A/73/362 as a national security imperative (see A/HRC/37/49). These States may, therefore, promote a specific religion or religions through indirect means, as opposed to official legislation. For example, States may promote a particular religion, or an interpretation of a religion, through social media and official Government statements while simultaneously securitizing other religions or beliefs in order to limit proselytization among national populations. 10 IV. Key challenges to preventing and countering violent extremism and protecting freedom of religion or belief 22. The protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief while countering violent extremism is complicated for a number of reasons. First, the lack of a consensus definition as to what constitutes “violent extremism” undercuts the development of a cogent global strategy for countering terrorism and preventing violent extremism and contributes to abusive practices, such as the conflation of beliefs and practices that are believed to be extreme with “violent extremism”. Second, the use of violence in the name of religio n or belief by some tends to stigmatize other members of that religion or belief community, regardless of their conduct. Third, as mentioned in paragraph 8 above, although what one believes or does not believe is absolutely inviolable, the public manifesta tion of religion or belief may be restricted in exceptional circumstances and in strict compliance with the limitations regime prescribed by international law. Finally, the right to freedom of religion or belief is both reinforced and challenged by other h uman rights, such as freedom of expression. A. Defining “violent extremism” 23. The former Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Mr. Emmerson, noted in his 2016 report to the Human Rights Council that a significant challenge to countering violent extremism was the lack of a universally accepted comprehensive definition for identifying instances of such acts (see A/HRC/31/65, para. 55). Moreover, the existing international legal framework on counter-terrorism stipulates obligations in relation to terrorism and violent extremism without providing a comprehensive definition of these terms. 11 This has led United Nations entities that are engaged in preventing or countering violent extremism and many States to adopt overly broad definitions that are prone to unintended human rights abuses and even the deliberate misuse of the term (see A/HRC/31/65). 24. Another former Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, Martin Scheinin, warned that “there is a risk that the international community’s use of the notion of ‘terrorism’, without defining the term, results in the unintentional international legitimization of conduct undertaken by oppressive regimes, through delivering the __________________ 10 11 8/22 Sos Avetisyan and others, “The ‘mantra of stability’ versus human security in the post-Soviet space”, Global Campus Human Rights Journal, vol. 1, No. 2 (2017). However, the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism, art. 2 (b), defines a terrorist act as: “Any other act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to a civilian, or to any other person not taking an active part in the hostilities in a situation of armed conflict, when the purpose of such act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population, or to compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act.” 18-14697