A/HRC/28/66 responsibilities that Governments, community leaders, media representatives, civil society organizations and international agencies have today. 15. Moreover, it is important to avoid “essentialist” views that falsely ascribe violence to the essence of certain religions or to religion in general. The formulation “violence in the name of religion” in the present report is deliberately chosen to emphasize the fact that the perpetrators of violent crimes are always human beings, not religions as such. It is human beings — individuals, groups, community leaders, State representatives, non-State actors and others — who invoke religion or specific religious tenets for the purposes of legitimizing, stoking, spreading or escalating violence. In other words, the relationship between religion and violence can never be an immediate one; it always presupposes human agency, that is, individuals or groups who actively bring about that connection — or who challenge that connection. 2. Inadequacy of the instrumentalization thesis 16. Whereas an isolated focus on religion ignores the relevance of political and other non-religious factors, the “instrumentalization thesis”, by contrast, from the outset denies that religious motives can play a genuine role in incidents of violence. Instead, it is assumed that perpetrators of such violence merely “instrumentalize” religion for political, economic or other mundane purposes. The term “instrumentalization” conveys the impression that religious persuasions themselves have little, if anything, to do with the acts of violence perpetrated in their name. 17. However, downplaying the significance of religious motives, fears and obsessions in this context would be factually wrong and conceptually inappropriate in many cases. It would furthermore mean that religious communities and their leaderships are from the outset excluded from taking any genuine responsibility for violence in the name of religion and, by implication, cannot contribute meaningfully towards tackling the problem. 18. It remains true that acts of violence cannot be attributed to religions per se or to any particular religion, as these acts are always carried out by human beings pursuing certain aims in particular social, economic, political and historical contexts. Yet it is equally true that human agency comprises a broad range of motives, including religious ones. While in some cases violent attacks may be orchestrated by Machiavellian strategists who whip up religious sentiments, there are obviously religious fanatics who seem to believe that, by torturing or killing fellow human beings, they actually perform a service to God. Moreover, it is a disturbing reality that religious fanatics may find some admirers and supporters within their broader communities who mistakenly resort to violence as a manifestation of strong religious commitment. Religious communities and their leaders, including theologians of various denominations, have a responsibility to tackle this problem on the basis of a clear analysis of its various root causes, including narrow-minded and polarizing interpretations of religious messages. 3. A broad range of factors and actors 19. The two above-mentioned simplistic interpretations often appear in discussions about violence in the name of religion. What both interpretations have in common is that, albeit in different ways, they ignore relevant factors and actors. The isolated focus on religion neglects the significance of human agency in general, political and other nonreligious factors in particular, thus possibly leading to fatalism in the face of seemingly perpetual sectarian strife. By contrast, the instrumentalization thesis trivializes the role that religious motives may play in committing and supporting acts of violence, leading to inadequate responses from religious communities and their leaders. 6