E/CN.4/2004/63/Add.1 page 17 85. Some members of the judiciary felt that the rarity or absence of prosecutions for religious violence was part of a general problem and not limited to the religious sphere; Georgia was a young State, it had furnished itself with an appropriate arsenal of legislation, but was finding it hard to put that legislation into practice. Public prosecutors were not therefore solely to blame for shirking their responsibilities: the entire system was loath to put the individuals concerned on trial. 86. Unfortunately, the Special Rapporteur was unable to meet the Prosecutor General or other members of the Georgian prosecution system. 3. The legislature 87. On 30 May 2001 the Georgian Parliament passed a resolution on displays of religious extremism which stated that: The law-enforcement bodies of Georgia should act in full conformity with the Constitution of Georgia and eliminate any manifestations of religious extremism; The Public Defender of Georgia should pay particular attention to the manifestations of religion-based crimes and make sure that the religious freedoms of Georgian citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of Georgia are protected; The parliamentary committees on the rule of law and administrative reform, on human rights and petitions [and] on civil society building and integration should elaborate appropriate legislative proposals to regulate the activities of various religious groups; The Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights and Petitions and the Committee on Civil Society Building and Integration are responsible [for reporting], on a regular basis, on the implementation of this resolution. 88. Some members of Parliament nevertheless told the Special Rapporteur that they were concerned about what they called a campaign by religious minorities, the Jehovah’s Witnesses in particular, against the Orthodox Church. In other words, the Jehovah’s Witnesses were themselves said to be violating the right to religious freedom. These same members of Parliament also asserted that the Jehovah’s Witnesses, in refusing military service and blood transfusions, had no regard for the interests of the State. 4. The Public Defender 89. The Public Defender condemned the Government’s and security forces’ irresponsible attitude towards acts of intolerance and religious violence. In most cases of religious violence, he felt that the authorities responsible had failed to react or had not reacted enough. 90. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the Public Defender’s services had set up a special-purpose centre on freedom of religion, one purpose of which was to receive and consider all complaints about acts of intolerance or religious violence. The centre also evaluated legislature standards on the subject and had been the original source of the bill referred to previously.