A/76/380 constitutes “mental autonomy”. Ultimately, scholars propose three categories of impermissible alteration of one’s thought that could violate freedom of thought. (a) Coercion 29. While article 18 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects against “coercion which would impair [the] freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief [of choice]”, the drafting history of the Covenant suggests that this protection includes freedom from certain forms of “psychological” 55 influence, which legal scholars interpret to include coercive alteration of thought. 56 Scholars equally assert that because “thought” is part of the process through which individuals generate a belief or religious conviction, its coercive alteration could have derivative protections under article 18 (2) of the Covenant. Similarly, the Human Rights Committee has held that freedom from coercion protects freedom of conscience, which, like thought, is an absolute freedom not explicitly mentioned in article 18 (2). 57 30. There is no single definition of “coercion” within international human rights law. Across national jurisdictions, definitions vary but generally include: use of force, or an express or implied threat that puts the victim in immediate and reasonable fear of the consequences, thereby compelling the victim to act contrary to their will. 58 In examining coercion claims, the Human Rights Committee has affirmatively considered that threats of violence or penal sanction, 59 as well as restrictions on access to education, medical care, employment or participation in public life, are coercive acts that contravene article 18 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. 60 31. Importantly, architects of the Covenant reasoned that coercion “should not be construed as applying to moral or intellectual persuasion”. 61 Similarly, drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Special Rapporteur on the right to freedom of opinion and expression do not consider that unavoidable ordinary social influences, such as persuasion, are impermissible interferences, with the latter observing that “in reality human beings are influenced constantly in their thought […] by others”. 62 Stakeholders further observe that the freedom does not “shield the individual from the thoughts of others”. 63 Thus, the exact point at which persuasion becomes coercion requires a case-by-case assessment, with consideration of context and subject. (b) Modification 32. “Modification” of thought – the changing of an individual’s thoughts through direct alteration of brain chemistry or brain function – is another example of an attempt to alter an individual’s thoughts that may violate article 18 (1) of the Covenant when not the product of free and informed consent. Unlike coercion, modification occurs irrespective of the victim’s awareness of the use or threat of force. 33. Today, treatments such as deep brain stimulation and transcranial direct current stimulation are regularly used to modulate brain activity and thoughts for medical treatment. Although not currently used on humans, optogenetics might one day allow __________________ 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 10/28 E/CN.4/SR.319, p. 3. Submission from Jan Christoph Bublitz. CCPR/C/79/Add.6, para. 7. See, e.g., https://cite.case.law/pdf/1551665/Statev.Darlington,153Ind.1(1899).pdf , p. 3. CCPR/C/78/D/878/1999, para. 7.2. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993) (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.9 (Vol. I), p. 205, para. 5). A/2929, para. 110. A/HRC/47/25, para. 34. See also A/67/303, para. 26. Submission from ADF International. 21-14191