A/78/207 25. Owing to their proximity and accessibility to the daily lives of rights holders, local governments have remarkable opportunities to strengthen social cohesion and solidarity. Mandate holders have identified positive examples in that regard, such as the inclusive, cross-sectoral and pragmatic approach to deradicalization employed by the city of Aarhus in Denmark 19 and the district-level interreligious committees working to promote interreligious harmony in Sri Lanka. 20 Indonesia, too, should be commended for the setting up of religious harmony forums at the local level, with a consultative and mediation role on interreligious relations. Making the aforementioned initiatives more accessible to a broader set of religion or belief communities and investing them with a mandate to uphold freedom of religion or belief would build on the existing record of local governments. 26. The Special Rapporteur encourages devolved authorities to maximize on their proximity and accessibility by actively involving religious or belief minorities, in an inclusive a manner, in the development and implementation of policies that concern them. C. Authorities responsible for land, zoning and tenure 27. Land, zoning and tenure represent key issues in relation to freedom of religion or belief. Authorities are responsible for the distribution and allocation of land for places of worship and for burial, the security of tenure for religious or belief minorities and the demarcation of protected indigenous land and territory that may have spiritual significance. Denial of access to, or forced eviction from, land of spiritual significance are among the most common violations experienced by indigenous peoples. 21 The relevant municipal and regional authorities bear the primary responsibility to act legally and in a consultative manner on such matters. 28. Religious or belief communities often face difficulties obtaining permission for the construction, registration and maintenance of places of worsh ip and for burial, which are matters of central importance to their community life. It has been alleged that, in many cases, relevant authorities inhibit or arbitrarily reject such applications, 22 at times owing to a lack of clear legal regulation. Communities may be forced to use residential properties as places of worship or may be deprived of places for burial. 23 29. The mandate holder has also received deeply concerning reports of the closure, desecration or destruction of places of worship, the forcib le reallocation of contested religious sites to a dominant religious tradition and the denial of access to places of worship of minority faiths, ostensibly on security-related grounds. 24 30. According to information received, individuals and communities s uffered denial of the right to employment or the right to housing owing to their religion or belief. Alleged violations have included alleged punitive collective destruction by local __________________ 19 20 21 22 23 24 23-14116 A/HRC/34/50/Add.1, paras. 51–53. A/HRC/43/48/Add.2, para. 17. A/77/514, paras. 27–37. A/HRC/43/48/Add.2, para. 35; and submission provided by the Office of the Public Defender of Georgia. Submissions provided by Attalaki, Equality Myanmar, Komnas Perempuan, Minority Rights Group, the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka and Women’s Action Network and the World Evangelical Alliance and Italian Evangelical Alliance. A/HRC/43/48/Add.2, para. 36; OHCHR, communications sent to the Governments of Bangladesh (BGD 1/2022), China (CHN 6/2022), India (IND 6/2022) and the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRN 22/2022); submissions provided by Attalaki and the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka and Women’s Action Network; and confidential submission provided by one civil society organization. 7/24