A/HRC/16/53/Add.1 interpreting article 6 (2) of the Covenant, however, the Human Rights Committee has consistently rejected the imposition of a death sentence for offences that do not result in the loss of life, finding only cases involving murder not to raise concerns under the most serious crimes provision. 331. Furthermore, the Special Procedures mandate holders also appealed to the Government to ensure the right to freedom of religion or belief of Ms. Bibi in accordance with article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this context, they referred to General Assembly resolution 64/164, in which the Assembly urges States “to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or security of person because of religion or belief [...] and to bring to justice all perpetrators of violations of these rights”. 332. The Special Procedures mandate holders asked the Government to provide detailed information on how the detention and death sentence of Ms. Bibi and the application of section 295-C of the Pakistani Penal Code is compatible with the international norms and standards on the rights to life, freedom of religion or belief and freedom of opinion and expression. (b) Response from the Government of Pakistan dated 23 November 2010 333. In its letter dated 23 November 2010, the Government of Pakistan acknowledged receipt of the joint urgent appeal of 22 November 2010. The Permanent Mission of Pakistan stated that the urgent appeal has been transmitted to Islamabad for serious consideration and an early response. The Permanent Mission of Pakistan indicated that it will revert to the Special Procedures mandate holders as soon as a response has been received. (c) Observations by the Special Rapporteur 334. The Special Rapporteur is grateful that the Government of Pakistan acknowledged receipt of the joint urgent appeal of 22 November 2010. He would like to stress the risk that efforts to combat blasphemy may be manipulated for purposes contrary to human rights and that any blasphemy legislation should not be used to censure all inter-religious and intrareligious criticism (see E/CN.4/2000/65, para. 111). The Special Rapporteur recommends a review of the Penal Code and he would like to reiterate that a useful alternative to blasphemy laws is to fully implement the protection of individuals against advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (see A/62/280, para. 76). 335. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to make reference to his predecessor’s country report to Pakistan, in which Mr. Abdelfattah Amor stated that “applying the death penalty for blasphemy appears disproportionate and even unacceptable” (see E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1, para. 82). International human rights law provides that States which retain the death penalty can only impose it for “the most serious crimes”. As observed by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, the conclusion to be drawn from a thorough and systematic review of the jurisprudence of all of the principal United Nations bodies charged with interpreting the “most serious crimes” provision, is that a death sentence can only be imposed in cases where it can be shown that there was an intention to kill which resulted in the loss of life (see A/HRC/4/20, para. 53). This would exclude charges related to blasphemy from those for which the death penalty can be imposed under international law. 63