A/HRC/10/8/Add.3 page 17 religious beliefs. In addition, some provisions are discriminatory in giving preferential treatment to re-conversions, for example by stipulating that returning to the forefathers’ original religion or to one’s own original religion shall not be construed as conversion.19 49. Furthermore, the requirement of advance notice or prior permission seems to be unduly onerous for the individual who intends to convert. Any state inquiry into the substantive beliefs and motivation for conversion is highly problematic since it may lead to interference with the internal and private realm of the individual’s belief (forum internum). This approach is aggravated if such a Freedom of Religion Act awards specific protection to the state government and its officers against prosecution or legal proceedings with regard to “anything done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act or any rule made thereunder”.20 Moreover, it seems unclear who may bring an action for, or lodge an appeal against, decisions with regard to the permissibility of a religious conversion. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that any concern raised with regard to certain conversions or how they might be accomplished should primarily be raised by the alleged victim. 50. Even in the Indian states which have adopted laws on religious conversion there seem to be only few - if any - convictions for conversion by the use of force, inducement or fraudulent means. In Orissa, for example, not a single infringement over the past ten years of the Orissa Freedom of Religion Act 1967 could be cited or adduced by district officials and senior officials in the State Secretariat.21 However, such laws or even draft legislation have had adverse consequences for religious minorities and have reportedly fostered mob violence against them. There is a risk that “Freedom of Religion Acts” may become a tool in the hands of those who wish to use religion for vested interests or to persecute individuals on the ground of their religion or belief. While persecution, violence or discrimination based on religion or belief need to be sanctioned by law, the Special Rapporteur would like to caution against excessive or vague legislation on religious issues which could create tensions and problems instead of solving them. 51. The National Commission for Minorities also has expressed its profound concern over the attempt in such state laws on religious conversion to interfere with the basic right to freedom of religion or belief. Provisions relating to notice and selective enquiry will allow state functionaries to interfere in matters of personal life and religious beliefs, thus impinging on freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion guaranteed by article 25 of the Constitution. The Special Rapporteur would like to add that, according to universally accepted international standards, the right to freedom of religion or belief includes the right to adopt a religion of one’s choice, the right to change religion and the right to maintain 19 Section 2 of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act 2006. However, the state governor has withheld assent to this amendment Act. See also section 2 of the Gujarat Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Bill 2006, which was ultimately withdrawn by the state government on 10 March 2008. 20 21 See section 5C of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act 2006. National Commission for Minorities, Report of the Chhattisgarh Freedom of Religion (Amendment) Act 2006.e online at http://ncm.nic.in/pdf/orissa%20report.pdf).