A/HRC/19/60 to ensure that this does not lead to a de jure or de facto discrimination of members of other religions and beliefs. The burden of proof in this regard falls on the State. In this context, the Special Rapporteurs fully subscribes to the position taken by the Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 22, paragraph 9, which emphasizes 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 to other religions or non-believers. In particular, certain measures discriminating against the latter, such as measures restricting eligibility for government service to members of the predominant religion or giving economic privileges to them or imposing special restrictions on the practice of other faiths, are not in accordance with the prohibition of discrimination based on religion or belief and the guarantee of equal protection under article 26.” 65. The Special Rapporteur would also like to reiterate warnings against aggravated discrimination following the adoption of a State religion. While the mere existence of a State religion may not in itself be incompatible with human rights, this concept must neither be exploited at the expense of the rights of minorities nor lead to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief.26 Formal or legal distinction between different kinds of religious or belief communities carries the seed of discrimination insofar as such a distinction in their status implies a difference in rights or treatment. 66. Indeed, 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. As an earlier mandate holder, Abdelfattah Amor, has rightly pointed out in this context, “to the extent that everything ultimately depends on the goodwill of the State, the personality of those in office at any given moment, and other unpredictable or subjective factors, there is no serious guarantee in law that the State will at all times respect minority ethnic and religious rights”.27 When the State itself announces its religion in the Constitution, the law arguably ceases to reflect the ethnic and religious variety of the society, opening the floodgates to arbitrary action and religious intolerance. 28 Furthermore, if one religion is recognized as a State religion, then women belonging to religious minorities, or those who do not follow the mainstream interpretation of the State religion, may face aggravated discrimination; for example when the State or society seeks to impose its view of women. 29 Both with regard to State religions and other religious or belief communities, the State should never try to take control of religion by defining its content and concepts or by imposing limitations, apart from those which are strictly necessary pursuant to article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.30 26 27 28 29 30 18 See interim report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance concerning a visit to Greece, prepared by Abdelfattah Amor, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights,A/51/542/Add.1, para. 132; his report on a visit to Sudan, A/51/542/Add.2, para. 134; his report on a visit to Pakistan, E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1, para. 81; and his report on a visit to the Islamic Republic of Iran, E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.2, para. 88. Reports, studies and other documentation for the Preparatory Committee and the World Conference, A/CONF.189/PC.1/7, annex, para. 119. Ibid., para. 120. See the Special Rapporteur‟s study on freedom of religion or belief and the status of women in the light of religion and traditions, E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2, para. 188. E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.1, para. 81.