A/HRC/37/49 its obligations to respect the freedom of religion or belief of persons belong to religious minorities. 81. International human rights law imposes a duty on States to be impartial guarantors of the enjoyment to freedom of religion or belief of all individuals and groups within their territory and those subject to their jurisdiction. Moreover, there is no hierarchy of human rights and where freedom of religion clashes with the right to non-discrimination and equality, or laws of general effect, the focus should be on ensuring that all human rights are protected, including through reasonable accommodation. Amid rising diversity, it appears axiomatic that the role of the State as an impartial guarantor of the rights of all is mostly likely to be fulfilled when the State adopts a posture of cooperation and accommodation without identification. Indeed, it is difficult to conceive of an application of the concept of State Religion that in practice does not have discriminatory effects on the variety of “others” that are created.35 82. While many States express commitments to guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief, some of the protections are narrower than those specified in article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or include limitations that are inconsistent with international law. Some States do not provide any legal guarantees or indeed ban certain religious communities or subject them to burdensome registration processes, which deny them legal personality. The Special Rapporteur recommends that States’ legal framework must be aligned with the guarantees of freedom of religion or belief specified in international human rights law as a universal human right. 83. Anti-blasphemy laws, which frequently serve to uphold State-sponsored religion or truth claims (existing even in States that do not formally identify with one religion) stifle the enjoyment of freedom of religion or belief, and the ability to engage in a healthy dialogue about religion. They are also used to target political dissidents, humanists, non-believers or any religious thinker who expresses different theological views than the State-sponsored religion. As also called for in several recent international action plans, such anti-blasphemy laws must be repealed as a matter of priority36 and are incompatible with the Covenant.37 84. The State must recognize that, although there are associational rights, freedom of religion or belief is a right that resides with the individual and not with a group per se. Therefore, anti-conversion laws are inconsistent with the international human rights framework and amounts to an illegal interference with an unqualified right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. 85. The right of parents to provide a moral and religious education, consistent with their religious worldviews and in accordance with the evolving capacities of the child, must be fully respected. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur would like to highlight the useful guidance provided in the Final Document of the International Consultative Conference on School Education in Relation to Freedom of Religion or Belief, Tolerance and Non-Discrimination38 and the Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religion and Beliefs in Public Schools.39 86. When offering a privileged legal status position for certain religious or belief groups, such a specific status should be accorded in strict conformity with the principle of non-discrimination and should fully respect the right to freedom of religion or belief of all human beings. Privileged positions accorded to religious or 35 36 37 38 39 18 See Bielefeldt, Ghanea and Wiener, Freedom of Religion or Belief (footnote 15), p. 341. See A/72/365, paras. 28 and 76. See Committee on Human Rights general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, para. 48. See E/CN.4/2002/73, appendix. See www.osce.org/odihr/29154?download=true.