A/71/269 65. Policies intended to prevent and counter violent extremism must be based on a clear understanding of the numerous root causes, which often mutually reinforce each other. As the United Nations Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, Kathryn Gilmore, pointed out at a panel discussion on the human rights dimensions of preventing and countering violent extremism, held in Geneva on 17 March 2016, “violent extremism is the child of many parents — discrimination or injustice — whether actual or perceived; political disenfranchisement; a sense among y oung people of powerlessness, or denial of identity; of hopelessness”. When calling for positive action, the Deputy High Commissioner placed particular emphasis on the need to support human rights defenders and civil society, as well as “the immediate deterrence of reprisals against those who speak out”. 2. Government responsibility 66. When abuses are not perpetrated by State agencies, the Government remains accountable for any violation of freedom of religion or belief occurring within its jurisdiction. This is even more obviously the case when government agencies are directly or indirectly complicit in such violations, for example, by apparently condoning acts of violence or by creating an atmosphere of impunity that gives militant groups a free rein. Public condemnations by government officials of abuses committed within society are sometimes absent or may sound merely lukewarm. Moreover, the Government may send ambiguous signals to law enforcement agencies, which, accordingly, do not know whether they are actually expected to provide protection to individuals or groups who are looked down upon by “mainstream” society (see A/HRC/31/18/Add.2). 67. During some country visits, the Special Rapporteur repeatedly sensed a lack of awareness that the right to freedom of religion or belief requires protective and promotional government activities to ensure its systematic implementation in all parts of society. For instance, discrimination on the grounds of re ligion or belief occurring in the labour market or the housing market is sometimes still treated as a merely “private” issue that the Government allegedly could ignore. However, such lack of commitment is at variance with the 1981 Declaration, in article 4 (1) of which it is unambiguously clarified that: “All States shall take effective measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in the recognition, exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms in all fields of civil, economic, political, social and cultural life.” This also covers acts of intolerance and discrimination in the workplace, including in business sectors. Governments that lack an efficient and comprehensive anti -discrimination policy thus fail to honour their human rights obligations. E. Responsibility of the international community 68. One of the most significant progressive developments in international human rights politics is the increased awareness that violations of human ri ghts, including freedom of religion or belief, do not fall within the “internal affairs” of States. Although Governments are still the main duty bearers concerning the implementation of human rights within their jurisdiction, their responsibility is not an exclusive one. By ratifying international treaties, Governments formally corroborate the understanding that respect for and protection and promotion of human rights is both a national duty and a matter of international concern. In 16-13296 19/22