A/HRC/6/5 page 18 where the accused would be entitled to defend himself with the assistance of legal counsel, to call witnesses and to exercise the right of appeal cannot be accepted. Offering a reward for the killing of such a person constitutes an incitement to crime and a call to religious hatred which is liable to legal prosecution in all countries where the rule of law prevails” (E/CN.4/1993/62, para. 79). 41. Human rights obligations of States are not limited to abstaining from committing direct violations of freedom of religion or belief or other fundamental human rights. Their obligations also consist in ensuring the free exercise of the right to freedom of religion or belief by protecting religious communities and enabling them to practise their faith in all security. States also have a positive obligation to bring the perpetrators of acts of violence or of other acts of religious intolerance to justice and to promote a culture of religious tolerance. 3. Prohibition on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 42. The Commission on Human Rights has repeatedly urged States to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is subjected to torture and Governments were reminded that corporal punishment, including of children, can amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment or even to torture. Religious convictions are occasionally put forward to justify certain harmful practices. Some parents, whose religious doctrine postulated physical punishment of children as legitimate and necessary, considered the prohibition of corporal punishment of schoolchildren as an infringement of their right to provide for their children’s education according to their religious convictions; however, the international case law rejects this interpretation as incompatible with human rights standards, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Furthermore, in a country visit report, the Special Rapporteur analysed certain forms of punishment contained in sharia penal codes and she came to the conclusion that stoning or amputation constitute, if not torture, at least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment that is prohibited in absolute terms by various international conventions. E. Cross-cutting issues 43. The mandate practice has also dealt with a number of cross-cutting issues such as derogations, limitations, legislative issues as well as the role of defenders of freedom of religion or belief and non-governmental organizations. 1. Derogation 44. The fundamental character of the freedom to thought, conscience and religion is reflected in the fact that article 18 of ICCPR cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) thereof. This aspect of freedom of religion or belief not only implies that no individual can be deprived of this right even in time of emergency, but also that States should avoid equating certain religions with terrorism as this may have adverse consequences on the right to freedom of religion or belief of all members of the concerned communities. Similarly, terrorist acts which are carried out by non-State actors in the name of religion ought to be delinked from religion, so that these actions are not associated with freedom of religion or belief.