E/CN.4/1992/52 page 168 (g) Steps taken by Governments against the expression of extremist or fanatical opinions 147. The majority of the Governments responding to the questionnaire indicated that the expression of such opinions had never taken place and that therefore no legal measures existed to counter such behaviour. The absence of extremist or fanatical opinions is attributed to the freedom of religious worship in the countries concerned, as well as to the religious homogeneity of the population. A number of Governments also invoked their obligations under international human rights instruments. Most stated that the constitution and penal code provided for adequate protection of citizens against any incidents of this nature. 148. In its reply to the questionnaire, the Government of Uruguay stated that its Penal Code had been amended to qualify as a separate offence criminal behaviour on racial or religious grounds after a very serious incident of this nature had occurred. The Government of Tunisia stated that the Press Code and the Act relating to the organization of political parties provided for penalties for insults against an "authorized religion". The Government of Canada stated that the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Criminal Code and the Radio and Television Broadcasting Regulations punished the wilful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group and prohibited the abusive treatment of an individual or group on the basis of a number of characteristics, including religion. 149. The Government of Israel stated that citizens were protected against abuses stemming from religous intransigence or intolerance by the Basic Laws, such as the Defamation Law of 1965 which is said to be an effective deterrent to public expressions of religious discrimination. The Penal Law covered offences against sentiments of religion and tradition. The Government of the United States of America indicated that the Congress had passed a bill concerning "hate crimes" arising from religious and other forms of prejudice. 150. The Special Rapporteur has noted that while he has received numerous allegations of religious intransigence and intolerance since the beginning of his mandate, there is a notable absence of reference to such occurrences in the Governments' replies to the questionnaire. Incidents of this nature which were reported to the Special Rapporteur mainly concerned occasions when the competent authorities are said to have remained inactive when unequivocally extremist or fanatical opinions were being expressed. On the other hand, the Special Rapporteur has also expressd deep concern when the author of a book expressing views considered to be offensive by followers of Islam received a death sentence from the highest authority of the Islamic Republic of Iran. (h) Remedies available to victims of religious intolerance and discrimination 151. Most Governments indicated that basic protection in such cases is provided by the constitution, basic law and penal code and that victims of offences stemming from their religion or belief could have recourse to both domestic judicial and administrative remedies and could also address themselves to international human rights bodies.