A/HRC/7/10/Add.1 page 11 have received that he was beaten by the police in the labour re-education facility and subjected to sleep deprivation are without substance. The Chinese labour re-education facility operates a strict management system, under which the ill-treatment of inmates undergoing labour re-education is categorically prohibited, and any persons disobeying this rule shall be punished in accordance with the law. Within the labour re-education facilities there are procurator representatives, specializing in supervision of the conduct of law-enforcement activities by the police in the labour re-education facility. 30. As to the question whether Bu Dongwei lodged an appeal or whether an appeal was lodged on his behalf by a representative, Chinese laws and regulations stipulate that persons undergoing labour re-education may, within 60 days of receipt of the labour re-education order, submit an application for administrative review to the local government office that issued the order or, within three months of receipt of the labour re-education order, lodge an administrative appeal directly with the local people’s court. This right is explicitly stated in the labour reeducation order that was issued to Bu Dongwei. On 5 May, Bu Dongwei presented a power of attorney to the people’s police in the labour re education facility, naming his wife as his legal representative in dealing with all matters relating to his application for administrative review. 31. The Chinese Government wishes to draw the attention of the Special Rapporteur to the fact that “Falun Gong” is not a religion, nor is it a spiritual movement. It is an anti-scientific, antihuman, anti-social cult. “Falun Gong” poses a serious menace to Chinese society, leading great numbers of its duped followers to cause harm to themselves and even to take their own lives. The Chinese Government conducts patient persuasive counselling and educational work among rankand-file “Falun Gong” practitioners, fully upholds all their rights and helps them return to their normal lives. A small number of “Falun Gong” practitioners receive punishments in accordance with the law, but this is not because of their opinions or belief: it is because their activities have breached the law, harming the interests of the State, society and individuals. In the course of the present case, the relevant departments have strictly observed due process and have guaranteed the exercise by the parties involved of their lawful rights and interests. Observations 32. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response. With regard to the question of “cults” or “sects”, she would like to refer to the chapter on “Religious minorities and new religious movements” in her report to the fourth session of the Human Rights Council (see A/HRC/4/21, paras. 43-47). The Special Rapporteur reiterates her predecessor’s assessment 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). Similarly, during the elaboration of general comment No. 22, Human Rights Committee member Rosalyn Higgins was “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). The terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ are to be broadly construed, 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. The Special Rapporteur continues to be very concerned by the continued violations of freedom of religion or belief