A/71/269 Governments carte blanche to apply such laws in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. Not only verbal or other statements, but also certain acts of conduct, such as eating in public during the fasting season, may be deemed as “blasphemous” in some countries. In countries that do not have anti-apostasy or anti-proselytism laws, the criminalization of broad blasphemy offences can serve as a proxy that basically fulfils the same function. Numerous reports have given clear evidence that members of religious minorities typically suffer disproportionately from such laws, which also target converts, dissidents, non-believers, critics within the majority religion and individuals engaging in unwelcome missionary activities. 46. While anti-apostasy, anti-proselytism and anti-blasphemy laws more or less openly carry “religion” in their titles, other criminal laws do not directly display an intention to curb religious dissidence or criticism and yet may have such consequences in practice, for example, overly broad anti -hatred laws (see A/HRC/13/40/Add.2, paras. 46-48). While article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights obliges States to prohibit “advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence”, 2 anti-hatred provisions often lump together a wide range of different “offences”, thereby opening the floodgates for arbitrary applications. Penal law provisions sometimes even criminalize religious superiority claims, thus hypothetically threatening sanctions against all individuals or groups who publicly bear witness to their convictions. Countless examples have proven that such vague provisions are used mostly to intimidate unwelcome minorities, converts, atheists, agnostics or dissidents, including critics belonging to the country’s majority religion. Further examples of prima facie “neutral” criminal law provisions are laws that, by criminalizing alleged acts of eroding national security, may threaten punishments against conscientious objectors to military service. 2. Bureaucratic harassment and burdensome administrative stipulations 47. Arguably the most widespread pattern of State-induced violations of freedom of religion or belief relates to harassment by an uncooperative bureaucracy that may treat people belonging to certain religious communities with contempt, hostility or suspicion. It is all the more important to draw public attention to this form of violation of religion or belief. 48. When wishing to build places of worship or religious schools or to repair existing religious buildings, minority communities often have to apply for special permissions, which may take decades to obtain. If the believers start to build or repair places of worship before receiving official permission, they may encounter hefty sanctions or even be forced to tear down a newly erected building. The Special Rapporteur heard reports that it seemed easier for some communities to build a chicken farm and subsequently convert it into a place of worship than to apply to establish the place of worship. 49. Some Governments request religious communities to register with the Administration before being allowed to exercise their group -related freedom of religion or belief. Registration status may be connected to a number of practical advantages, such as tax benefits or regular participation in municipal consultations. __________________ 2 14/22 For useful guidance in this regard, see the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (A/HRC/22/17/Add.4, appendix). 16-13296