E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.4 page 11 44. CNCDH reported in 2005 that acts of racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia had nearly doubled from 833 in 2003 to 1,565 in 2004. However, according to the National Police (Ministry of the Interior), such acts numbered 974 in 2005. Among these acts, the largest proportion concerns acts of anti-Semitism. A number of acts of religious intolerance, including threats and insults, made against Muslim communities were also reported to the Special Rapporteur. During the course of her visit, the Special Rapporteur visited a cemetery in the vicinity of Strasbourg in which a number of tombs, including Jewish and Muslim tombs, had been desecrated. 45. In addition to efficiently prosecuting the perpetrators, the French authorities have taken a significant number of measures with regard to acts of religious intolerance or hatred, including the protection of a number of places of worship. 46. In terms of judicial mechanisms, there have been some complaints regarding the handling of cases of discrimination on the basis of religion, including because of the difficulties faced by victims in establishing the - religiously - discriminatory character of the acts reported in civil cases and because there is allegedly some reluctance by tribunals to allow compensation for acts of unlawful discrimination. VI. RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS 47. Since the beginning of the school year 2004/05, in application of Law 2004-228 of 15 March 2004 on “laïcité”,7 and conspicuous religious symbols in public schools (Loi no 2004-228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics), the wearing of conspicuous religious symbols is prohibited in public schools. A. Background 48. Until March 2004, there was no legislation related to the wearing of religious symbols in schools. In 1989, the State Council (Conseil d’Etat), referring to the right to freedom of expression and the right to publicly manifest one’s religion or beliefs, decided that the wearing of symbols intended to show a child’s affiliation to a religion in public schools was not necessarily considered incompatible with the principle of the separation of Church and State. It would only constitute a breach of this principle, and therefore be considered illegal, if it was accompanied by proof of proselytizing behaviour or provocation. It distinguished between an “ostentatious (ostentatoire) religious symbol” and the “ostentatious wearing of a religious symbol”. 49. School administrations found this regime complex and difficult to implement on a case-by-case basis, in the absence of any legislation. Accordingly, educational professionals advocated for the adoption of a law on the issue. 50. As a result, in December 2003, a special commission was appointed by the President and headed by the national ombudsman, Bernard Stasi, to analyse the application of the principle of laïcité in France. Among other recommendations, the Commission recommended that a law be drafted banning conspicuous religious symbols (including large Christian crosses, Jewish skullcaps and Islamic headscarves) in State schools.