A/HRC/25/58 39. Notwithstanding, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of an application of the concept of an official “State religion” that in practice does not have adverse effects on religious minorities, thus discriminating against their members.10 40. An open constitutional framework that allows free manifestations of existing or emerging religious pluralism on the basis of equal respect for all is a sine qua non of any policy directed towards eliminating collective religious hatred by building trust through public institutions. This in turn requires a disentangling of any exclusivist relations between the State and particular religions or beliefs. Of course, this does not mean that all States will end up having the same structure of relations with religious communities. Moreover, the process of disentanglement may take time, and there remains space for experimentation and institutional diversity in this field, including in response to different historical legacies. In practice, however, States will hardly be able to function as trustworthy guarantors of freedom of religion or belief for everyone as long as exclusivist settings remain unchallenged. 3. Trust-building through communication 41. The communicative aspects of trust-building are no less important than the institutional aspects. In the context of religious diversity, communication activities should cover at least three different dimensions: (a) intergroup communication; (b) outreach activities of the State towards religious communities; and (c) creation of an atmosphere in which public debates on religious issues can flourish. Freedom of religion or belief has to play a role across all these dimensions. (a) Intergroup communication 42. Regular communication across religious boundaries is the most important precondition for fostering understanding and preventing or overcoming mistrust between religious or belief groups (which is one of the root causes of collective religious hatred). When conducted on an equal footing and in a sustained manner, that is, in ways that go beyond mere superficial brief encounters, interreligious communication can help replace stereotypes and prejudices by real experiences. Even though these experiences may not always be positive, they can nonetheless challenge stereotypical us-versus-them demarcations which are unlikely to ever do justice to the complex realities of human beings. 43. The Special Rapporteur would like to emphasize in this context that, in his view, the potential of interreligious communication to lead to policies that contribute to the elimination of religious hatred still needs to be fully explored. He has often observed an attitude of merely lukewarm support for systematic activities in this field. Whereas hardly anyone would express a straightforward opposition to interreligious communication, its political significance typically remains underestimated. 44. However, the Special Rapporteur has had the opportunity to directly experience the beneficial impact of a highly developed culture of inter- and intrareligious communication, for instance during his country visit to Sierra Leone, where the Interreligious Council has become a key factor in a reunited country that until a decade ago had been torn by civil war (see A/HRC/25/58/Add.1). Likewise, during his visit to Jordan he met with many people from the Government, religious communities and civil society organizations whose commitment in this field helps to keep society together in an increasingly volatile region 10 See the 2012 report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/19/60), para. 66, and his 2012 interim report (A/67/303), para. 47. 11