E/CN.4/2005/61/Add.1 Page 57 218. The Government further indicated that article 7 of the Constitution stipulates that religious communities in the Republic of Slovenia enjoy equal rights and that they may pursue their activities freely. Article 14 of the Constitution stipulates that everyone is guaranteed equal human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of national origin, race, sex, language, religion, political or other conviction, material status, birth, education, social status or any other personal circumstance. The Constitution also specifies that religious and other beliefs may be freely professed in private and public life, and that no one is obliged to declare his/her religious or other beliefs. Parents have the right to provide their children with a religious and moral upbringing in accordance with their beliefs. The religious and moral guidance given to children must be appropriate to their age and maturity, and be consistent with their free conscience and religious and other beliefs or convictions (article 41 of the Constitution). 219. As regards the complaints about the construction of an Islamic centre or a mosque, the Office for Religious Communities of the Republic of Slovenia expressed its support for the right of the Islamic community to appropriate religious facilities in letters addressed to the Human Rights Ombudsman and to the Municipality of Ljubljana. The implementation of this right, however, depends on numerous factors. The basic factor, which falls within the jurisdiction of the local community, is the possibility of obtaining a building plot. The City Council of the Municipality of Ljubljana adopted the appropriate land-use planning document on 8 December 2003. Sri Lanka 220. On 14 June 2004, the Special Rapporteur sent a communication to the Government of Sri Lanka regarding a draft “Bill on the Prohibition of Forcible Conversion”, which was presented by Buddhist monks of the Jathika Hela Uramaya (JHU) party. The draft bill was allegedly presented to protect and foster Buddhism in Sri Lanka. While some organizations reportedly challenged the bill in the Supreme Court within the required period of seven days, it was feared that they might not obtain satisfaction given the recent trend taken by the Court in favour of Buddhism. 221. By letter dated 25 June 2004, the Government of Sri Lanka responded that members of Parliament of the JHU had presented a Private Members Bill on religious conversions, and that it was the prerogative of any member of Parliament to do so. 222. The Government also indicated that there had been several Private Members Bills seeking to incorporate organizations with the purpose of propagating a religion combined with administering social and economic assistance to the community. These bills had been successfully challenged in the Supreme Court in three instances. The facts of all three cases were similar. Each case related to the promotion of a particular faith as well as to the provision of education, job training and social welfare services. The purpose of incorporation was to have the power to raise money and engage in normal commercial activities. The petitioners who challenged the bills argued that if Parliament were to statutorily incorporate the organizations of a particular denomination and also vest in them the right to engage in economic activities, it could lead to conversions of persons to that religious denomination through allurement or subtle means. It was contended that that would be an infringement of the freedom of thought, conscience and religion guaranteed