A/HRC/13/40/Add.3 enforcement bodies and educators, in the course of fulfilling their official duties, respect all religions or beliefs and do not discriminate for reasons based on religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided.12 3. Places of worship 26. The Special Rapporteur was informed about violent attacks against places of worship of different religious communities. In comparison to previous years,13 the number of attacks appears to be declining since 2007. However, members of religious minorities alleged that the relevant authorities lacked willingness to investigate and convict the attackers. If perpetrators were prosecuted, they were reportedly only charged with violating public order instead of the more serious charge of inciting religious, national and racial hatred. In addition, the police and judicial authorities do not seem to provide the Ministry of Religious Affairs with adequate information on such cases. 27. Members of “non-traditional” religious communities voiced their concerns about problems they are facing in acquiring or using places of worship. Furthermore, they complained about delays and administrative obstruction with regard to building or renovation permits, even though the relevant authority of the local government, in drawing up urban plans, is required by article 32 of the 2006 Law to examine the expressed needs of churches and religious communities for the construction of religious facilities. 28. With regard to restitution of nationalized property, only registered churches or religious communities can benefit from the 2006 Law on the Restitution of Property to Churches and Religious Communities. The Special Rapporteur is concerned that this law only provides for the restitution of property confiscated by the State after 1945. This cut-off date seems to be to the detriment of the Jewish community, most of whose property was seized before 1945 during the Second World War. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to the recommendation of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance14 to ensure that all religious communities enjoy the right to restitution of their nationalized property, without any distinction whatsoever and irrespective of the date at which they were deprived of their property. The authorities of the Republic of Serbia indicated that the above-mentioned 2006 law deals only with the restitution of property that was seized from churches and religious communities, whereas the restitution of property belonging to persons from those communities will be regulated by a separate law. 4. Intra-religious tensions 29. The Special Rapporteur was informed about serious intra-religious tensions between the “Islamic community in Serbia”, based in Novi Pazar, and the “Islamic community of Serbia”, based in Belgrade.15 Conflicts between the opposing fractions of the Islamic community have on several occasions provoked violent attacks, including the use of fire weapons. Subsequently, the authorities have restricted some public gatherings in the Sandzak region due to security reasons. 12 13 14 15 10 See also A/HRC/4/21, paras. 43-47. A/58/296, paras. 89-90; E/CN.4/2004/63, para. 8; and E/CN.4/2005/61/Add.1, paras. 211-213. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, report on Serbia, adopted on 14 December 2007, CRI(2008)25, para. 18. See also the report by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, published on 11 March 2009 (CommDH(2009)8, para. 228): “According to one opinion expressed to the Commissioner, the split had been caused by government intervention. Others argued that the government had been too passive in the face of this crisis. The Minister of Religion himself said that he very much regretted the current schism in the Islamic communities in Serbia, but stressed that the State could and should not interfere with any religious community including the Muslim community.”