E/CN.4/1993/62 page 87 religious speakers and writers who are said to call for their boycott and isolation. It has been alleged that on 2 September 1991, Sheikh Abdulla Bin Abdul Rahman Al Gibreen, a member of the Committee of Grand Ulama, a governmental religious institution, had issued a religious ruling (fatwa) regarding the lawfulness of meat butchered by a Shiite. In his response to the request for a ruling, Sheikh Al Gibreen reportedly did not limit himself to the issue of the request but is said to have declared that the Shia are apostates from Islam ’for which they deserve to be killed’. Bearing in mind that the Shia are reportedly not allowed to express their beliefs on any matter in public, Shia religious scholars would not be allowed to respond to the aforementioned ruling and fears have been expressed that this ruling may jeopardize the safety of the members of the Shia Muslim community in Saudi Arabia." 52. On 2 October 1992, the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the United Nations Office at Geneva transmitted the following information to the Special Rapporteur with regard to the above-mentioned allegation: "1. On page 2, paragraph (1) you state: ’I should like to bring to your Government’s attention allegations I have received relating to your country.’ One should realize that it is the prerogative of any country to ignore derogative ’allegations’ emanating from known or unknown sources and especially those allegations undocumented by substantive ’information’ such as names, dates, locations, concrete evidence, legally documented face-to-face interviews and certified testimonies, all of which are lacking in your above-mentioned communication. No State Member of the United Nations is immune from such irresponsible allegations which are better ignored and denied the dignity of an official reply. 2. Your communication requests our Government to investigate and report to you the validity of the allegations received by your office. Such allegations do not merit a reply. 3. More important in our view is that your communication touches the freedom of religion, a subject which if abused by any such allegations may constitute an infringement, deliberate or otherwise, on the sacred status of freedom of religion and the question of ’religious intolerance’ by which your office is concerned. Our view is that freedom of religion (which is a basic issue in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) has double edges: (a) religion. The freedom of any country to adhere to, protect and preserve its (b) The respect and tolerance towards religious minorities of the country’s citizens as long as they respect the constitutional tenets of their country.