A/HRC/19/60 30. As a universal human right, the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief must be interpreted strictly in keeping with the opening sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and similar provisions. Hence it is not that the State could “grant” certain individuals or groups of individuals this right. Rather, it is the other way around: the State has to respect everyone‟s freedom of religion or belief as an inalienable – and thus non-negotiable – entitlement of human beings, all of whom have the status of right holders in international law by virtue of their inherent dignity. 31. Hence the starting point for defining the application of freedom of religion or belief must be the self-understanding of human beings – all of them – in the field of religion or belief. Such self-understandings obviously can be very diverse. As the Human Rights Committee has rightly pointed out, freedom of religion or belief should therefore be broadly construed so as to protect “theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief”. 8 Already in a study published in 1960, the then Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Arcot Krishnaswami, stated that “the term „religion or belief‟ is used in this study to include, in addition to various theistic creeds, such other beliefs as agnosticism, free thought, atheism and rationalism”. 9 32. The Special Rapporteur subscribes to this wide understanding, which appropriately reflects respect for the status of all human beings as rights holders by virtue of their human dignity. He furthermore would like to reiterate that freedom of religion or belief equally includes followers of traditional and non-traditional religions or beliefs, members of large or small communities, minorities and minorities within minorities, converts or re-converts and dissenters or other critical voices. One must also not forget the rights of women, who continue to have only marginalized positions within many religious traditions. 33. The Special Rapporteur has noted with concern, however, that some States seem to limit freedom of religion or belief to a given list of religious options. For instance, while in a number of States only the followers of monotheistic religions can fully enjoy their religious freedom, other States take concepts like “traditional religions”, “patriotic religious associations” or “known religions” as the starting point, with the result that members of lesser known, new or alternative communities are officially excluded from the full and equal protection of their freedom of religion or belief or are discriminated against. In some countries, the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief is limited to mainstream manifestations of religions, at the expense of members of so called “heterodox” currents within those religions. Other States have resorted to a differentiation between “religions” and “sects” to exclude members of small communities from the protection of freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur also regrets that a few States still make citizenship dependent on affiliation with a particular religion or deny members of nonrecognized religions access to official documents such as identity cards, passports, birth certificates and marriage licences.10 However, the Special Rapporteur has noted with appreciation that judgments of domestic courts in a State have ended a discriminatory policy of not issuing official documents to individuals who do not belong to the three religions officially recognized by that State.11 8 9 10 11 10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 22 (1993) on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, para. 2; the same formulation was also used in the Final Document of the International Consultative Conference on School Education in relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination (E/CN.4/2002/73, appendix, footnote 1). Study of Discrimination in the Matter of Religious Rights and Practices, document E/CN.4/Sub.2/200/Rev.1, p. 1, footnote 1. See interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/63/161, paras. 27–36. See interim report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/65/207, para. 25.