A/66/156 E. Important caveats 46. State-sponsored interreligious communication, if conducted in an inappropriate manner, can unfortunately have serious negative side effects. If the State is perceived to take sides in favour of one particular religion or one specific strand within the predominant religion, then other religious communities may — for perfectly understandable reasons — prefer not to participate in a State-sponsored dialogue initiative. For instance, in one particular country, a minority community has been pressured by the State in recent years to join the mainstream branch of its particular religion. The frustration felt by the community members ultimately led them to boycott the dialogue project initiated by the State. In another country, the manner in which political leaders conducted debates on the prohibition of wearing religious garments caused a boycott of an interreligious dialogue project by a particular community. These examples illustrate that interreligious dialogue projects may also lead to alienation of the very communities those projects should seek to engage. Moreover, some reports indicate that interreligious forums have been manipulated politically, including for electoral purposes or other political gains. 47. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that the general starting point for designing dialogue projects must be the insight that freedom of religion or belief has the status of an inalienable human right based on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings. Hence, when supporting interreligious communication, the State remains under the obligation to always respect the freedom of religion or belief. This general caveat leads to a number of more specific requirements, such as refraining from monopoly claims for Statesupported dialogue projects, respecting the voluntary nature of participation, observing the principle of State neutrality and doing justice to the idea of conceptual inclusiveness. 48. State-initiated or State-supported interreligious dialogue projects, for all the symbolic and practical significance they may have, must never claim a monopoly in this area. As mentioned earlier, the possibility of intra- and interreligious communication itself has the status of a universal human rights claim within the scope of freedom of religion or belief. It is therefore clear that religious or belief communities always remain free to establish dialogue projects on their own initiative, without depending on State approval. State-promoted dialogue projects must also be open to public criticism. 49. State-initiated or State-supported interreligious dialogue projects must always proceed on a voluntary basis. They should be presented and perceived as an offer addressed to religious or belief communities, rather than as an obligation imposed on them by the State. If some religious or belief groups prefer not to participate in a given project or generally wish to preserve distance from the State or from other religious groups, such an attitude of reserve must be respected as a part of their freedom of religion or belief. However, reports from different countries indicate that this is not always the case and that some communities have been negatively branded as a result of their decisions not to get involved in specific dialogue projects. 50. When initiating or promoting interreligious communication, the State should refrain from identifying itself with one particular religion or belief — or with one specific type of religion, such as a monotheistic religion. States should aspire to remain neutral in this respect. If, by contrast, the State were to participate in 11-41943 17