E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.3 page 13 “No person shall unethically convert or attempt to unethically convert any other person espousing one religion, or holding or belonging to, one religious belief, religious persuasion or faith, to another religion, religious belief, religious persuasion or faith which such person does not hold or belong to. No person shall abet any such unethical conversion.” 66. The terms “unethically convert” are further defined in article 10 of the Minority Bill and include a wide variety of acts, 12 which allows for a very broad interpretation of the offence. 67. The constitutionality of the JHU Bill was challenged before the Supreme Court under article 121(1) of the Constitution by 21 petitions. In its determination under article 123 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court held that the provision is requiring a person who is converting and any person performing or involved in a conversion ceremony to report to the authorities, as well as the corresponding penalties, are contrary to article 10 of the Constitution. In terms of institution of the proceedings, the Court recommended that they should be initiated according to the Criminal Procedure Code Act subject to the written permission of the Attorney-General. Finally, the Court suggested a minor amendment to the definitions of “allurement”, “force” and “fraudulent means” as they appear in the draft. 68. Therefore, if the JHU Bill is amended according to the Supreme Court’s determination, it would no longer be in violation of the Constitution, in particular its article 10, and could pass to the next phase of the legislative process. On the contrary, if the Bill is not amended according to the Court determination, it would require a two-thirds majority in Parliament and a referendum by the people of Sri Lanka to become law. 69. The Supreme Court has so far not made any determination on the Ministry Bill. C. Compatibility with the right to freedom of religion or belief 70. Supporters of the “unethical” conversions bills were confident that the text of the bills had been carefully drafted and did not violate or contravene international law, including the right to freedom of religion or belief. They often referred to the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in the case Kokkinakis v. Greece,13 and in particular its paragraph 48 where the Court held that “First of all, a distinction has to be made between bearing Christian witness and improper proselytism. The former corresponds to true evangelism, which a report drawn up in 1956 under the auspices of the World Council of Churches describes as an essential mission and a responsibility of every Christian and every Church. The latter represents a corruption or deformation of it. It may, according to the same report, take the form of activities offering material or social advantages with a view to gaining new members for a Church or exerting improper pressure on people in distress or in need; it may even entail the use of violence or brainwashing; more generally, it is not compatible with respect for the freedom of thought, conscience and religion of others.” 71. In commenting on the determination of the Supreme Court, the Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance of the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka observed that the Court had relied on Kokkinakis case, “albeit mistakenly”. The Court had made its determination in abstracto. Unlike