E/CN.4/2004/63 page 23 Analysis of State reactions 111. It can be seen from table 6 that although the percentage of replies received within the deadline has fallen considerably, if the late replies are also taken into account it increases. This development can be explained by and coincides with the surge in the number of communications and States concerned during this period. The explanation proves to be that in this new situation States have not always been in a position to reply within the deadline established. The majority of States, however, are adapting to this development by replying to the communications nevertheless, although generally somewhat late. 112. As regards the urgent appeals, apart from the year 1995 when this new procedure was introduced, response rates tend to be satisfactory. 113. Response rates nevertheless need to improve; this presupposes better cooperation from all States, particularly those that have never replied since the inception of the mandate (these are: Angola, Benin, Cambodia, Comoros, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Nauru, Niger, Papua-New Guinea, Qatar, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe). Generally speaking, many States have difficulty in coping with the numerous requests addressed to them by mechanisms the numbers of which are constantly on the increase for reasons that are basically political. 114. Such situations, that are not specific to the mandate on freedom of religion or belief, should occupy more of the Commission’s attention. There must be limits to the convenient tranquillity of silence, especially when that silence is not due to technical considerations. (b) Analysis of the merits of communications Violations of freedom of religion or belief 115. An analysis of communications since the inception of the mandate in respect of the principles, rights and freedoms set out in the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief makes it possible to establish the following seven categories of violations: (a) Violations of the principle of non-discrimination in matters of religion or belief, namely, policies, legislation and regulations, practices and acts that discriminate against certain communities, particularly when they are minorities or do not belong to the official religion. There are cases in this regard concerning Egypt, France, Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America; (b) Violations of the principle of tolerance in matters of religion or belief, namely, policies, practices and acts of religious intolerance by the State and society, particularly on the part of non-State entities such as communities of religion or belief and political and religious groups, the strongest manifestations of which verge on religious (inter- and intra-religious) extremism. The media also play a role in propagating a climate of intolerance vis-à-vis certain communities, particularly minority communities. Cases in this regard concern Georgia, Indonesia and Viet Nam;