A/73/362 III. A broad spectrum of national laws and practices 13. States have responded to violent extremism with a rapid proliferation in legislative, administrative and policy measures that target a range of activities carried out by both individuals and communities. The measures include legislation that criminalizes the presumed “precursors” to terrorism (i.e., speech deemed to be “extremist”, racist, xenophobic or discriminatory), and activities that focus on countering the recruitment strategies advanced by terrorist groups. Some Sta tes have supported programmes that focus on the so-called triggers for violent extremist behaviour by promoting civil society interventions or fostering the capacity of certain communities to advance detection and counselling programmes. Others have adopted measures that focus on the underlying conditions, or drivers, of violent extremism. 14. In many cases, State responses to violent extremism pose serious challenges to the defence of freedom of religion or belief. They have responded to violent extremism by: (a) enacting new laws and policies which directly restrict freedom of religion or belief; (b) curtailing enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief as a consequence of setting limitations on other fundamental rights; or (c) scrutinizing religious organizations and intruding into the religious affairs of religious communities. In recent years, a number of joint communications have been issued to States by the special procedures mandate holders, together with the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, concerning direct discriminatory practices and heavy-handed State restrictions imposed on persons belonging to religious or belief minorities who are alleged to be threats to the public order. A. Registration requirements 15. Many Governments have become concerned about the possibility that groups viewed as “extremist”, or deemed to be threats to national identity or the public order, could acquire legal personality, thereby gaining benefits, exemptions and other entitlements. Some States have addressed these concerns by creating mandatory registration systems, denying or revoking the registration of certain communities, enacting more restrictive registration laws or requiring formerly registered communities to re-register (see A/HRC/22/51, paras. 42–43). 16. As a consequence of such measures, some religious or belief communities have been unable to gain access to or maintain legal personality status. Access to legal personality falls within the scope of the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is essential for the day-to-day operations of many religious or belief communities. However, under international human rights law, religious or belief communities are not obliged to seek legal personality if they do not wish to do so. Individual believers and non-believers and religious or belief communities still hold rights under international human rights law even if formal recognition for their faith is not provided for or not granted by a State or authority, or even if it is revoked. 17. Regardless, depriving a religious or belief community of legal status can have a tremendous impact on the collective aspects of the right to freedom of religion or belief, including the ability of adherents to practice their faith together with others — jeopardizing the viability of the community itself. Absence of legal personality also raises questions of property ownership for these communities, including those which 6/22 18-14697