A/HRC/37/49/Add.1 implemented within 10 years of their adjudication and establishes a compensation fund worth 3.8 billion leks. 41. Some officials indicated that, although the approval of by-laws of the Agency (which was established by the 2016 law) was still under way, a process for examining restitution claims had already been initiated in order to more effectively address requests within the three-year deadline for resolving claims under the 2016 law. Since the establishment of the Agency, the number of staff tasked with working on these claims increased from 90 before the passage of the 2016 law to reportedly approximately 170. A working group was also established by the Agency in August 2016 to deal specifically with religious property. According to agency officials, the working group has already met with representatives of the relevant religious communities and will continue to do so during the process. 42. It is important to note that in addition to the spiritual value that the religious communities attach to the seized properties, the restitution or compensation they seek is seen as critical to their ability to effectively meet the financial and spiritual needs of their communities, including the need to provide salaries for their clergy. Almost all of the representatives of the country’s traditional religious communities with whom the Special Rapporteur met stressed the important link between resolution of their claims and the preservation of independent, vibrant and tolerant religious communities that have existed in Albania for centuries. Several representatives of the Muslim community specifically stated that restitution of their property was also important to reduce its dependency on foreign sources of funding that may promote values and ideologies that were alien to the traditional Albanian religious communities, particularly the Muslim community. 43. The scale, scope and complexity of the challenge faced by the Government in addressing this issue cannot be underestimated. While some suggested that the Government has lacked the political will to address the issue so far, they do not attribute the lack of progress to discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. At the same time, delays in the restitution of property can cause unnecessary tension as objects deemed holy by certain faith-based communities may currently be occupied, utilized or modified in ways that may offend their former religious owners and worshipers. The Special Rapporteur notes that, despite the Government’s pronouncements regarding the new advancements under the 2016 law, its constitutionality has been contested in the courts by political opponents and landowners who claim it does not go far enough in protecting the rights of the dispossessed. B. Religious pluralism and community agreements 44. As previously noted, the State has recognized and entered into agreements (via the Council of Ministers) with five religious communities in Albania, pursuant to article 10 of the Constitution. These communities are the four traditional religious communities — Roman Catholic (2002), the Autocephalous Orthodox Church of Albania (2009), the Muslim Community of Albania (2009) and the World Bektashi Main Community (2009) — and more recently the Evangelical Brotherhood of Albania (VUSH), a Protestant group (2011). The Special Rapporteur notes that the existing agreement between the Roman Catholic community and the State is actually between Albania and the Holy See. 45. The process for State recognition of religious communities or groups via agreements entered into between the parties appears, on the face of it, to be at odds with the country’s constitutional stipulations for a secular and neutral State. More specifically, article 10 of the Constitution appears to create legal differentiation — or perhaps a hierarchy — between religious organizations recognized under the country’s Non-profit Organization Law (No. 8788) and those recognized as religious communities and allowed to enter into agreements with the State. This is certainly true for religious groups that are not registered as NGOs or religious communities. It is uncertain whether this apparent hierarchy also produces inequality that may lead to discriminations in the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief. At any rate, no such cases were reported to the Special Rapporteur during his visit. 10