A/55/280 93. The difficulties facing these communities as identified by the Special Rapporteur arise at the level of relations with the State, in the form of an outright ban on the community (see the case of China); the refusal of registration (Turkmenistan); prohibitions against certain expressions of freedom of religion or belief, such as the refusal to allow the building of places of worship (Russian Federation); direct attacks on freedom of religion or even belief, such as all actions aimed at forcing a person to renounce his faith or belief (Turkmenistan); and, lastly, arrests and convictions (China); ill-treatment and even expulsions (Turkmenistan). 94. These minority communities may, furthermore, have confrontational relations with a society that perceives them as dangerous “sects” (Russian Federation, Azerbaijan). The media may also sometimes convey a message of rejection and hatred of them (Azerbaijan). Likewise, some communities may represent a danger to society, as in the cases of the collective suicides orchestrated by the leaders of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in Uganda. 95. Regardless of the cases and situations, States remain responsible for protecting these vulnerable groups — women and minorities — against intolerance and discrimination. Such responsibility applies also to the protection of society and its citizens against any abuses committed, in this instance, by communities of religion or belief, in the same way as any group and individual that breaks the law. The responsibility of States also implies the establishment and implementation of a legal arsenal, which, while ensuring respect for freedom of religion and belief, must make it possible to combat charlatanism, abuse of trust, corruption of minors, the illegal practice of medicine and, more generally, the use of freedom of religion and belief for unrelated purposes. Defamation 96. Several communications from the Special Rapporteur deal with the question of defamation. The Special Rapporteur explained above (para. 85) his interest in Commission on Human Rights resolution 2000/84, which rightly points out the negative stereotypes affecting religions. 97. Nevertheless, as shown by the allegations in this report concerning Jordan and Indonesia, the question of defamation, addressed also through the question of blasphemy, is twofold. It has been noted that, very frequently, prohibitions against acts of defamation or blasphemy are misused for the purposes of outright censorship of the right to criticism and discussion of religion and related questions. In many cases, defamation becomes the tool of extremists in censoring and maintaining or propagating obscurantism. It becomes a weapon of war, particularly against vulnerable groups, be they women (see addendum 2 to this report, on Bangladesh) or ethnic or religious minorities (see the report of the Special Rapporteur on his mission to Pakistan (E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1)), or simply non-obscurantist intellectual minorities. In any event, one must be very cautious in dealing with the question of defamation, displaying intellectual vigilance and wisdom in view of the primary aim of protecting and promoting human rights. IV. In situ visits and follow-up procedure 98. The Special Rapporteur continued an important part of his mandate, namely, in situ visits. In that connection, two addenda to this interim report are before the General Assembly: one deals with the visit to Turkey from 30 November to 9 December 2000 and the other deals with the visit to Bangladesh from 15 to 24 May 2000. The Special Rapporteur wishes to thank the Governments of Bangladesh and Turkey for their cooperation during these visits. 99. The Special Rapporteur also received, on 30 March 2000, a positive response from Argentina to his request for a visit. The dates of that visit will be set as soon as possible. 100. This year, the Special Rapporteur asked to visit Nigeria. The Permanent Mission of Nigeria in Geneva informed him that a reply would be forthcoming as soon as the Government’s decision was received. 101. Unfortunately, the Special Rapporteur notes the lack of response to his requests to visit the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation, Indonesia and Israel. He would like to point out that the Commission on Human Rights, in its resolution 2000/33, again calls upon all Governments to cooperate fully with the Special Rapporteur, to respond favourably to requests from the Special Rapporteur to visit their countries and to give serious consideration to 23