E/CN.4/2001/0063 page 16 44. According to a second communication concerning the preceding allegations, on 9 June 2000 the Investigation Department of the Ministry of the Interior municipal service charged Mr. Mirian Arabidze, a Jehovah’s Witness, with assault during the attacks that took place in October 1999, even though he had in fact been a victim. The local Jehovah’s Witnesses representative allegedly claimed that the failure of the prosecutor’s offices in Gldani and Tbilisi to take action against the perpetrators of the attacks sent a clear message that violence was acceptable. 45. Georgia replied: “Recently, Gldani District Court of Tbilisi considered the criminal case and sentenced to conditional punishment two persons - Jehovah’s Witnesses. As for the accused of the opposite party, the court considered the preliminary investigation to be insufficient. The criminal case regarding the accused persons has been returned to the relevant investigative bodies for additional investigation. This court decision was appealed by both the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the prosecutor’s office in Tbilisi. We had conversations with the Prosecutor of Tbilisi and he informed us that they were going to prepare special conclusions in this regard and to make the relevant submissions to the higher court. The case is to be considered by Tbilisi Circuit Court, as provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure of Georgia. It is our hope that the following consideration of the case will be fair and impartial. In this context, it should be mentioned that there is a biased attitude towards the Jehovah’s Witnesses in Georgian society. Recently, there were some facts which aroused public anxiety. The question is that Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to allow appropriate medical treatment (blood transfusion) owing to their beliefs. As a result, a young woman patient - a Jehovah’s Witness - died. It is also worth mentioning that there have been a number of citizens’ complaints concerning the activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses aimed at attracting new members by using bribes (money, food, etc.). In this connection, we are going to make amendments to the Criminal Code of Georgia in order to forbid unlawful proselytism, as has been done in some European countries. The elaboration of these amendments is under way.” 46. The Special Rapporteur thanks Georgia for its reply, which has the merit of highlighting the problem of society’s attitude to a particular group in the area of religion and belief. With regard to proselytism, the Special Rapporteur wishes to recall that the Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 22 of 20 July 1993, on article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, held that restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief are permissible only if they are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others; and must not be applied in a manner that would vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience or religion. The Committee also maintained 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. Restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner.”