A/76/380 ultimately, alter what they think. 102 Invasive digital surveillance may particularly subvert the thoughts of specific groups. It is reported that targets with a prior history of torture and persecution, regardless of whether they were in a safe country, “would suffer PTSD-like symptoms” upon learning they were targets of digital surveillance. 103 55. Moreover, an increasing range of inchoate offences raise concerns for freedo m of thought. Legislative provisions for inchoate crimes regarding terrorism and “extremism” allow authorities to prosecute individuals without proving their correspondingly grave and guilty act (actus reus), shifting “seamlessly from the criminalization of acts of terrorism to the criminalization of extremist thoughts and belief”. 104 For example, some States have adopted legislation or issued directives that seek to criminalize individuals who access any online content which may be of use to a person committing or preparing acts of terrorism. 105 C. Proselytism, anti-conversion and anti-blasphemy efforts 56. The Special Rapporteur has received reports that certain coercive forms of proselytism infringe upon freedom of thought. Although these stakeholders distinguish between “mild” and “aggressive” coercion, they consider both phenomena capable of impairing freedom of thought. In one reported case, it was alleged that some faith-based organizations use “mild forms of coercion”, by making the provision of humanitarian aid conditional on aid recipients’ conversion to another religion. 106 In one possible example of “aggressive coercion”, sources report that non -State actors in Pakistan have kidnapped members of religious or belief minorities, especially Hindu girls, to convert them to Islam. 107 57. The Special Rapporteur has received reports that anti-conversion (i.e., anti-apostasy) laws in several States, including Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal and Sri Lanka, and coercive proselytism practices might alter or p enalize individuals for their “inferred” thoughts (based on their protected actions in manifesting their religion or belief). 108 In 2020, as many as 21 countries still criminalized apostasy, including 12 countries where apostasy was a capital offence. 109 58. Some contend that anti-conversion measures infringe upon the forum internum, including freedom of thought and freedom to hold or change religious or belief convictions. 110 Notably, article 18 (2) and (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protect both one’s rights to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one’s choosing without coercion; and to manifest one’s religion or belief. __________________ 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 16/28 See https://lawcat.berkeley.edu/record/1127413/files/fulltext.pdf, pp. 164 and 169. See https://www.vice.com/en/article/pa5d9g/what-constant-surveillance-does-to-your-brain. A/HRC/43/46/Add.1, para. 24; and A/HRC/33/29, para. 61. See also, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5394&context=mlr, p. 863. See, e.g., http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/58; https://eur-lex.europa.eu/ legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32017L0541&rid=6; http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/ cgi_loi/change_lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&cn=1867060801&table_nam e=loi; https://wetten.overheid.nl/jci1.3:c:BWBR0001854&boek=Tweede&titeldeel=V&artikel=134a&z =2021-07-01&g=2021-07-01. See https://www.ajol.info/index.php/jrhr/article/view/211102 , pp. 217–219; and https://academic.oup.com/isq/article/60/4/636/2669512, p. 640. See https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/WRGS/HumanitarianSettings/ CommonwealthInitiativeFreedomReligionPakistan.docx; and communication AL PAK 2/2016. See https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Anti-ConversionLaws_eBook-1.pdf, pp. 4–8; and submission from Christian Solidarity Worldwide. A/75/385, para. 16. See https://www.worldwatchmonitor.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Anti-ConversionLaws_eBook-1.pdf, p. 20. 21-14191