A/HRC/55/47 9. Encouraging the representation and meaningful participation of individuals, irrespective of their religion, in all sectors of society 56. Advocacy of hatred can be combatted through measures for improved participation and social integration of religious or belief minorities. This can include active dialogue in legislative and parliamentary processes, as well as engagement in issues of concern at the local level, such as the creation of consultation and dialogue mechanisms, working groups or joint task forces with religious communities and civil society organizations. 101 It is vital that such engagement not be tokenistic but rather foster the genuine participation and social integration of religious or belief minorities in all their diversity. 10. Making a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other investigative procedures by law enforcement authorities 57. Religious profiling can, as noted above, reflect and reinforce engrained prejudices concerning certain religious or belief minorities among law enforcement officials. It is vital that States commit to effectively countering both formal and informal practices of religious profiling, including through effective and ongoing sensitization and capacity-building of law enforcement officials, 102 in collaboration with civil society and religious or belief communities. C. Multilateral cooperation 58. The speed and spread of advocacy of hatred, and its reproduction and reuse in differing contexts by various actors with specific agendas, may at first appear to present a challenge to States in terms of how the “extent” of a speech act is to be interpreted – essentially, wider – and therefore demand a more prohibitive approach out of caution. However, it should be emphasized that the protection of religious or belief minorities, or others who may be targeted as a direct or indirect result of hate speech, remains a duty of the State(s) under whose jurisdiction they fall. Rather than increased prohibitions on any expression which may in a given circumstance be reutilized in a third context to provoke discrimination or violence, what is called for is increased dialogue and collaboration among States, with a view to working effectively together to ensure the protection of religious or belief minorities. 59. The General Assembly, in its resolution 77/318, encouraged Member States to consider, as and where appropriate, initiatives that identify areas for practical action in all sectors and levels of society for the promotion of interreligious and intercultural dialogue, tolerance, understanding and cooperation. It also called upon States, which have the primary responsibility to counter discrimination and hate speech, and all relevant actors, including political and religious leaders, to promote inclusion and unity and to speak out and take strong action against racism, xenophobia, hate speech, violence and discrimination. 60. The Istanbul Process for Combating Intolerance, Discrimination and Incitement to Hatred and/or Violence on the Basis of Religion or Belief, which arose as a dedicated mechanism to provide follow-up to Human Rights Council resolution 16/18,103 could provide a significant backbone for international efforts to foster a global dialogue for promoting a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religion and belief. The Istanbul Process is the forum where States and other stakeholders share their experiences and their respective impact in implementing the action points of Council resolution 16/18. 104 Civil society organizations, including religious leaders and faith-based actors, should be consistently invited to participate in the meetings of the Istanbul Process, with a view to sharing good practices and lessons learned; their inclusion could lead 101 102 103 104 16 Submissions by Inter-Parliamentary Union and Joint Initiative for Strategic Religious Action Partners, Indonesia. See submissions by Denmark and Mexico. See https://www.universal-rights.org/istanbul-process/. See https://www.istanbulprocess1618.info/impact/. GE.23-25950