A/78/207 in all human rights treaties, in regional standards and in numerous soft law instruments. 7. Article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 contains the stipulation that a party “may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty”. Nevertheless, States often reference their domestic laws in seeking to justify their violation of freedom of religion or belief. That cannot be acceptable. When a State ratifies a treaty, it commits itself to implementing it, in letter and in spirit. 8. Most international judicial and quasi-judicial mechanisms become accessible after domestic remedies have been exhausted. To ensure effective enjoyment of a right, therefore, international human rights obligations should be taken into acc ount, first and foremost, by domestic authorities at the most local level. 9. Functionaries of State institutions and entities are the primary interlocutors for rights holders in relation to their freedom of religion or belief. Their actions are regulated by domestic laws, which often diverge from the State’s international obligations. That significantly limits the ability of those actors to carry out their duties in a human rights-compliant manner. Their prejudices may also be at odds with their obligations. In such cases, even where the domestic legal order allows space for freedom of religion or belief to be respected, they may take it upon themselves to inhibit its enjoyment. 10. State due diligence obligations to protect individuals from human rights violations exist not only at the individual level, but also at the systemic level 3 and in relation to groups. Those obligations, which should ensure that State authorities respond to freedom of religion or belief violations at the local level, will be addressed further in sections V and VI. 11. The principle of subsidiarity holds that national authorities are best placed to understand and implement human rights in their own context. Nevertheless, they must ensure that those rights are enjoyed in a practical and tangible manner and that they reflect international standards. III. The role of domestic State authorities in guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief 12. This section provides a non-exhaustive exploration of the State entities on whom effective enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief depends. The Special Rapporteur draws attention to the practical impact of those entities on the enjoyment of this human right, from the domestic authorities that may typically be the most proximate to the everyday lives of rights holders, to those that may typically be considered the most distant. In doing so, she highlights the centrality of the lived experience of rights holders. A. State authorities responsible for the administration of identity, personal status and religious affairs 13. Violations of freedom of religion or belief may begin with the first engagements between a newborn and the State under whose jurisdiction the newborn falls. Through various institutions, which may include local, municipal or regional government and ministries responsible for social services or religious affairs, many States record __________________ 3 4/24 A/HRC/23/49, paras. 70–71. 23-14116