E/CN.4/2004/63/Add.2 page 19 91. During the night of 15 to 16 March 2002, while the Greek Catholics were gathered in the church for a prayer vigil, a group of individuals armed with iron bars and led by three Orthodox priests burst into the church to force the congregation to leave. According to various sources, law-enforcement officers led by the chief of the local police took an active part in evacuating the church. 92. Following these events, and despite the complaints lodged by the Greek Catholic community, the authorities reportedly took none of the necessary steps to identify the perpetrators of these acts and, where necessary, to charge them for the offences committed. The authorities merely stressed that disputes over the restitution of religious property could be resolved only through dialogue with the Orthodox Church. 93. According to information received by the Special Rapporteur, similar situations have occurred elsewhere in the country. VII. RECOMMENDATIONS 94. With regard to the distinction between recognized religions and non-recognized religions or religious or faith-based communities, the Special Rapporteur notes the authorities’ assertion that this distinction has no effect on the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief of individuals whose religion is not recognized. However, the Special Rapporteur considers that the principle of freedom of religion or belief, as enshrined in international human rights law, is difficult to reconcile with a formal or legal distinction between different kinds of religious or faith-based communities insofar as such a distinction in their status must imply a difference in rights or treatment, which may, in some cases, constitute discrimination that is incompatible with the exercise of human rights. 95. The Special Rapporteur notes that this distinction between two kinds of religious or faith-based communities means that the financial contributions made to recognized religions are not available to non-recognized religions, that non-recognized religions, unlike recognized religions, are not entitled to build places of worship and that non-recognized religions cannot provide religious instruction in State schools in the same way as recognized religions. The problem is not just that such discrimination may be contrary to international human rights law, particularly since it is not certain that the criteria used by the authorities to decide whether a religion should be recognized are objective from the viewpoint of international law, but that such discrimination amounts to restrictions that may, in certain circumstances, constitute a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief. 96. In the light of this, the Special Rapporteur would like to encourage the Romanian Government to abolish the distinction between recognized and non-recognized religions, possibly when it adopts the new law on religions, which it is hoping to do in the near future. In any case, the Government should ensure that this distinction does not lead to discrimination that is incompatible with international human rights law or to restrictions that might curtail the right to freedom of religion or belief, in violation of international law.