A/HRC/58/49 I. Introduction 1. In the present report,1 the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Nazila Ghanea, explores intersections between the right to freedom of religion or belief and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (hereinafter referred to as the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment).2 2. The Special Rapporteur receives numerous communications alleging violations of the right to freedom of religion or belief that appear to reach the threshold of torture and ill-treatment. Although international standards providing for the protection of these rights are clear, it is noticeable that States, State officials, courts, treaty bodies and even people working directly with victims have not adequately taken both rights into consideration in cases raising overlapping concerns. This lack of attention to victims’ claims has left them more exposed to further abuse. This foundational work seeks to consider these lacunae in theory and practice, demonstrating how addressing gaps regarding the intersection between these two rights can provide greater harmonization of practices and better protection of potential and actual victims of these human rights violations. 3. Given the difficulties in finding official documents that detail the relationship between freedom of religion or belief and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment, the present report will be focused on key phenomena related to the topic, as defined in section II below. Applicable international standards are highlighted in section III; the relevant concepts of this subject and analysis of selected intersectional topics are presented in section IV; and recommendations to reinforce the protection of these rights are provided in section V. II. Scope of the report 4. The range of situations in which the rights to freedom of religion or belief and the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment can be violated concurrently is vast, and the present report is not able to capture all these instances nor examine all phenomena in depth. Two issues related to the topic have received much attention to date. 5. The first of these is violations of the prohibition of torture in the name of certain religious laws or interpretations carried out by State or non-State actors. One example is corporal punishments applied to individuals allegedly on the grounds of interpretations of religious texts.3 Corporal punishments imposed by the State or educational facilities have been repeatedly considered as falling within the ambit of torture and ill-treatment, regardless of the justification for them. 4 Other examples directly or indirectly related to religious interpretations or cultural norms include issues raised regularly by special procedures, including female genital mutilation,5 marital rape,6 certain forms of punishment prescribed 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Warm appreciation is extended to Thiago Alves Pinto for research direction; Lily Jeffrey and Oxford Pro Bono Publico for research support; Daniel Cloney for project management; Helle Dahl Iversen for coordination at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR); Regent’s Park College, Oxford, and the Association for the Prevention of Torture for generous logistical support of the three consultations, facilitated by David Griffiths, that fed into the report; and to the experts who contributed to the workshops and the many inputs for the report from States, national human rights institutions, national preventive mechanisms, civil society organizations, religion or belief groups, academics and experts. This formulation is commonly used in United Nations documents, such as the Manual on the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Istanbul Protocol), as revised. United Nations News, “UN experts call on Sudan to stop threatening women with flogging”, 6 November 2013; and House of Lords of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, R. (on the application of Williamson) v. Secretary of State for Education and Employment, UKHL 15 (2005). Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 5; and Commission on Human Rights, resolution 2005/39, para. 7. E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.2, para. 228. Ibid., para. 168. GE.24-24412