A/HRC/4/21 page 16 46. In line with this reasoning, the Special Rapporteur follows the approach of interpreting the scope of application for freedom of religion or belief in a large sense, bearing in mind that manifestations of this freedom may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Rosalyn Higgins, who is currently President of the International Court of Justice and was a member of the Human Rights Committee when its general comment No. 22 was drafted, “resolutely opposed the idea that States could have complete latitude to decide what was and what was not a genuine religious belief. The contents of a religion should be defined by the worshippers themselves; as for manifestations, article 18, paragraph 3, existed to prevent them from violating the rights of others”. (CCPR/C/SR.1166, para. 48.) A similar statement was made by Abdelfattah Amor in his 1997 report to the Commission on Human Rights. There, the second mandate-holder emphasized that, apart from the legal courses available against harmful activities, “it is not the business of the State or any other group or community to act as the guardian of people’s consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious belief or conviction”. (E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99) 47. In this regard it seems to be particularly worrying when a religious community is empowered - either de jure or de facto - to decide about or to veto the registration of another religious or belief group. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that registration should not be a precondition for practising one’s religion, but only for the acquisition of a legal personality and related benefits. Furthermore, registration procedures should be easy and quick and they should neither depend on reviews of the substantive content of the belief nor on extensive formal requirements. Thus, requiring high minimum membership levels or a lengthy existence in the country concerned are no appropriate criteria for registration. IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 48. The number and seriousness of mandate-related allegations received by the Special Rapporteur lead to the conclusion that the protection of freedom of religion or belief and the implementation of the 1981 Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief is far from being a reality. Governments should redouble their efforts to uphold the provisions in their everyday work and non-governmental organizations may continue to exercise their role as public watchdogs and also inform on national best practices. Numerous differing approaches in various countries may be noted and there still is a huge gap between rhetoric and practice in many instances. 49. The principles contained in the 1981 Declaration need to be further disseminated among lawmakers, judges and civil servants but also among non-State actors. It is of the utmost importance to promote the ideals of tolerance and understanding through education, for example by introducing human rights standards in school curricula and through the training of the teaching staff. Religious tolerance can only be acquired if people learn from their earliest childhood about the existence and distinctive characteristics of other religious or faith-based communities. There is an urgent need to eliminate the root causes of intolerance and discrimination and to remain vigilant with regard to freedom of religion or belief worldwide. It is equally crucial to depoliticize issues relating to religion or belief and to bring the discussion fully within the framework of human rights.