A/HRC/28/66 (“[i]ntentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, […] provided they are not military objectives”). 59. Individual criminal responsibility is essential to ensuring accountability for gross or serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. However, according to article 25, paragraph 3 (f), of the Rome Statute, “a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose”. Hence, this provision in combination with the threat of possible international prosecution may hopefully influence individual members of non-State armed groups to abandon their efforts to commit international crimes. F. Roles of other stakeholders 1. Religious communities and their leaderships 60. Perpetrators of violence typically represent comparatively small segments of the various religious communities to which they belong, while the large majority of believers are usually appalled to see violence perpetrated in the name of their religion. It is all the more important for the majorities and their leaders, who do not endorse the violence, to speak out against it. In some countries, religious communities organize broad demonstrations and use all available media to publicly condemn religious justifications of violent atrocities. However, there are also situations in which the silence of the majority and their leaders is quite “deafening”, thus factually leaving the public stage to small aggressive groups.23 Speaking out in these situations often requires courage, determination and the ability to seize opportunities to intervene at the right moment when violence arises and can still be contained and curbed. 61. Overcoming a culture of silence, wherever it exists, in the face of violent attacks is of paramount importance. Often, perpetrators of violence pretend to act on behalf of a “silent majority”. Religious fanatics furthermore like to portray themselves as “heroes” and a religious avant-garde that ultimately promotes the interests of their community. As long as the majorities and broader communities remain largely silent, extremists can easily play this game. They may feel that they have carte blanche to perform acts of violence and to sell these atrocities as manifestations of religious devotion. 62. Overcoming the culture of silence is not an easy task and, depending on the specific situation, such attempts can be quite risky. One problem is that extremist religious groups typically receive or seek to use broad media coverage, whereas voices of peace and reconciliation often remain at the margins of public attention. Although this can be a highly frustrating experience, it should never serve as an excuse for remaining silent. The cynical belief that bad news makes for good sales must not prevent other members of religious communities from bringing forward their views actively. Moreover, in a climate of intimidation, many believers, for fear of reprisals, may refrain from speaking out publicly. In such situations, fellow believers living in safer political environments should lend their voices and clearly condemn violence committed in the name of their religion. 63. The Special Rapporteur has seen impressive anti-violence statements issued by representatives of religious communities, that is, statements which are clear, theologically profound and passionate. 24 However, he has also come across public rejections of violence 23 24 See, for example, A/HRC/19/60/Add.2, para. 65 (Republic of Moldova). See, for example, A/HRC/25/58/Add.1, para. 35 (Sierra Leone) and A/HRC/25/58/Add.2, para. 16 15