A/54/386 A. Religious extremism Country Date of submission of follow-up table Reply China 1996; A/51/542 1996; A/51/542 Pakistan 1996; A/51/542 1997; A/52/477/Add.1 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 1996; A/51/542 No reply Greece 1997; A/52/477/Add.1 1997; E/CN.4/1998/6 Sudan 1997; A/52/477/Add.1 1997; A/52/477/Add.1 India 1997; A/52/477/Add.1 1998; A/53/279 Australia 1998; E/CN.4/1999/58 Reply not yet received Germany 1998; E/CN.4/1999/58 Reply not yet received 126. This year, the Special Rapporteur decided that in addition to his “traditional” visits, he would visit the major religious communities in order to establish a direct dialogue on the subject of the 1981 Declaration and on all issues relating to freedom of religion or belief and to consider solutions to whatever problems of intolerance and discrimination might arise. In September 1999, the Special Rapporteur will visit the Holy See. 127. The Special Rapporteur also decided to visit the main intergovernmental institutions working directly or indirectly in the area of tolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief. Accordingly, he visited the headquarters of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in 1999 and decided to strengthen his cooperation with that agency. He also plans to visit the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to discuss arrangements for mutual cooperation. VI. Conclusions and recommendations 128. A study of the communications sent in the context of this report and of the Special Rapporteur’s mission reports for 1999 reveals several general trends: an increase in religious extremism, the continued existence of policies adversely affecting freedom of religion and belief and the persistence of discrimination against women. The Special Rapporteur has tried to trace the development of each of these trends. 20 129. As in his previous reports, the Special Rapporteur notes the persistence of various types and degrees of Islamic extremism (particularly in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Niger and Pakistan). However, it is evident that this phenomenon has spread to other religions, as seen by the rise in Hindu extremism directed against Christian and Muslim communities and, potentially, against religious minorities in India and even in Nepal. The Muslim extremism which broke out in Indonesia has also, in some cases, led to violent counterattacks by Christian extremists. Judaism may also be subjected to distortion in Israel by Jewish extremists. Thus, no religion is free from extremism: it may be interreligious (directed against religious communities of different faiths), intra-religious (within the same religion and, in particular, between different sects) or even both at once. The most striking example is that of the Taliban, who, in the name of religion, are persecuting not only nonMuslim minorities, but also Muslims: both Afghan Muslim minorities (i.e., the Shiites) and the Muslim majority subject to the Taliban’s diktat. The most common victims of the various types of extremism are: (a) Minorities (both the followers of other religions and different groups within the same religion) are usually the preferred targets of extremists (in, for example, Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Israel, Niger and Pakistan); of course, this does not preclude potential or actual persecution of the majority; (b) Women are also a prime target of extremists, whether through discriminatory measures that place them in an inferior position and even (in the case of Afghanistan) deprive them of all rights; or, with increasing frequency, through violence in the form of assault, attempted murder, murder, abduction and, in many cases, rape. Violence against women appears to be extremists’ instrument of choice as a means of terrorizing whole communities through, inter alia, attacks on women’s dignity and on the “honour” of the entire community. 130. In addition, extremism is often practised by non-State entities. These may be groups acting out of pure fanaticism associated with ignorance or obscurantism or extremist religious groups with a deliberate plan to impose their religious interpretation on the whole of society. In most cases, however, they are extremist “professionals” who use religion for political purposes — in other words, in order to seize power. However, it must be acknowledged that these non-State entities do not operate in a vacuum and