A/HRC/58/49 disputed that they were determinative for the Committee to find a violation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment in that case.104 76. The fact that a violation of both rights was recognized in that case allowed for a more holistic outcome. The Committee decided that not only was the author entitled to appropriate remedy but also established that the State had “an obligation to ensure that similar violations do not occur in the future”.105 If the Committee had overlooked freedom of religion or belief in that case, the obligation imposed on the State to prevent similar violations of freedom of religion or belief would not have arisen. 77. Another relevant case was decided by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights and related to allegations of torture in Guantanamo Bay. The author claimed that, during his detention, guards had taken his religious books, thrown them on the floor, stepped on them and torn out pages. He also claimed that, on one occasion, a soldier had taken the Qur’an and submerged it in a tank full of urine and excrement. Furthermore, while he prayed, guards had interrupted him with insults and howled to imitate the Muslim call to prayer and create an atmosphere of terror, given the assumption that Muslims do not like dogs. 78. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights analysed the facts of the case using two main criteria: (a) the purpose with which the harmful behaviour was inflicted; and (b) the degree of suffering that the claimant endured. The Commission concluded that the continuous religious harassment and abuse that the author had experienced in detention amounted to torture and found a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief.106 79. Similarly, the European Court of Human Rights, in the case 97 Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and 4 Others v. Georgia, found a violation of article 3 when a religious gathering of Jehovah’s Witnesses was disrupted by Orthodox Christians who, inter alia, physically assaulted members with crosses, sticks and belts and mockingly prayed while shaving a member’s head. The Court found, however, that the violation in relation to article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights was not due to the violence but because the police had refused to intervene to protect some of the applicants.107 The Court decided that the State had failed in its positive obligation to protect the Jehovah’s Witnesses against the attackers, thereby violating article 9. 80. Civil society organizations have reported instances where persons have been forced to act against their religious beliefs, for instance by forcing individuals to eat food they consider impure, disrobing monks and preventing them from shaving their heads in detention, and forcing Rohingya Muslim women to sleep near toilets, violating religious purity norms.108 81. Under the mandate, reports have been received that may amount to ill-treatment and/or torture, such as not allowing inmates at Guantanamo Bay to perform ablutions before prayers and subjecting them to forced grooming,109 using terms denigrating Shia detainees while subjecting them to ill-treatment110 and insults against four Shia detainees and one being forced to follow Sunni rites while subject to ill-treatment.111 82. To conclude, when torture methods employ “forced engagement in practices against the religion of the victim”, this should be considered a violation of both rights. This is because such acts are intentionally devised to target persons due to their religion or belief and force them to change those beliefs. Once again, only by taking these rights seriously can the plight of victims and their suffering be addressed more adequately. 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 GE.24-24412 Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/74/D/721/1996), paras. 2.6, 3.2, 6.5 and 6.6. Ibid., para. 8. Ameziane v. United States of America, paras. 60 and 087–191. Application No. 71156/01, Judgment, 3 May 2007, paras. 16–18, 124 and 125. Submission from Myanmar Freedom of Religion or Belief Network. E/CN.4/2006/120, paras. 60–65. See communication SAU 10/2021. See communication KWT 6/2015. 15