A/69/261 For religious minorities this can even become a matter of their long -term survival. 15 The autonomy of religious institutions thus undoubtedly falls within the remit of freedom of religion or belief. It includes the possibility for r eligious employers to impose religious rules of conduct on the workplace, depending on the specific purpose of employment. This can lead to conflicts with the freedom of religion or belief of employees, for instance if they wish to manifest a religious con viction that differs from the corporate (i.e., religious) identity of the institution. Although religious institutions must be accorded a broader margin of discretion when imposing religious norms of behaviour at the workplace, much depends on the details of each specific case. 16 C. Tackling direct and indirect forms of religious discrimination 1. Combating open intolerance and direct discrimination 42. Acts of intolerance and discrimination in the workplace can occur in open or more concealed forms, as well as in direct or indirect forms. For example, members of religious minorities may suffer unconcealed harassment from colleagues, customers or employers when manifesting their religion or belief — or when wishing to do so. Such harassment typically includes tasteless jokes, verbal abuse and other expressions of disrespect, often disproportionately affecting women from religious minorities. Converts are another particularly vulnerable group frequently suffering extreme forms of workplace harassment. Existing prejudices against certain religious or belief communities are sometimes used as a pretext to prevent members of those groups from communicating with customers, or else to generally prevent their “visibility” at work. Moreover, the Special Rapp orteur has heard about incidents of pressure exercised by colleagues or employers on members of religious minorities to remove their religious garments, to consume religiously prohibited food, or to eat during religious fasting periods. Some private and pu blic employers openly request their employees to distance themselves from certain religions or beliefs; at times they may even insist on the violation of religious rules, for instance dietary restrictions, as a test of loyalty. Failure to comply with such requirements can result in a reduction of salaries, refusal of promotion, loss of pension claims, dismissal or other sanctions. Some companies or public institutions may furthermore create a climate of vigilantism and intimidation by encouraging employees and customers to report unwanted religious activities performed by their staff. 17 43. Under freedom of religion or belief, States have the responsibility to do the utmost to prevent such abuses and tackle their root causes. Obviously, they have a special obligation concerning employment in State institutions, since the treatment of employees in State institutions can set an example for the society at large. If public employers unduly hinder the manifestation of religious diversity at work or __________________ 15 16 17 12/23 See the Special Rapporteur’s thematic reports, A/HRC/22/51, paras. 14-89, and A/68/290, para. 57. See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, Schüth v. Germany (application No. 1620/03), judgement of 23 September 2010; and Obst v. Germany (application No. 425/03), judgement of 23 September 2010. As mentioned previously, such a restrictive climate naturally has a negative impact also on the non-discriminatory accessibility of work, which itself constitutes a core aspect of the right to work. A full analysis of this issue would go beyond the confines of the present report. See also general comment No. 20 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/GC/20), para. 22. 14-58756