A/HRC/10/8 page 14 stated that policies or practices having the same intention or effect, such as those restricting access to education, medical care or employment, are similarly inconsistent with article 18 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This approach was recently reinforced by the General Assembly in its resolution 63/181 on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief, in which it urged States to step up their efforts to ensure that no one is discriminated against on the basis of his or her religion or belief when accessing, inter alia, education, medical care, employment, humanitarian assistance or social benefits. 35. On the basis of articles 2 and 4 of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, three issues need to be emphasized. First, the principle of non-discrimination, as enshrined in the Declaration, applies to States as much as to non-State actors as potential perpetrators. States have therefore the duty to refrain from discriminating individuals or groups of individuals because of their religion and belief and must also take necessary measures to prevent and eliminate discrimination between non-State actors. Incidents among non-State actors tend to be less clear-cut than discrimination perpetrated by States. For instance, it may be difficult to determine whether faith-based associations are allowed to disregard employment applications from believers belonging to a different community or if they are compelled to consider all applicants, regardless of their religious affiliation. Another example is when a religious or belief community wishes to exclude a certain community from using its premises if these are usually available for rent. In order to determine whether these actions amount to discrimination or not, a case-by-case analysis is necessary. 36. Second, it follows from the definition provided by article 2 (2) that “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis” constitutes discrimination. Hence, not all forms of distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference amount to discrimination; some may in fact be used in the context of special temporary measures or affirmative action, aiming at the elimination of conditions which cause or help to perpetuate discrimination, including on grounds of religion or belief. According to the Human Rights Committee, “in a State where the general conditions of a certain part of the population prevent or impair their enjoyment of human rights, the State should take specific action to correct those conditions. Such action may involve granting for a time, to the part of the population concerned, certain preferential treatment in specific matters as compared with the rest of the population. However, as long as such action is needed to correct discrimination in fact, it is a case of legitimate differentiation under the Covenant”.8 The Special Rapporteur stresses that affirmative actions may be essential to empower communities that suffered on account of historic discriminatory practices. At the same time, she underlines that the effectiveness of affirmative action should be measured through various identifiable means and should be monitored for its progress. 37. Third, by referring to the “purpose” or “effect” of any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief, article 2 (2) of the Declaration provides protection against 8 General comment No. 18 (1989), para. 10.