E/CN.4/2000/65 page 17 women in matters of divorce. Both are required to obtain their spouse’s consent in order for the divorce to become valid. According to the Jewish religious law (the Halacha), two forms of divorce exist: the first is obtained by both spouses’ consent, while the other is a divorce imposed by a ruling of the religious court and requires the husband or the wife to grant the divorce. Such a ruling may be granted once a cause of action specified in the Halacha is shown to exist. Such causes of action include: adultery, refusal to engage in conjugal relations and, in certain cases, where the couple is incapable of having children. However, even where the rabbinical court rules in favour of granting a divorce, the marriage is not dissolved simply by the court’s order. There remains the requirement of the spouse’s symbolic action of granting the divorce under the supervision of the court. Difficulties in the divorce process can arise at this stage in cases where a spouse, usually the husband, refuses or is unable (due to legal incompetence or disappearance) to grant the divorce. In order to overcome these difficulties, legislation has been adopted which aims to ensure the enforcement of the rabbinical court’s divorce rulings. Thus, the 1995 Rabbinical Courts Jurisdiction Law (enforcement of divorce rulings) enables the district rabbinical courts to impose severe civil sanctions on men or women who refuse to grant a divorce in contempt of the court’s ruling. Such sanctions include, inter alia, cancellation of driver’s licences, limitations on exit from the country and even jail. However, in order to impose any sanction on a wife who refuses to grant a divorce, the law requires the preliminary approval of the President of the Supreme Rabbinical Court. Statistics clearly show that rabbinical courts do not hesitate to apply sanctions pursuant to the 1995 law mentioned above, whenever possible. In 1996, these sanctions were applied in 50 cases. Such sanctions were applied in 106 cases in 1997 and in 163 cases in 1998. Furthermore, two husbands who refuse to grant a divorce to their wives are currently in prison due to their refusal. With regard to the assertion set forth in your letter concerning the hardships encountered by Muslim women in cases of divorce, it should be noted that the Shari’a Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in this matter over all Muslims, with modifications deriving from Israeli legislation in specific matters. Generally, mutual consent to divorce is required for the divorce to become valid. In cases where mutual consent to divorce cannot be obtained and the matter reaches the court, Shari’a calls for the appointment of an arbitrator on behalf of each of the spouses, who in turn seeks ways for reconciliation. If the reconciliation process is unsuccessful then, subject to the judge’s (Quadi) approval, the divorce comes into effect.” 59. In another communication, the Special Rapporteur referred to allegations of serious cases of intolerance on the part of a Muslim family against the Armenian Patriarchate of Jerusalem in connection with its religious activities at its Mount of Olives property. The family reportedly stoned Armenian faithful during celebrations of Ascension and the Divine Liturgy, seriously damaged the Patriarchate’s property and even threatened, including with death, Armenian leaders in order to take possession of Armenian religious property. The Muslim family was in fact allegedly trying to declare the Armenian property as a mosque. During these incidents, the Armenian Patriarchate reportedly tried unsuccessfully to settle these problems with the Muslim family. The Israeli police were allegedly kept informed, but apparently did not take the necessary security measures. Kazakhstan 60. In addition to a media campaign spreading a message on the supremacy of traditional religions and calling for bans on other communities, the authorities were allegedly targeting