A/HRC/13/40/Add.1 nationality or faith. This is the highest maxim for action by the State. Xenophobia and Islamophobia have no place in Germany.” 92. The Special Rapporteurs recalled Human Rights Council resolution 10/25, in which the Council urges States to “take the necessary measures, in accordance with international human rights law, to combat discrimination based on religion or belief by non-State actors, with particular regard to members of religious minorities and other persons in vulnerable situations”. In addition, General Assembly resolution 63/181 urges States to take “all necessary and appropriate action, in conformity with international standards of human rights, to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by intolerance based on religion or belief, as well as incitement to hostility and violence, with particular regard to members of religious minorities in all parts of the world”. The Special Rapporteur urged the Government to conduct an impartial and transparent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the murder of Ms. Marwa Al Sherbini with a view to taking all appropriate disciplinary and prosecutorial action and ensuring accountability of any person guilty of the murder, as well as to compensate the family of the victims. (b) Response from the Government dated 20 October 2009 93. The Government of Germany in its response dated 20 October 2009 confirmed that the facts alleged in the above summary of the case were accurate. With regard to the investigation and judicial or other inquiries carried out in relation with this case, the Government indicated that the investigation by the Dresden Public Prosecution Office, which had begun immediately following the incident on 1 July 2009, had meanwhile been concluded. The public prosecution office charged Mr. Alex W. with the murder of Ms. Marwa Al Sherbini as well as the attempted murder of, and aggravated bodily harm on, her husband, Mr. Elwy Okaz. The defendant had been in remand detention since the time of the alleged offence. The investigation has shown that the defendant stabbed Ms. Marwa Al Sherbini at least 16 times in the back and chest area as well the right arm, and stabbed her husband at least 16 times in the area of the head and throat, the upper body and the right arm. He used a kitchen knife with a blade measuring 18 centimetres, which he had brought unnoticed into the courtroom in a backpack. According to the public prosecution office, the murder element of malice forethought has been fulfilled because none of the victims had imagined that they might be attacked by the defendant, and because they were all helplessly subjected to the attack. Furthermore, the offence was committed out of base motives, because the defendant’s motive was his clear hatred for non-Europeans and Muslims. According to the evaluation by the psychiatric expert, there are no recognizable indications in the defendant of a lack of being able to control his actions or appreciate the consequences of them (so-called criminal responsibility). 94. After learning of the horrific act committed at the Dresden Regional Court, the Federal Public Prosecutor General has been receiving continual updates on the matter from the Dresden Public Prosecution Office. As a general rule, the Public Prosecution Offices of the Länder are responsible for criminal investigations. The law provides for assumption of the investigation by the Federal Public Prosecution Office only if very special prerequisites exist. The Federal Public Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice has prosecution competence only in the very rare cases that an offence is to be classified as a state security offence directed against the state as a whole. 95. With regard to measures that are envisaged to prevent the recurrence of such violent acts, the Government indicated that an initial assessment of the incident had led to the review of the security concept for the courts of the Free State of Saxony. Saxony’s security had been directed in a reactive manner and had “open” judicial buildings without a general access control. Security was to be guaranteed by way of the most rapid possible alarm and 26