E/CN.4/1992/52 page 169 152. A number of Governments reported the existence of governmental and non-governmental agencies for the defence, protection and promotion of human rights. Some countries had legislation which provided for complaints to be filed against public officials, under criminal law or through mechanisms created for this purpose. The Special Rapporteur noted that very few countries have established the institution of ombudsman in this connection. Some Governments stated that they had not experienced any such incidents, which accounted for the absence of specific remedies. However, a number stated that they had undertaken steps to counter possible manifestations of intransigence despite the fact that such incidents had not yet occurred. Citizens of most of these countries have recourse to ordinary courts but may also take their case to the supreme court. 153. In its reply to the questionnaire, the Government of Ecuador stated that, in addition to remedies offered by ordinary courts, the Tribunal of Constitutional Guarantees was also empowered to hear complaints filed by any natural or legal person regarding violation of the Constitution. The Government of Nicaragua stated that once the administrative remedies available through the national police had been exhausted, victims of religious intolerance could apply for amparo with the Supreme Court of Justice. The Government of Sweden replied that, in addition to prosecution under the Penal Code, the Swedish Constitution also provided for disciplinary action against officials in public service and their prosecution by the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the Chancellor of Justice. In its answer, the Government of Switzerland indicated that, after the exhaustion of internal remedies under cantonal law, violations of the Federal Constitution could be the subject of public-law action before the Federal Tribunal. The Government added that the decisions of the Federal Tribunal could be appealed upon individual petition to the European Commission of Human Rights and could lead to a judgement by the European Court of Human Rights, whose jurisdiction was recognized as legally binding on the State. In their replies, the Governments of Malta and Ireland stated that their countries had incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into the laws under which victims of religious intolerance could seek redress after domestic judicial remedies had been exhausted. 154. In its reply to the questionnaire, the Government of Tunisia stated that offences under the Penal Code and the Press Code were directly prosecuted by the Department of Public Prosecution and that remedies could also be sought through civil proceedings. Victims of violations by an administrative act might seek remedy before the Administrative Tribunal. The Government of Swaziland indicated that only administrative bodies could play a role in the protection of freedom of religion and belief. The Government of Rwanda stated that the Council of State was empowered to cancel a decision taken by an administrative body. The Government of the United States of America indicated in its reply that protection against discrimination was ensured by the Civil Rights Act and civil action could be brought by the aggrieved persons or by the Attorney-General of the United States. In addition, a Commission on Civil Rights, with a broad mandate concerning discrimination, including that based on religion, had also been established.