A/HRC/58/49 establish and maintain places for these purposes”.69 Cemeteries serve such purposes, thus the desecration of these sites amounts to a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief. 70 50. While freedom of religion or belief protects both rituals and places of rest for the dead, it does not fully capture the mental distress that individuals face when these are violated. A broader understanding of the connection between freedom of religion and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment can provide a more holistic response to such violations. 51. Jurisprudence in this area is somewhat inconsistent. In a case before the Human Rights Committee, an Orthodox Christian family requested the body of an individual who had been killed by the State, and the State refused to disclose the location of the individual’s grave. The family wished to bury the individual in accordance with their religious beliefs, but the State refused to hand the body over, which led to a claim of violation of freedom of religion or belief. The Committee found that the secrecy regarding the date of execution and the burial site, and the refusal to return the body, served to intimidate and punish the family by intentionally keeping them in a state of uncertainty and mental distress, amounting to inhuman treatment in violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Nevertheless, the Committee decided not to examine allegations under article 18 of the Covenant, despite the victims having considered this a fundamental aspect of their claims.71 52. Similarly, in another case, the Human Rights Committee found a violation of article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights when the State refused to provide a wife with information on the whereabouts of her husband’s body so that she could perform his funeral according to her religious beliefs, which caused her anguish amounting to inhuman treatment.72 In that case, the Committee did not even refer to article 18. 53. In contrast, the European Court of Human Rights has found a violation of freedom of religion or belief and of the right to family life in cases where families did not receive the bodies of the deceased promptly in order to perform burial rites in accordance with their beliefs.73 However, in those cases, the families did not raise issues related to ill-treatment. 54. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights has determined that “the prohibition of the forced disappearance of persons and the corresponding obligation to investigate and punish those responsible has attained the status of jus cogens”. In the same case, the State was found to have violated the right to humane treatment of family members of the forcibly disappeared, as they were not able to bury those who had disappeared in accordance with their beliefs. 74 The Court did not find a violation of freedom of religion or belief of the relatives of the person who disappeared, but used elements of the right to inform its decision to find that ill-treatment had taken place. 55. In a more recent case, however, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found a violation of both the right to humane treatment and to freedom of conscience and religion when the next of kin were not allowed to bury their deceased family members or to perform funeral rites after a series of massacres, the destruction of cemeteries and the State’s failure to find bodily remains.75 56. Concerns have been raised previously under the mandate regarding cases where the threshold of ill-treatment may have been reached, such as family members not receiving the bodies of loved ones promptly in order to be able to organize funerals in line with religious rites in Iraq, 76 family members being prevented from carrying out funerals in line with 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 GE.24-24412 Art. 6. A/C.3/79/L.41, para. 25. See also communication ISR 14/2024, p. 3. All communications mentioned in the present report are available at https://spcommreports.ohchr.org/Tmsearch/TMDocuments. Kovaleva and Kozyar v. Belarus (CCPR/C/106/D/2120/2011), paras. 3.12, 11.10 and 11.11. Katwal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/113/D/2000/2010), paras. 3.4 and 11.11. Polat v. Austria, Application No. 12886/16, Judgment, 20 July 2021, para. 91; and Aygün v. Belgium, Application No. 28336/12, Judgment, 8 November 2022, para. 91. Goiburú et al. v. Paraguay, Judgment, 22 September 2006, paras. 84, 103 and 104. Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Judgment, 4 September 2012, paras. 153–165. See communication IRQ 3/2024. 11