E/CN.4/2006/5 page 19 − Is the chosen measure the least restrictive of the right or freedom concerned? − Was the measure proportionate, i.e. balancing of the competing interests? − Would the chosen measure be likely to promote religious tolerance? − Does the outcome of the measure avoid stigmatizing any particular religious community? 59. When dealing with the prohibition of religious symbols, two general questions should always be borne in mind: What is the significance of wearing a religious symbol and its relationship with competing public interests, and especially with the principles of secularism and equality? Who is to decide ultimately on these issues, e.g. should it be up to the individuals themselves, religious authorities, the national administration and courts, or international human rights mechanisms? While acknowledging that the doctrine of “margin of appreciation” may accommodate ethnic, cultural or religious peculiarities, this approach should not lead to questioning the international consensus that “[a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated”, as proclaimed in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in 1993. 60. The fundamental objective should be to safeguard both the positive freedom of religion or belief as manifested in observance and practice by voluntarily wearing or displaying religious symbols, and also the negative freedom from being forced to wear or display religious symbols. At the same time, the competing human rights need to be balanced and public interest limitations should be applied restrictively. The Special Rapporteur fully agrees with European Court Judge Tulkens’ closing remarks: “Above all, the message that needs to be repeated over and over again is that the best means of preventing and combating fanaticism and extremism is to uphold human rights.”21 IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 61. The twenty-fifth anniversary of the adoption of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief will take place in 2006. Nevertheless, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that freedom of religion or belief is not a reality for many individuals throughout the world. She hopes that this anniversary will be an occasion to reiterate the importance of promoting freedom of religion or belief and to draw attention to the evolution of the issues relating to the mandate. She encourages Governments and non-governmental organizations to support the initiatives that will be taken to organize events that will take stock of achievements since 1981, identify the provisions of the Declaration that today raise particular concern and challenge rising trends of religious intolerance. 62. While she notes that religious leaders regularly organize high-level meetings at the international level to promote inter-religious dialogue, she is concerned that Governments, which are primarily responsible for protecting people against violations of the right to