A/73/362 work, or indeed in public places, illustrate the complexities and pressing nature of questions regarding the scope and limitations of freedom of religion or belief. On the one hand, some secularists have strongly advocated that manifestations of religion should be restricted to the private sphere in order to maintain a “neutral” space in which all persons, of all origins and beliefs, can be treated equally. Others argue that everyone should be allowed to manifest their religion or belief freely, in accordance with their rights as enshrined in international human rights norms and standards, and highlight the uneven impacts that facially neutral laws have on different faith -based communities. The Special Rapporteur reiterates that any and all such restrictions on the manifestation of religion or belief must strictly comply with the limitations regime specified under international human rights law, and must be based on clear eviden ce. 41. The need to protect public safety and public order is of course clear. The danger, however, is that a State may use such an excuse to limit the rights of persons belonging to a religion or belief community that it finds inconvenient, and some have taken the public safety and order limitation to mean “public interest restrictions”. In many cases, such limitations in the public’s interest have been extended to promote a restrictive form of secularism. 42. Moreover, it is not always possible to separate conscience-based commitments and acts of religion or belief from faith or internal belief systems, particularly when deciding on issues concerning the right to “act” in accordance with one’s religion or belief. That is, faith-based commitments cannot always be contained within the private sphere. For some, their religion or belief is a way of life, and certain precepts are understood to be enjoinments to public expression of religion or belief. Furthermore, values based on religion or belief often dictate standards of social conduct and responsibility that require individuals to act accordingly. In other words, for many there is a strong interrelationship between their beliefs and their way of life. 43. In recognition of this premise, the forum internum enjoys unqualified protection under international law. However, the underlying philosophy of several programmes to prevent and counter violent extremism attempt to place limitations on forum internum (which is an absolute, non-derogable right) vis-à-vis religious expression (which is not an absolute right). The Special Rapporteur notes that attempts to “police” the internal sphere may amount to indirect coercion in matters of religion or belief and may violate the absolute prohibition against intrusion in the forum internum. D. Reconciling freedom of religion or belief and other rights 44. The exercise of freedom of religion or belief is dependent on the enjoyment of other human rights. These include freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, association and movement, the rights to privacy and equality before the law, education, the highest attainable standard of health and many more. Freedom of religion or belief achieves its full meaning only in the broad context of human rights. Indeed, many aspects of freedom of religion or belief have little or no meaning if other human rights are not effectively secured. At times, this can result in competing claims between the right to freedom of religion or belief and other human rights, or between religious and secular interests. 45. While national security is not, as already noted, included in article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as a legitimate ground for limiting the manifestation of religion or belief, public sa fety is, and given the broad scope of activities that could be perceived to act as a threat to public safety, “there is a risk that States will cite them to justify restrictions on [freedom of religion or belief] imposed for reasons tantamount to national security 12/22 18-14697