Starting from the premise that the religion is for those who profess it “one of the fundamental elements is their conception of life” and thus “freedom of faith or conscience must be respected and guaranteed” (We consider that the “ Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief”,11/25/1981, United Nations General Assembly (Resolution 26/55)), as well as the confirmation that faiths in general cooperate with the state’s objectives on human, peace, and understanding advocacy, the state must meet its positive duties and not only refraining of invading or affecting the freedom of faith of people and groups, and rather providing with wings and wheels for its complete enjoyment. It must be noted the crucial importance of the state in the effective enjoyment of the freedom of faith and conscience, which with its power can affect minority groups, or on its place, facilitate for individuals and groups such right through measures of cooperation. Those measures should be on topics awaiting attention for the effective enjoyment of minorities and majorities’ rights. Examples of specific measures which facilitate the enjoyment and exercise of freedom of faith and conscience are attached in the appendix. However, the shortcomings listed above are for now are more than the achievements. Suggestions for the real and effective enjoyment of religious minorities (and majorities)’s rights. The state must be mindful of society��s claims, of democracy, equality, liberty and justice. It must keep in mind that the faiths – minorities and majorities – cooperate with the state’s objectives for promoting humanity, harmony and peace. The faiths are reservoirs moral reference, that the state must consult with in order to meet the ethic public needs. The faiths are claiming for law measures to guarantee the most fundamental right: freedom of conscience. Tolerance is not enough: public ethics imposes respect and goes much beyond that. Despite antidiscrimination law is necessary, it is not enough. It constitutes a shield for groups and individuals who can claim their protection against any third-party or state intervention. However, in addition of providing a shield, the state must provide with wings and wheels for minorities and majorities to enjoy their freedom of faith and conscience. The state must meet its positive duties, to develop measures advocating for the right of direct faith freedoms, in concrete fields of the facilitation of exercise and enjoyment of liberty: education, recognition of legal personality, reasonable adaptation in the work environment, etc. It is not enough that the state only abstains from intervening during the exercise of freedom of faith: it must provide with adequate measure for its complete enjoyment, as it does in other areas. The protection of non-believers, such as atheists and agnostics, can never overpass to force the believers of being against their religion. Beyond the application of an internal right of faith minorities, an education on human rights must be imposed, especially in terms of freedom of faith, for public servants, lawyers, and decision-makers.