A/55/280/Add.1 III. Policy in the area of freedom of religion and belief A. Consultations with the authorities 1. Governmental authorities 46. All official representatives gave the Special Rapporteur the same message, to the effect that Turkey, since the days of the Ottoman Empire, has been characterized by tolerance of the kind that favours the expression of diversity and of religious practice, applicable to all people, within the context of existing legislation (including the Constitution and the Treaty of Lausanne). 47. With respect to secularism, which is the cornerstone of the Turkish State, it was denied that this system has been the source of any friction or of religious rejection among the populace, even in rural areas. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, any suggestion that Turkey is a society rooted in religious tradition and hostile to secularism reflects in fact a political attack on the country’s secular nature. It should be noted, however, that the Under-Secretary of State for Education explained that, given a population where Muslims are the majority, and a republic that was preceded by such a long history, the enforcement of secularism has necessarily been a process of evolution that has sometimes encountered difficulty. Official representatives maintained that the Department of Religious Affairs constitutes a bridge between the State and religion and that its activities on behalf of Muslims should be viewed as a service provided by the State to the Turkish nation, in recognition of its religious, moral and social needs. 48. Attention was nevertheless drawn to the dangers that secularism has faced for the last 10 years in the form of religious extremism and attempts at political and religious exploitation, supported and financed by certain Muslim countries. It was explained that this phenomenon, which has made itself felt in particular through demands for wearing the veil at university, was a purely political and not a religious one, and that it was being kept under surveillance and was being handled appropriately by the State. This is why the headscarf has been banned in public institutions, in order to preserve the secular nature and neutrality of all public services, while allowing it to be worn in private. It was said that the compulsory religious culture courses are not a form of conditioning or indoctrination, but instruction conveying objective information, so that succeeding generations of Turks will be aware of religious realities and will be able to defend themselves from any religious manipulation that might undermine the foundations of the secular Turkish Republic. 49. With respect to the non-Muslim minorities recognized by the Turkish authorities as covered by the Treaty of Lausanne, namely the Armenians, the Orthodox Greeks and the Jews, it was claimed that these groups enjoy privileges such as their own educational facilities, in the context of that international agreement. It was said that there were no juridical problems in this area, that there were no restrictions on their freedom of religion and worship, and that any State intervention was consistent with legislation. With respect to the demands of certain minorities, such as the reopening of religious seminaries, it was said that, despite the privileges guaranteed by the Treaty of Lausanne, national legislation had to be respected and the State was therefore not in a position to satisfy certain communities and respond to international pressure. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs added that there are 160 foundations devoted to the social, health, religious and educational needs of different religious communities (Greek Orthodox, Armenian, Jewish, Syriac, etc.). It was explained that establishments run by national religious minorities were already operating at the time of the Ottoman Empire and that they had obtained their legal status as entities in 1936, after submitting a petition that was regarded as the equivalent of a charter constituting a foundation. On this point, it was noted that it is not possible for a foundation, for example, to invest in real property unless such powers are included in its charter. 50. Regarding the alleged confiscation of two Armenian places of worship, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded after the Special Rapporteur’s visit that it had been confirmed by the Ministry of the Interior that the Manuk Armenian Church in Karasun/Iskenderun was open for worship. That Church was declared among those “immovable properties of cultural wealth” by the High Council of Immovable Ancient Property and Works on 18 June 1979. The Armenian Orthodox Church in Kirikhan was also open to the public and currently served as a place of worship. It had been taken under protection by the decision of the High Council of Immovable Ancient 11