A/73/362 advocacy of hatred. However, most of the other meetings held under the auspices of the Istanbul Process focused more on normative contestation and politicization and externalization of concerns, rather than a practitioner-focused, introspective engagement across a wide range of stakeholders. 61. Amid rising intolerance and concerns about the negative impacts of some activities to prevent and counter violent extremism, the Special Rapporteur recommends that States revitalize the Istanbul Process at a practitioner level, aimed at learning from best practices and fostering introspection and collaboration on capacity-building. The added value of the Istanbul Process is its usefulness as a guide for States to promote religious pluralism while mitigating some of the negative side effects of policies to prevent and counter violent extremism and fostering long -term cohesion. B. Rabat Plan of Action 62. Another related and important soft law standard is the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (see A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix), which was adopted by experts at a meeting in Rabat in October 2012. The Special Rapporteur and his predecessor have outlined the importance of the Rabat Plan of Action in addressing advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to violence, discrimination and hostility (see A/HRC/25/58, A/HRC/28/66, A/HRC/31/18, A/HRC/34/50 and A/72/365). It provides practical guidance through a six-part test that takes into account the context of the statement, the speaker’s position and intent, the content and extent of the speech and the likelihood that the speech would incite action against the target group (see A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix, para. 29). This test is being used by the national authorities for audiovisual communication in Côte d ’Ivoire, Morocco and Tunisia (see A/HRC/37/3, para. 69), and the European Court of Human Rights also referred to the Rabat Plan of Action in a recent judgment. 29 63. In a thematic resolution, the Human Rights Council called for the international community’s effective implementation of resolution 16/18, the Istanbul Process and the Rabat Plan of Action “in order to contribute to a more conducive environment to countering hate speech and violence” (see Human Rights Council resolution 34/8). Similarly, in a country-specific resolution, the Human Rights Council encouraged the Government of Myanmar to increase further efforts to promote tolerance and peaceful coexistence in all sectors of society in accordance with Council resolution 16/18 and the Rabat Plan of Action (see resolution 34/22). In his July 2018 update on the situation of human rights of Rohingya people, the High Commissioner for Human Rights referred to resolution 16/18 and the Rabat Plan of Action, as well as to the Beirut Declaration on Faith for Rights and its 18 commitments (see below), in order to address advocacy of hatred that incites violence, discriminat ion or hostility, particularly when it is conducted in the name of religion or belief. 30 This illustrates the complementarity and practical usefulness of these soft law standards. __________________ 29 30 18-14697 European Court of Human Rights, Case of Mariya Alekhina and Others v. Russia, paras. 110, 187, 190–191 and 223. See also the separate opinion of Judge Elósegui, para. 14. See A/HRC/38/CRP.2, para. 4. Available at www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/RegularSessions/ Session38/Pages/ListReports.aspx. 17/22