A/HRC/34/50 restrict that same right. This includes statutes criminalizing blasphemy or apostasy (with punishments for such offences ranging from fines to the death penalty). 39. Notwithstanding the absolute protections covering the right to have, adopt or change one’s religion or belief (or not have any beliefs at all) under international human rights law, more than 10 per cent of countries around the world criminalize apostasy. According to the International Humanist and Ethical Union, there has been a worrying trend worldwide towards more targeted discrimination and violence against atheists and non-religious persons in recent years. In particular, 22 countries allow the use of the death penalty for apostasy and at least 13 have capital punishment for atheists.6 While anyone can run afoul of these laws because they effectively criminalize dissent and free-thinking, “nonbelievers”, humanists and atheists are particularly at risk. Apostates and non-believers are particularly at risk from non-State actors or religious vigilantes or ”forces”, which are known to operate with impunity in a number of States. 40. Similarly, anti-blasphemy laws, which prohibit or criminalize the alleged “defamation” of religious beliefs and principles, or those which allegedly insult religious figures, have a disproportionate impact on members of minority religious communities and “non-believers”. Blasphemy, which is generally framed as a strict liability offence and based on vague and overly broad criminal statutes, is increasingly used against political opponents for their opposition to the Government. Blasphemy is an offence in at least 49 countries punishable with a prison term or in some cases with the death penalty. 7 The Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment no. 34 (2011), noted that blasphemy laws were incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20 (2). It stressed that “it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over nonbelievers”, and that it would also be impermissible for such prohibitions “to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith”. 41. Common and recurring limitations on the manifestation of religious principles or concepts of belief generally involve the freedom to worship (including at designated places of worship); religious symbols or iconography (such as the hijab for women in Islam); the observance of holidays and days of rest; the appointment of clergy; teaching and disseminating materials (including missionary activity); the right of parents to ensure the religious and moral education of their children according to their convictions; registration as a precondition for practicing one’s religion or belief (as opposed to acquisition of a legal personality and related benefits); communication with individuals and communities on religious matters at the national and international levels; the establishment and maintenance of charitable and humanitarian institutions that can solicit or receive funding; and conscientious objection. 42. Other examples of common types of limitations or restrictions interfering with the right to freedom of religion or belief include criminal legal sanctions, burdensome administrative regulations or civil penalties, and discriminatory personal status and family laws, as well as discrimination in the work place and the challenges related to the enshrinement of the principle of reasonable accommodation (see A/69/261). The Special Rapporteur notes that members of minority communities and other persons and groups in vulnerable situations are often disproportionately affected by restrictions on manifestations of religion or belief. 6 7 International Humanist and Ethical Union, Freedom of Thought Report 2016. Ibid. 13