A/HRC/13/40/Add.4 extensive oversight and broad powers given to the Lao Front for National Construction and other Government entities. 1. Vaguely worded obligations and duties imposed on religious communities 27. Several provisions are worded in an ambiguous or vague manner which makes them prone to selective or discriminatory interpretation. For example, article 2 of the Decree defines that all religions in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic “are based on and aimed at serving the development of the country and at educating the population of various social strata to follow the progressive teachings of their religion”. However, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that the contents of a religion should be defined by the worshippers themselves and that, apart from the legal recourse available against harmful activities, the State should not act as the guardian of people’s consciences by encouraging, imposing or censuring any religious belief.7 28. Furthermore, article 5 of the Decree requires believers of all religions “to preserve and expand historic traditions, cultural heritage and Lao national unity”. In addition, according to article 9 of the Constitution and article 13 of the Decree, it is punishable to create divisions among ethnic groups or religions. In this context, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that the notions of harmony and unity are given undue importance in the implementation process, which may ultimately have adverse effects on religious minorities and diversity in the country. Indeed, during her mission, the importance of preventing the divisive nature of religions was repeated by many of her official interlocutors. It appears that the confusion in this regard existed both at the district levels and at the central level. 29. This approach is unfortunately also confirmed by the declaration of the Government when ratifying the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, stating that all acts creating division among religions were incompatible with article 18 of the Covenant. However, it seems questionable whether this declaration is in line with the text and spirit of the Covenant. The Special Rapporteur wishes to refer to the delicate balance that the Covenant strikes between the various fundamental freedoms, including freedom of religion or belief, and possible limitations, for example in article 18, paragraph 3, and article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. The Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 22 (1993) on freedom of thought, conscience or religion, emphasized that any limitations imposed on the freedom to manifest religion or belief must be established by law and must not be applied in a manner that would vitiate the rights guaranteed in article 18 of the Covenant.8 The Committee also observed that limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. In addition, restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner. In accordance with article 20 of the Covenant, no manifestation of religion or belief may amount to propaganda for war or advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern the different approach and lower threshold for limitations on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief applied by the Lao People’s Democratic Republic by seeking to outlaw “all acts creating division among religions”. This domestic concept is highly subjective and could be abused by the State to prohibit religious activities that are protected under international law, such as the teaching and dissemination of religious 7 8 10 See E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99 and A/HRC/4/21, para. 46. See Official Records of the General Assembly, Forty-eighth Session, Supplement No. 40 (A/48/40), vol. I, annex VI, para. 8. GE.10-10542