A/65/207 violence or discrimination against individuals on the basis of their religion. The Special Rapporteurs emphasized that freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression are interdependent and interrelated. 43. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur would like to distinguish between the expression of opinions, even when they are deemed offensive by some believers, and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. To protect the integrity of individuals, advocacy of religious hatred must be prohibited by law if it reaches the threshold of article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, each case has to be examined on its own merits so that freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief are not undermined. In this regard, the judiciary plays a vital role in striking a delicate balance on a case-by-case basis. As indicated in one of the Special Rapporteur’s recent country reports, 38 there is a risk that domestic laws prohibiting hate speech may be interpreted loosely and applied selectively by the authorities, which underlines the importance of having unambiguous language and of devising effective safeguards against abuses of the law. She would like to reiterate that legislation on religious issues should not be vague but rather must be all-inclusive, carefully crafted and implemented in a non-biased manner. 39 44. The Special Rapporteur would like to refer to positive developments in this regard. Subsequent to her recommendations in a country visit report, the Parliament introduced new legislation which ultimately abolished the discriminatory commonlaw offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel in 2008. 40 In addition, recent voting patterns in the Human Rights Council suggest that support for the concept of “defamation of religions” is on the decline at the international level. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that criminalizing so-called defamation of religions as such can be counterproductive and may have adverse consequences for members of religious minorities, dissenting believers, atheists, artists and academics. 41 Instead of trying to shield religions per se against criticism or ridicule, States should rather focus their attention on the protection of believers and non-believers against discrimination and violence. In some countries, however, there still appears to be resistance to abandoning the criminalization of blasphemy or to repealing discriminatory provisions that purport to combat “defamation of religions”. 42 __________________ 38 39 40 41 42 10-47047 Report on the mission to the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (A/HRC/13/40/Add.2, paras. 46-48 and 60). See the report on the 2008 expert seminar on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Freedom of expression and advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” (A/HRC/10/31/Add.3, para. 24). See the Special Rapporteur’s report on her visit to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (A/HRC/7/10/Add.3, paras. 73-75), the Government’s replies to the list of issues in connection with the consideration of the sixth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee (CCPR/C/GBR/Q/6/Add.1, para. 165) and the Committee’s concluding observations (CCPR/C/GBR/CO/6, para. 4). See A/62/280, paras. 70-71 and 76-77. On 19 April 2010, for example, the Constitutional Court of Indonesia upheld the country’s anti-blasphemy law (No. 1/PNPS/1965), which imposes criminal penalties of up to five years’ imprisonment on individuals who deviate from the basic teachings of the official religions. See also the Special Rapporteur’s urgent appeals of 21 April 2008 and 12 June 2008, as well as the response by the Government of Indonesia dated 27 June 2008 (A/HRC/10/8/Add.1, paras. 55-68). 15