A/HRC/58/49/Add.1 school funding for one religious school but not another, it found that “the fact that a distinction is enshrined in the Constitution does not render it reasonable and objective” or render it non-discriminatory.13 It further found that the historical disadvantage of a religious community is not sufficient and the assessment needed to be carried out at the present time in relation to the specific matter at hand. Any distinctions need to be based on objective and reasonable criteria in order not to lead to discrimination (ICCPR, article 26). The Committee observed that the ICCPR “does not oblige States parties to fund schools which are established on a religious basis. However, if a State party chooses to provide public funding to religious schools, it should make this funding available without discrimination.” 14 Since the different funding was not based on reasonable and objective criteria, it was found to be discriminatory. 41. As noted above (para. 21), on 1 January 2021, the ETA was disbanded and merged into the CFR. The ETA was an autonomous public administrative body responsible for ensuring compliance with the principle of equal treatment and non-discrimination. It could investigate complaints of unequal treatment, initiate lawsuits in defence of victims, opine on regulations concerning equal treatment, keep the public informed, and provide information and assistance to the public. Its disbandment led to Special Procedures mandate holders relaying their concern that this could considerably reduce the level of protection against discrimination in an ‘Other Letter’ to the Government, co-signed by this mandate.15 42. During her meeting with the CFR, the Special Rapporteur received information on his duties, powers and his activities to protect the rights of vulnerable groups. She was also informed that the integration of the ETA into the CFR expanded the Ombudsman’s mandate to include sanctioning powers and broadened its legal authority to protect human rights, enabling the CFR to address a wider range of human rights issues beyond traditional ombudsman functions. It was clarified that requests related to religion or beliefs represent a smaller fraction of the cases handled annually, as the majority of equal treatment complaints are related to disability, motherhood and pregnancy. However, the Special Rapporteur regrets that she did not receive any concrete information or examples of jurisprudence related to religion or belief requests. D. Intolerance and hate crimes 43. According to article 20(2) of the ICCPR, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Hungarian law criminalizes hate speech and protects minority groups, including penalties for inciting hatred. 44. Article 216 of the Hungarian Criminal Code criminalizes behaviour that threatens communal harmony by imposing penalties for acts of assault or coercion based on group membership, whether perceived or actual, along with additional factors such as disability, gender identity, or sexual orientation. According to article 332 of the Criminal Code, ‘A person who, in front of a large audience, incites to violence or hatred against…a religious group’ is guilty of a felony. The Constitution safeguards the dignity of these communities. Article IX.5 of the Constitution prohibits the right to freedom of speech being exercised with the aim of ‘violating the dignity of... [any] religious community’ and provides persons belonging to such communities the entitlement to enforce their claims in court. The Constitution also prohibits Holocaust denial, genocide minimization, and public display of symbols associated with Nazi and communist regimes. The media law further bans content that incites hatred or violence. 45. In its most recent review of Hungary, the CERD Committee expressed its deep alarm at “the prevalence of racist hate speech in the State party against Roma, migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and other minorities, which fuels hatred and intolerance and at times incites violence towards such groups, in particular from leading politicians and in the media, including on the Internet…reports that public figures in the State party, including at the 13 14 15 8 Waldman v. Canada, CCPR/C/67/D/694/1996 (1999), para. 10.4. Ibid, para. 10.6. HUN 1/2021.