A/71/269 well as home-grown dictators, have frequently applied the “divide and rule” principle by pitting certain groups against one another. Again, this may have farreaching repercussions on relationships among religious communities and the general atmosphere in a country. Incitement to hatred may revive old stereotypes against certain religious minorities by adding aggressive conspir acy theories, some of which portray small or even tiny groups as allegedly posing a danger to morals, societal cohesion, the economy or development. C. Patterns of State-induced violations 42. Many violations of freedom of religion or belief directl y originate from State agents and may include killings, enforced and involuntary disappearances, large scale arbitrary detention and other atrocities targeting religious minorities or dissidents. State agencies have also been involved in the destruction of places of worship or the vandalization of graveyards. Within the constraints of the present report, it is impossible to describe all such incidents. Instead, the non -exhaustive typology set out below is aimed at identifying widespread general patterns of systematic violations committed by State agencies. 1. Criminal law sanctions 43. The most frequently discussed form of State-induced violations of freedom of religion or belief are criminal sanctions against dissidents, critics, converts, non-believers or persons belonging to religious minorities. A number of States still have anti-apostasy provisions in their criminal laws, or have newly introduced such laws. This is in obvious breach of the freedom of religion or belief, which unequivocally corroborates people’s freedom to “change” their religion or belief (see article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) or any person’s freedom to “have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice” (see article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). The prohibition of coercive interference in the inner realm of a person’s conviction even enjoys the status of an absolute norm, comparable to the equally absolute prohibitions of torture and slavery (see A/67/303). 44. While the number of States that formally prohibit apostasy through criminal sanctions is limited, the picture changes once anti-proselytism laws or other laws that ban missionary activities are included. Unlike prohibitions o f apostasy, which currently seem to exist only in certain Muslim-majority countries, anti-proselytism laws have been enacted under the auspices of different religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Islam. The effects of these laws can come c lose to those of apostasy prohibitions. While directly targeting persons who “induce” others to change their religion or belief, these laws — often intentionally — also cast a shadow on the converts themselves by portraying the act of conversion as a resul t of mere external manipulation. Anti-apostasy and anti-proselytism laws also have in common a tendency to prohibit changes away from hegemonic religions, which typically receive privileged treatment. Double standards not only are a problem when applying the respective laws in practice; they frequently define the very essence of those laws. 45. Still broader is the scope of anti-blasphemy laws. What constitutes an offence of “blasphemy” frequently remains merely vaguely circumscribed, thus giving 16-13296 13/22