A/73/362 function as places of worship and education. Again, that can directly affect the collective dimension of the human right to freedom of religion or belief. 8 B. Freedom of movement 18. Some States have modified various aspects of their legislation to prevent the internal movement of individuals considered to be “extremists”, which can result in discriminatory practices involving religion or belief. Contrary to international human rights norms, these practices include initiatives to relocate individuals within their country of residence or nationality, measures that amend the rules applicable to asylum seekers or migrants and steps to review citizenship rules and even revoke citizenship. Such measures can obviously have a serious impact on freedom of movement. They also negatively affect the right to the presumption of innocence and the right to due process, the right to be protected against the arbitrary deprivation of nationality, the right to liberty and security and the right to freedom of religion or belief (see A/HRC/31/65, para. 41). C. Profiling, surveillance and harassment 19. States also continue to adopt, within the framework of preventing and countering violent extremism, legislation and policies that profile members of certain religious or belief groups (which are deemed by the State concerned as inclined towards “radicalization”, “extremism”, or criminality) on the basis of stereotypes, including policies that classify peaceful manifestations of religious belief as indicators of support for violent extremism. Others are increasingly misusing vaguely worded national security measures to target political opponents, human rights defenders, journalists, environmental activists, artists and labour leaders. Many other States have concerns that some places of worship are environments for radicalization that will lead to terrorism and/or recruitment by groups that espouse violence, and have responded by reviewing sermons, screening and interrogating those who enter and leave places of worship and employing other monitoring activities. Occasionally, Governments have shuttered places of worship and prohibited certain religious leaders from maintaining or being appointed to certain positions in the community. 20. Moreover, according to a study, there are still Governments who use security reasons to formally ban religious or belief groups and render membership in these groups a criminal offence. 9 The criteria for this do not always appear to be clear, or closely connected to proof of the group’s engagement in or material support for violence or its incitement. Some States only recognize a specific religion or religions, restrict the practice of other religions or beliefs and invoke so -called security measures to inhibit the promotion of those religions, often contending that allowing for the practices of different religions or beliefs woul d increase social hostilities. In many cases, persons prosecuted under these laws are deemed to be members of a faith or belief community that “distorts” the interpretations of “recognized” religions. 21. In a similar vein, for some States the promotion of a specific religion or religions is, in fact, a matter of national identity and therefore its protection is, in itself, treated __________________ 8 9 18-14697 For a rich discussion of the negative impact of this, see Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Guidelines on the Legal Personality of Religious or Belief Communities (Warsaw, OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, 2014). Available at www.osce.org/odihr/139046. Pew Research Center, Global Uptick in Government Restrictions on Religion in 2016 (2018). Available at www.pewforum.org/2018/06/21/global-uptick-in-government-restrictions-onreligion-in-2016/. 7/22