeiro, Amor and Jahangir have been able to develop throughout the past twenty years a proper set of activities for their man- date. As a result, a specific procedural framework has emerged within the scope of their letters of allegation, urgent appeals, in situ visits and thematic studies. A. Letters of Allegation/Urgent Appeals Th e essential fact finding instrument of the Special Rapporteur consists in letters of allegation respectively urgent appeals. Having evaluated the received allega- tions and further information, the mandate holder may decide to send either a letter of allegation or an urgent appeal concerning pressing issues to the Govern- ment concerned. Since the assumption of mandate holder Amor in 1993, it is standard practice that the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies does not prevent the Special Rapporteur from dealing with a case. Furthermore, the Special Rap- porteur may send letters of allegation or urgent appeals even when the matter has already been submitted to another procedure of international investigation or settlement. Contrary to the enumeration of legitimate sources for the carrying out of the mandate in the initial resolution of the Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteurs have also considered information from individual per- sons who are not affiliated with a non-governmental organization. Subsequently, this practice of the mandate since 1989 has been implicitly approved by the Com- mission on Human Rights. With regard to the evaluation of allegations it is remarkable that the community of states accepts the universal mandate of the Special Rapporteur ratione loci and ratione temporis even beyond the formal crite- rion of UN membership. 14 Given the fact that complainants neither need to prove their own current injury nor the reasons for acting in the name of the alleged victim, it may be questionable in individual cases whether the alleged victim would actually sup- port the complaint. As far as that goes it seems advisable to develop and docu- ment mandate rules in order to prevent an abuse of such an actio popularis , especially as the names of alleged victims—but not those of the complainants— are disclosed to the Governments and published in the reports since 1989. Occa- sionally, the three mandate holders have also published the names of alleged perpetrators without giving the concerned individuals or their Governments an 14 Cf. the replies from the Governments of the Republic of Korea, Switzerland and Nauru at a time when they were not yet UN member states ( see UN Doc. E/CN.4/1989/44, paras. 59–60; UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/62, paras. 62–63; UN Doc. A/50/440, para. 37). RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 8 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 8 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM</p>
<p>M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 9 opportunity to comment on the allegations. Although private persons tradition- ally only have a limited status under public international law, the individuals directly concerned should—according to the principle audiatur et altera pars— get a hearing at least on the national level when the Government drafts its response and subsequently the Special Rapporteur should take this into account in the published report. While Special Rapporteur d’Almeida Ribeiro did not fix appropriate deadlines for state responses, his mandate successor Amor established in the annual report 1994 a period of two months for letters of allegations and a period of two weeks for urgent appeals. However, the response rate of 38.8 per cent concerning state replies in time and a total response rate of 61.6 per cent during the period from 1988 to 2004 does not reflect a satisfactory level of cooperation from a number of Governments. Initially, there was also a limited willingness to react on urgent appeals but the response rate rose gradually during the following years. Since assuming the mandate in 2004, Special Rapporteur Jahangir has been sending the majority of her urgent appeals jointly with other special procedures holders which has lead to a slightly improved response rate. Twenty Governments, however, have never reacted to letters of allegations from the Special Rapporteur on free- dom of religion or belief since the beginning of the mandate in 1986. Th e most effective leverage, which has been approved by the Commission on Human Rights since 1988, consists in publishing the allegations in the annual reports, even when the Government concerned has not reacted on the Special Rapporteur’s letter. B. Country Visits Given the limited fact finding opportunities in the correspondence with the Gov- ernments, the mandate holders have welcomed the suggestion from the Commis- sion on Human Rights to undertake in situ visits and they have developed this approach especially since the mid-1990s. ‘Terms of reference for fact-finding mis- sions by special rapporteurs/representatives of the Commission on Human Rights’ were adopted during their annual meeting in 1997, thus defining minimum stan- dards for the mandate holders and UN staff accompanying them. 15 Th ey insist that Governments guarantee these minimum standards for in situ visits which has repeatedly led to a denial of the required invitation from the Governments. A simplification of this invitation procedure consists in issuing a so-called ‘standing invitation’ to all thematic special procedures. 16 From 1987 to May 2006 the man- date holders d’Almeida Ribeiro, Amor and Jahangir have undertaken a total of 22 in situ visits. Furthermore, Special Rapporteur Jahangir in 2006 compiled a joint 15 Terms of reference for fact-finding missions by special rapporteurs/representatives of the Commission on Human Rights (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/45, Appendix V). 16 A list of the 56 countries which have extended a standing invitation to thematic procedures as of July 2006 is available at , 30 October 2006. RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 9 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 9 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM</p>
<p>10 M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 report with four other special procedures holders on the situation in Guantánamo Bay even though they had not visited the detention facilities. 17 Consequently, mandate holders may apply additional pressure on Governments which either do not issue an invitation at all or which do not accept the terms of reference for fact-finding missions by Special Rapporteurs. C. Th ematic Studies Th e mandate holders Amor and Jahangir have drafted five thematic studies, thus complementing the traditional reports to the Commission on Human Rights and to the General Assembly with normative activities of the mandate. Two of these thematic studies were destined for the preparatory committee of the 2001 World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban. 18 A further study dealt with ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Status of Women from the Viewpoint of Religion and Traditions’. 19 However, despite an explicit request in the 2004 resolution of the Commission on Human Rights, this study has so far not been translated from the French original version into the other five official UN languages. Special rap- porteur Amor also initiated the 2001 ‘International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination’ in Madrid which adopted a Final Document by con- sensus. Although the Madrid Final Document is not legally binding per se , its potential can be seen in the involvement of non-governmental organizations and religious communities during the deliberations. Finally, Special Rapporteur Jahangir submitted a study on ‘Incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance’ upon the request of the Human Rights Council for its second session in September 2006. 20 17 Situation of detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Report of the Chairperson-Rapporteur of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Leila Zerrougui; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy; the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Manfred Nowak; the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir; and the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Paul Hunt (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/120). 18 Racial discrimination and religious discrimination: identification and measures, Study prepared by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance (UN Doc. A/CONF.189/PC.1/7, Annex); Racial discrimination, religious intolerance and education, Study prepared by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance (UN Doc. A/CONF.189/PC.2/22, Annex). 19 Rapport soumis par M. Abdelfattah Amor, Rapporteur spécial, conformément à la résolution 2001/42 de la Commission des droits de l’homme, Additif: Étude sur la liberté de religion ou de conviction et la condition de la femme au regard de la religion et des traditions (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2). 20 Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, and the Special Rap- porteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diène, further to Human Rights Council decision 1/107 on incitement to racial and religious hatred and the promotion of tolerance (UN Doc. A/HRC/2/3). RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 10 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 10 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM 9/21/07 2:08:38 PM</p>
<p>M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 11 III. Substantive Issues A. Legal Norms Governing the Mandate Th e mandate practice has changed significantly throughout the past twenty years in terms of the substantive legal norms taken as a basis by the Special Rappor- teurs. Th e 1986 resolution of the Commission on Human Rights did not refer— unlike its first draft—to article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR 21 ) or to article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR 22 ). Consequently, the first mandate holder d’Almeida Ribeiro took the provisions of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief (1981 Declara- tion 23 ) as his single point of reference. Step by step, the second mandate holder Amor carefully incorporated further legal norms—especially the pertinent article 18 UDHR, articles 4, 18 and 20 ICCPR and article 13 of the International Cove- nant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC 24 )—into the mandate. Th e current Special Rapporteur Jahangir has enlarged this legal basis even further in referring to General Comments of the UN Human Rights Committee and to a number of Declarations and Guidelines. Th e initial mandate practice of quot- ing provisions of the 1981 Declaration has continually declined and only recently the rights enumerated in article 6 of the 1981 Declaration have been resuscitated in Ms. Jahangir’s 2006 framework for communications. Th is development has been implicitly approved by the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly and since the mid-1990s they have gradually referred the mandate to article 18 UDHR and article 18 ICCPR. Meanwhile they also quote the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 25 the Millennium Declaration 26 and the Durban Declaration 27 in their resolutions. Th e fact that the provisions of the 1981 Declaration are no longer the only bench- mark for the mandate is significant because the 1981 Declaration contains a 21 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948. 22 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. 23 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Reli- gion or Belief, proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 36/55 of 25 November 1981. 24 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, adopted and opened for signa- ture, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200 A (XXI) of 16 December 1966. 25 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 (UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23). 26 United Nations Millenium Declaration, adopted by General Assembly resolution 55/2 of 8 Septem- ber 2000. 27 Durban Declaration, adopted by the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in Durban on 8 September 2001 (UN Doc. A/CONF.189/12). RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 11 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 11 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM</p>
<p>12 M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 specific prohibition of discrimination whereas UDHR and ICCPR encompass the broader concept of freedom of religion or belief. Th e decision to rename the title of the mandate in 2000 into ‘Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief ’ thus mirrors the evolution of the mandate, i.e. from the management of intol- erance to the role of an educator with a dialogue-oriented preventive approach. B. Customary International Law or Subsidiary Means for the Determination of Rules of Law? As the practice of the mandate holders is increasingly characterized by legal convictions it is appropriate to examine the hypothesis that these substantive statements might be capable of contributing to the development of customary international law in shaping the contents of human rights. Th e forming of cus- tomary international law requires a general practice ( consuetudo ) which is accepted as law ( opinio iuris sive necessitatis ). Concerning the determination of consuetudo and opinio iuris not only states but also other subjects of international law may be taken into consideration; however, international organizations can only partici- pate in forming customary law within the limits of the exercise of the functions entrusted to them. Contrary to Beate Rudolf ’s view in her doctoral thesis 28 a direct contribution of Special Rapporteurs to the development of customary international law is to be rejected. Th e firm positions taken by Governments from different world regions give evidence that they explicitly do not share the convic- tion to be legally bound by the Special Rapporteurs’ statements or by the Com- mission on Human Rights’ resolutions. In addition, the approaches of the mandate holders d’Almeida Ribeiro, Amor and Jahangir as manifested in the practice from 1986 to 2006 also speak against their direct contribution to cus- tomary international law. Since they act as subsidiary organs of the Commission on Human Rights—respectively now of the Human Rights Council—it is out of question that their acts were attributable to the state practice of their home coun- tries or potentially relevant as the practice of private individuals. Furthermore, the attempt to involve the reports as ‘practice of international organizations’ into forming customary international human rights is also flawed. As Governments are potentially bound by these international customary rules, the state practice continues to play a decisive role. Since the required opinio iuris is an opinion “what the law is ”—and not only “what the law ought to be ” 29 —it seems important 28 See Beate Rudolf, Die thematischen Berichterstatter und Arbeitsgruppen der UN-Menschenrechtskom- mission (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, Barcelona, Hong Kong, London, Mailand, Paris, Singa- pur, Tokio, 2000), pp. 48-54 and 555-556. See also her article on ‘Th e Th ematic Rapporteurs and Working Groups of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights’ (2000) 4 Max Planck Year- book of United Nations Law pp. 297–299, , 30 October 2006. 29 See J. S. Watson, ‘Legal Th eory, Efficacy and Validity in the Development of Human Rights Norms in International Law’ (1979) 3 University of Illinois Law Forum , p. 609. RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 12 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 12 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM</p>
<p>M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 13 to link the creation of custom to the addressee of the reports, i.e. the Governments. It would not be appropriate to regard a Special Rapporteur’s legal statement as a concretization of customary international human rights in case the uniform state practice unambiguously conflicted with this opinion. During the 25 years of the existence of special procedures, the Commission on Human Rights has only on one occasion formally censored a report 30 and there are no efficient control mech- anisms with regard to Special Rapporteurs’ statements. Furthermore, it seems unrealistic to impose a duty on all member states and observer states of the Com- mission/Council to permanently check and object to the reports if the Govern- ments want to prevent the Special Rapporteurs’ statements from entering the arena of customary international law. Given these dogmatic and practical concerns it is argued that the reports do not contribute directly to the development or con- cretization of human rights under customary international law. On the other hand, the mandate holders’ reports may be taken as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. Th e published reports can neither be subsumed under ‘judicial decisions’ nor under ‘teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations’ according to article 38 section 1 (d) of the Statute of the ICJ but they are typically characterized by elements of both of these alternatives. In the determination of rules of law the ICJ refers in advisory opinions 31 and in legal disputes 32 to reports of special procedures; likewise several Governments in the course of the written 33 and oral 34 ICJ proceedings. Reports 30 A quote in para. 27 of the annual report 1997 of Maurice Glèlè-Ahanhanzo, Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance from 1993 to 2002 (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/71) was formally censored by Commission on Human Rights decision 1997/125 of 18 April 1997. 31 Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory , 9 July 2004, International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, paras. 57 and 133 () as well as the Separate Opinions of Judge Rosalyn Higgins (paras. 23 and 40, ) and of Judge Nabil Elaraby (para. 3.3, ). 32 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) , 19 Decem- ber 2005, International Court of Justice, paras. 60, 70, 150, 182, 206 and 209, ; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) , International Court of Justice, Order of 10 July 2002, Separate Opinion of Judge Jean-Pierre Mavungu, footnote 2, . 33 Land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria , Rejoinder of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, January 2001, para. 18.12, . 34 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) , Counsel of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Tshibangu Kalala, Verbatim Record of 25 April 2005, para. 21 as well as footnotes 9 and 32, . See , however, the different approach in Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) , Counsel of Serbia and Montenegro Xavier de Roux, Verbatim Record of 14 March 2006, paras. 16, 61 and 120, . RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 13 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 13 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM</p>
<p>14 M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 of mandate holders appear to be particularly suitable as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law because through the reproduction of the corre- spondence with the Governments they document the opinio iuris of the latter and at the same time the Special Rapporteurs may evaluate the state practice by undertaking in situ visits and by processing information from non-governmental organizations. C. Th e Special Rapporteur’s Framework for Communications Finally, the substantive legal statements of the three mandate holders as Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief from 1986 to 2006 are presented according to the categories of Ms. Jahangir’s framework for communications (see UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/5, Annex and the layout below) in order to make trans- parent their potential as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. Concerning the notions of ‘religion’ and ‘belief ’ the mandate holders did not formulate a final definition but they tended to interpret the scope of application of the freedom of religion or belief in line with the principle in dubio pro libertate . Th e forum internum comprises the freedom to adopt, to change and to replace one’s religion or belief, i.e. the Special Rapporteurs explicitly recognize a right to Freedom of religion or belief Freedom to adopt, change or renounce a religion or belief Freedom from coercion Freedom to worship Places of worship Religious symbols Observance of holidays and days of rest Appointing clergy Teaching and disseminating materials (including missionary activity) The right of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children Registration Communicate with individuals and communities on religious matters at the national and international level Establish and maintain charitable and humanitarian institutions/solicit and receive funding Conscientious objection Discrimination on the basis of religion or belief/ inter-religious discrimination/tolerance The right to manifest one's religion or belief State religion Women Persons deprived of their liberty Refugees Children Minorities Migrant workers Freedom of expression including questions related to religious conf licts, religious intolerance and extremism Right to life, right to liberty Prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment Derogation Limitation Legislative issues Defenders of freedom of religion or belief and non-governmental organizations Discrimination Vulnerable groups Intersection of freedom of religion or belief with other human rights Cross-cutting issues Framework for communications (E/CN.4/2006/5, Annex) RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 14 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 14 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM</p>
<p>M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 15 35 Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (UN Doc. A/60/399), paras. 40–68. 36 Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (UN Doc. E/CN.4/ 2006/5), paras. 51–60. 37 Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, Interim report prepared by Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief (UN Doc. A/58/296), paras. 51–52. 38 Report submitted by Asma Jahangir, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/61), paras. 57–58. conversion. Th e liberty of parents or legal guardians to ensure that their children receive a religious or moral education in conformity with their own convictions must be respected but the right to change one’s religion devolves upon the chil- dren at the point at which they are capable to take such a decision themselves. Th e freedom from coercion bars both physical coercion and certain forms of state-sponsored incentives or pressure; however, non-state missionary activities such as “unethical conversions” should not be criminalized in abstract terms. 35 With regard to the freedom to worship, the mandate holders discussed, inter alia , the religious use of the narcotic drug peyote during a traditional ceremony of the Native American Church and they warned of potential adverse conse- quences when religious rites were prohibited. Restrictions imposed by the state on places of worship and attacks by non-state actors do not only violate the right of a single individual but also the rights of the community attached to the place in question. Special rapporteur Jahangir developed a set of general indicators in order to evaluate whether national laws regulating the wearing of religious sym- bols are in conformity with the applicable international human rights standards. 36 National provisions on religious holidays and days of rest may lead to problems in multi-religious societies which could be solved by applying exemptions for religious minorities. Th e state should not restrict the right to appoint appropriate religious leaders and clergy beyond the permissible limitations. Th e right to free- dom of thought, conscience, religion or belief includes the freedom to teach and disseminate relevant publications as well as missionary activities, particularly as proselytism is itself inherent in religion. Although the Madrid Final Document of the international consultative conference on ‘School Education in Relation with Freedom of Religion and Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination’ can only be regarded so far as soft law, the Special Rapporteur used it as a yardstick for desir- able non-discriminatory contents of school textbooks. 37 Concerning the proce- dure for registration of religious communities, Special Rapporteur Jahangir referred to the 2004 guidelines prepared by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe in consultation with the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. 38 Th e contentious issue whether the freedom of religion or belief also comprises the right to entry for foreign missionaries has so far been dealt with only superficially. Th e Special Rapporteurs have criticized various national restric- tions on charitable institutions and their funding through contributions but they RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 15 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 15 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM 9/21/07 2:08:39 PM</p>
<p>16 M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 also pointed to possible implications of a financial dependency on foreign sources and to pertinent codes of conduct for humanitarian NGOs. Although neither article 18 UDHR nor article 18 ICCPR explicitly refer to conscientious objec- tion, the mandate holders assume that it represents a (fundamental) right as part of the freedom of religion or belief and they request the states’ provision of pro- cedural and substantive guarantees. 39 In addition, the mandate practice has dealt with a number of discriminatory acts both from the states and from non-state actors, thus affirming an obligation for states to protect against private discrimination and working on the assump- tion that there are indirect horizontal effects. Th e fact that a religion is recognized as a State religion or that it is established as official or traditional is not per se contrary to international human rights but it shall not result in any impairment of the rights of religious minorities. Special rapporteur Amor thoroughly examined the issue of vulnerability of women in his 2002 thematic study on ‘Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Status of Women from the Viewpoint of Religion and Traditions’. Concerning persons deprived of their liberty the mandate holders Amor and Jahangir called for the compliance with the 1955 Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. 40 Refugees and migrant workers may also find themselves in a situ- ation of specific vulnerability with regard to their freedom of religion or belief. Th e Special Rapporteurs repeatedly referred to the primary consideration of the best interests of the child as well as to their freedom of religion or belief. Reli- gious minorities should not only be granted privileges by the states but they rather dispose of inherent rights which have to be ensured and protected by the Governments. Th ere may be intersections of freedom of religion or belief with other human rights, i.e. when different human rights are simultaneously violated by an act or when there is a potential conflict between freedom of religion or belief and another human right. In the context of the controversy subsequent to the publi- cations of caricatures of the prophet Mohammed, the Special Rapporteur Jahan- gir emphasized the importance both of the freedom of expression and of the freedom of religion or belief that should be equally respected and protected. Th e mandate holder d’Almeida Ribeiro dealt with the fatwa against the author 39 Report submitted by Mr. Angelo Vidal d’Almeida Ribeiro, Special Rapporteur appointed in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1986/20 of 10 March 1986 (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1992/52), paras. 132–139 and 185; Interim report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, prepared by Mr. Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, in accordance with General Assembly resolution 50/183 of 22 December 1995 (UN Doc. A/51/542), paras. 53–54; Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received [by Ms. Asma Jahangir] (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.1), paras. 10–11, 25–26, 138, 305 and 364. 40 Elimination of all forms of religious intolerance, Report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir (UN Doc. A/60/399), paras. 69–91. RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 16 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 16 9/21/07 2:08:40 PM 9/21/07 2:08:40 PM</p>
<p>M. Wiener / Religion and Human Rights 2 (2007) 3–17 17 Salman Rushdie in terms of the latter’s right to life and the Special Rapporteur referred to the requirements concerning the imposition of the death penalty under article 6 ICCPR. 41 In Ms. Jahangir’s opinion, the punishments of amputa- tion or stoning contained in certain sharia penal codes constitute treatment that is contrary to universally recognized norms prohibiting torture and other degrad- ing, cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment. 42 Th e provision in article 4 section 2 ICCPR, according to which no derogation from article 18 ICCPR may be made even in time of public emergency, was taken by the mandate holders Amor and Jahangir as evidence of the fundamental importance of the freedom of religion or belief. Furthermore, they voiced their concerns against vague legal provisions which were liable to permit interference by the authorities, granting them excessive discretionary powers. Even when dis- tinctions are provided for in the national constitution, international human rights such as the prohibition of discrimination according to article 26 ICCPR take precedence. Finally, the Special Rapporteurs d’Almeida Ribeiro, Amor and Jahan- gir emphasized the important role that non-governmental organizations play within the framework of the mandate practice, particularly as sources of informa- tion and due to their support during in situ visits. 43 41 Report submitted by Mr. Angelo Vidal d’Almeida Ribeiro, Special Rapporteur appointed in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1986/20 of 10 March 1986 (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/62), para. 79. 42 Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, Mission to Nigeria (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.2), paras. 67–68 and 100. 43 Report submitted by Mr. Angelo Vidal d’Almeida Ribeiro, Special Rapporteur appointed in accordance with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1986/20 of 10 March 1986 (UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/62), para. 73; Interim report of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief [Mr. Abdelfattah Amor] (UN Doc. A/56/253), paras. 151–156; Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Asma Jahangir, Mission to Nigeria (UN Doc. E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.2), para. 7. RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 17 RHRS 2,1-2_f2_3-17.indd 17 9/21/07 2:08:40 PM 9/21/07 2:08:40 PM</p>
<p>RHRS 2,1-2_f3_18-30.indd 18 RHRS 2,1-2_f3_18-30.indd 18 9/21/07 2:28:34 PM 9/21/07 2:28:34 PM</p>
</body></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues</title></titleInfo><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Michael</namePart><namePart type="family">Wiener</namePart></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article"></genre><originInfo><publisher>BRILL</publisher><place><placeTerm type="text">The Netherlands</placeTerm></place><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2007</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2007</dateCreated><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2007</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><physicalDescription><internetMediaType>text/html</internetMediaType></physicalDescription><subject><genre>keywords</genre><topic>SPECIAL RAPPORTEURS</topic><topic>LETTERS OF ALLEGATION AND COUNTRY VISITS</topic><topic>CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW</topic><topic>PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF MANDATE HOLDERS</topic><topic>UN HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL</topic><topic>SUBSIDIARY MEANS FOR THE DETERMINATION OF RULES OF LAW</topic></subject><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Religion & Human Rights</title><subTitle>An International Journal</subTitle></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>RHRS</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal">journal</genre><identifier type="ISSN">1871-031X</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1871-0328</identifier><part><date>2007</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>2</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>1-2</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>3</start><end>17</end></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1163/187103107X218911</identifier><identifier type="href">18710328_002_01-02_s001_text.pdf</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="copyright">© 2007 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource>BRILL Journals</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Rhénanie/explor/UnivTrevesV1/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 000F24 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 000F24 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Rhénanie
|area= UnivTrevesV1
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:DC40326D0449F34F48C271ABB3D054282CB2AB44
|texte= The Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Religion or Belief—Institutional, Procedural and Substantive Legal Issues
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.31. |  |