A/HRC/13/40/Add.2 40. There are also reports about friction between different Muslim groups in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. On the one hand, the Special Rapporteur was informed that the Islamic religious community “regards the Bectash Dervish Order as its integral part and the registration of the Bectash religious community as invalid and legally unsubstantiated”.23 On the other hand, the Bectash community indicated that it was a separate religious group which had been operating since the 15th century when the foundations of the Dervish Bectash monastery “Harabati Baba Teke” were laid. In 2000, it was allegedly registered by the Commission for Relations with Religious Communities and Religious Groups. However, since it had not already been registered in 1998, the Bectash community does not automatically maintain its legal personality and status pursuant to article 35 of the 2007 Law on the Legal Status of a Church, a Religious Community and a Religious Group. The recent requests for registration of the Bectash community were reportedly rejected in 2009. 41. In general terms, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to the reasoning by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova.24 The Court emphasized that the State had a duty to remain neutral and impartial in exercising its regulatory power and in its relations with the various religions, denominations and beliefs. Furthermore, State measures favouring a particular leader or specific organs of a divided religious community or seeking to compel the community or part of it to place itself, against its will, under a single leadership, would constitute an infringement of the freedom of religion. The Court also stressed that the right of believers to freedom of religion, which includes the right to manifest one’s religion in community with others, encompassed the expectation that believers would be allowed to associate freely, without arbitrary State intervention. In the recent case of Mirolubovs and others v. Latvia,25 the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed that the autonomy of religious communities was an essential component of pluralism in a democratic society, where several religions or denominations of the same religion coexisted. While some regulation by the authorities was necessary in order to protect individuals’ interests and beliefs, the State had a duty of neutrality and impartiality which barred it from pronouncing itself on the legitimacy of beliefs and their means of expression. D. Places of worship 42. The Special Rapporteur is concerned about reports she received of sectarian violence and incidents of damage to some places of worship. Such acts are usually perpetuated by non-State actors and target the properties of religious minorities, both of registered and unregistered communities. The Special Rapporteur’s interlocutors also presented cases in which the local police had allegedly been reluctant to intervene and stop attacks against properties of religious minorities. Their believers also encountered problems in seeking compensation for the related loss and consequently had to meet for several years in a rented place which was not necessarily suitable for purposes of worship. 43. Representatives of religious minorities also shared their concerns about administrative problems and de facto obstruction they faced in seeking official permission for building new places of worship. When applying for such building permits, they 23 24 25 14 Macedonian Centre for International Cooperation, Address Book of the Religious Communities in Macedonia, 2004, p. 32 (available online at http://mcms.powweb.com/MSM/eng/pdf/adresar-naverski-zaednici-ENGL.pdf). See European Court of Human Rights’ judgement of 13 December 2001, application no. 45701/99, paras. 116-118. European Court of Human Rights, judgement of 15 September 2009, application no. 798/05.