A/HRC/19/60/Add.1 1920s onwards, the Mennonites have increasingly become a socially and economically powerful community. They now run large agro-industrial companies in large parts of the Chaco. As a consequence of the Mennonites’ impressive economic success, however, members of the indigenous population traditionally inhabiting the same region often find themselves in a situation of unilateral economic dependency. This situation in turn renders them vulnerable to the imposition of religious norms and practices, sometimes against their will. Indeed, some Mennonites implicitly corroborated such allegations made by indigenous individuals by expressing their convictions that moral trustworthiness, which they strongly linked to the observance of Christian values, could be a legitimate criterion for employing – or not employing – an indigenous person. 50. Moreover, some missionary groups, such as the “People of God” or the “New Tribes Mission”, are alleged to have exerted psychological pressure on members of indigenous communities to completely abandon traditional religious rituals by threatening harsh punishments in the hereafter. The aggressive methods reportedly used by those groups were strongly criticized by representatives of indigenous peoples as well as by the National Institution for Indigenous Populations. 51. The Special Rapporteur reiterates in this context that missionary activities per se clearly fall within the scope of freedom of religion or belief. According to article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, individuals deserve respect and protection in their freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of their own choice. Having a choice in questions of religion or belief, however, obviously depends on the possibility of communicating one’s own religious or non-religious convictions, receiving information and trying to persuade others. Freedom of religion or belief thus has a marked dimension of a communicative right, which includes personal or organized missionary activities. At the same time, it is equally clear that missionary activities must never amount to a de facto imposition of convictions or norms against the will of targeted individuals or groups, for instance by exploiting their economic vulnerability. The Government bears responsibility for providing effective protection against such practices. In its general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the Human Rights Committee emphasized that article 18, paragraph 2, “bars coercion that would impair the right to have or adopt a religion or belief” and that “the same protection is enjoyed by holders of all beliefs of a non-religious nature”.14 52. Interlocutors from State institutions, civil society organizations, religious groups and indigenous peoples largely agreed that the main problem in this regard was the lack of efficient implementation mechanisms. This was particularly tangible in the Chaco region, and is most likely even further exacerbated in remote areas more or less completely outside of State control, including where the indigenous communities have chosen to remain in isolation. 53. In this context, in the draft Guidelines on the protection of indigenous peoples in voluntary isolation and in initial contact of the Amazon basin and El Chaco,15 it is noted that: … it is necessary to adhere to the international and regional obligations undertaken by the region’s Governments and to apply, as a dispute settlement mechanism, the parameters established by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights in judgements such as Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay or Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, according to which the relationship that indigenous peoples 14 15 Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40), vol. I, annex VI, para. 5. A/HRC/EMRIP/2009/6, para. 45. 15