A/72/365 VI. Conclusions and recommendations 72. Manifestations of religious intolerance, not least those that lead to discrimination and violence, prevent the full realization of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Intolerance based on religion or belief has two separate aspects: (a) an unfavourable attitude of mind towards persons or groups of a different religion or belief; and (b) manifestations of such an attitude in practice. States cannot possibly legislate attitudes and must refrain from attempts to regulate controversial thoughts. Laws and judicial enforcement cannot eradicate religious intolerance and are not sufficient as a stand-alone approach. In fact, tackling manifestations of intolerance, such as discriminatory or violent acts that undermine the fundamental human rights of persons because of the religion or belief to which they may adhere may require both legal solutions and thoughtful, responsive non-legal measures promoted by the State. 73. Authorities must redouble their efforts to restore trust in public State institutions, especially when it comes to upholding freedom of religion or belief. The building of trust requires well-functioning institutions, including an independent judiciary and effective national human rights institutions and human rights monitoring bodies. 74. Furthermore, the gap between commitments to combat intolerant acts and practices and their implementation needs to be addressed through transparent, credible and accountable policies executed at the national and local levels. States must repeal all laws that discriminate on the basis of religion or belief or that undermine the exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Particular attention must be paid to upholding the obligation to protect the rights of members of religious minorities, as well as those of women, children, members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex community and others in vulnerable situations, such as migrants, refugees and internally displaced persons. 75. Adequate criminal sanctions penalizing violent and particularly egregious discriminatory acts perpetrated by State or non-State actors against persons based on their religion or belief should be adopted where they do not exist and must be equitably enforced. States should also develop and implement effective preventive strategies to help curb aggravating factors linked to religious intolerance, which can lead to discrimination or violence. 76. However, criminal sanctions to curb incitement to violence, hostility or discrimination must be used as a method of last resort, and only when such sanctions are necessary and proportional to the harm to be avoided. Such laws, in fact, could reinforce religious intolerance, especially where the absence of a robust commitment to pluralism and diversity results in discriminatory State practices that abuse such laws. Furthermore, criticism of religion, religious leaders or doctrine is not a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief. Advocates of anti-blasphemy laws should note that their application more often than not invites a cycle of hatred and hostility, reinforcing prejudice and triggering a spiral of angry and violent responses. Anti-blasphemy laws have a stifling impact on the enjoyment of the freedom of religion or belief and the freedom of opinion and expression and should be repealed. 77. The enjoyment of the full exercise of the freedom of religion or belief also requires a set of positive policy measures in the areas of education, religious literacy, media, civil society development and State cooperation with religious leaders and communities. A policy of inclusion of all religious and belief groups could go a long way to strengthen pluralism through equal participation in public life of persons holding various beliefs. Minority communities should also embrace, where possible, strategies that build constructive resilience against 22/24 17-14822