A/HRC/34/50 forum externum), any and all limitations must be the exception, not the rule. Moreover, the burden of justification for such restrictions falls on those who wish to impose them, often Governments or State organs. According to article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which must be strictly interpreted, all limitations on the right to freedom of religion or belief must be prescribed by law, and they must be necessary and directly related to the pursuit of a legitimate aim: the protection of “public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”. These restrictions must also be applied in a non-discriminatory manner and be proportionate to the realization of the legitimate aim and, therefore, be the least restrictive among all the adequate measures that could possibly be applied and, in any case, without vitiating the right itself. Unlike some other provisions of the Covenant (such as articles 12, 13, 14, 19, 21 and 22), the right to freedom of religion or belief cannot be restricted on the grounds of national security, and the non-discriminatory nature of the right ensures that nationality cannot form a basis for imposing restrictions on minorities, migrants or non-nationals. 31. The right to freedom of religion or belief and the right to equality are intimately linked. It is not enough only to recognize equality as constituting an underlying principle of this right; it would be more appropriate to view the right to freedom of religion or belief as also constituting a right to equality. This right prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion or belief system, recognized as sacrosanct by a number of human rights instruments. It must be clear, however, that the right to freedom of religion or belief does not give the individual – as a right-holder – the power to marginalize, suppress or carry out violent acts against other individuals and those in vulnerable situations, such as women or members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) community, under the guise of manifesting their religion, or as constituting the “moral high-ground”. 32. While official status or recognition for a particular religion or belief does not per se violate a state’s article 18 obligations, the pre-eminence enjoyed by religions or State ideologies should not result in the impairment of this or other fundamental rights recognized under international law; nor should it result in any discrimination against persons who do not accept the official ideology or who oppose it. The previous mandate holder repeatedly stressed that it seemed difficult, if not impossible, that the application of the concept of an official State religion in practice would not have adverse effects on religious minorities by way of discriminating against their members (A/HRC/19/60, para. 62; A/67/303, para. 47). It should be noted in this regard that some State parties to international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, have submitted general reservations that apparently justify certain restrictions of fundamental rights, or violations of the principle of non-discrimination based on religious or belief-based principles. In the same manner, however, equality in and of itself cannot guarantee the right to freedom of religion or belief. For example, “doctrinal secularism”, which rather than creating an inclusive space for religious pluralism on a nondiscriminatory manner but emphasizes State secularism over the right to freedom of religion or belief, could engender activities that reduce the space for religious or belief pluralism. It is pertinent to recall, therefore, that all human rights are interdependent, interrelated and universal, and must be conceptualized in a holistic manner without perceiving of a hierarchy of rights. 33. The Special Rapporteur believes that acknowledging and addressing the aforementioned common misperceptions, among others, is critical to protecting and advancing the most basic and foundational principles of the right to the right to freedom of religion or belief. Indeed, the corpus of work produced by the mandate over the past 30 years, and development of the wider human rights framework during that period, together with the growing body of jurisprudence from treaty bodies and regional human rights mechanisms, reinforces this finding. Such an exercise will also help to strengthen the mandate holder’s role in addressing the key challenges of our time by engaging more robustly and 11