A/HRC/25/58 35. Moreover, as the Human Rights Committee has pointed out in its general comment No. 22 (1993), freedom of religion or belief applies to a broad variety of convictions and conviction-based practices, beyond any predefined lists of “classical” religions. In the words of the Committee: “Article 18 protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief. The terms belief and religion are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions.”8 2. Trust-building through public institutions 36. Sustainable trust within a society presupposes an infrastructure of public institutions operating in the interest of all. In connection with other human rights, freedom of religion or belief is important for the progressive development of society and requires the development of public institutions at international, regional and national levels. These institutional implications of the right to freedom of religion or belief constitute an important aspect of its comprehensive trust-building function in society. 37. Under international law, States serve as the formal guarantors of human rights, including freedom of religion or belief. In order to operate as trustworthy guarantors of freedom of religion or belief for everyone, States should provide an open, inclusive framework in which religious or belief pluralism can unfold freely and without discrimination. This requires overcoming any exclusivist settings. Above all, what must be overcome is an understanding in which the State identifies itself with one particular religion or belief at the expense of an equal and non-discriminatory treatment of followers of other persuasions. Such exclusivist settings do not only occur in States which have formally embraced an official religion or a State religion. Even in many supposedly religiously neutral or secular States, Governments may be tempted to invoke one particular religion as the basis of its political legitimacy or with the purpose of mobilizing followers by tapping into emotions of religious loyalty. Ample experience demonstrates that the use of religion in the context of national identity politics always harbours increased risks of discrimination against minorities, in particular against members of immigrant religious communities or new religious movements, who often are stigmatized as allegedly endangering national cohesion. As elaborated above, this can become the breeding ground for manifestations of collective religious hatred stoked by State agencies, non-State actors or a combination of both. 38. International human rights law does not prescribe one particular model of how the relationship between State and religion should be organized, and State religions or official religions are not per se prohibited under international human rights law. However, as the Human Rights Committee has pointed out, States should ensure that having an official religion — or making reference in constitutional or legal provisions to the historical role of a particular religion — does not lead to a de jure or de facto discrimination against members of other religions and beliefs. In its general comment No. 22, the Committee insisted that “the fact that a religion is recognized as a State religion or that it is established as official or traditional or that its followers comprise the majority of the population, shall not result in any impairment of the enjoyment of any of the rights under the Covenant, including articles 18 and 27, nor in any discrimination against adherents of other religions or non-believers.”9 8 9 10 General comment No. 22, para. 2. Ibid., para. 9.