A/64/271 freedom of expression should be clearly and narrowly defined and provided by law, and they must be necessary and proportionate to the objective they propound to achieve; (c) the least intrusive means insofar as freedom of expression is concerned should be used in order to prevent a chilling effect; and (d) the adjudication of such limitations must be made by an independent judiciary. 31. While arguing that hate speech laws are necessary and legitimate according to international standards, the Special Rapporteur cautioned against their subjective and overly broad application. More generally, he also insisted on the obligation of States to actively fight racism and discrimination. Fighting hate speech was, however, only one of several obligations States had to fight discrimination. Other obligations were contained in article 26 of the Covenant which stated that “the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground”, including race, colour or national origin. Article 2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination provides an even higher standard of non-discrimination, including the need to adopt special measures. 32. In his statement, the Special Rapporteur recalled that the full implementation of the relevant international human rights standards was the most important defence to fight all manifestations of racism, including hate speech. He argued that hate speech was but a symptom of a more profound disease, which was racism and intolerance. There was therefore the need to attack these root causes, not only their external manifestation. 33. At the twelfth session of the Human Rights Council, the Special Rapporteur submitted, pursuant to Council resolution 10/22, a report on “the manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights by their followers” (A/HRC/12/38). 34. In view of the important developments that took place during the reporting period, the report takes stock of the ongoing conceptual debate on the issue of “defamation of religions” and incitement to religious hatred. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur refers to the above-mentioned report of the former mandate holder, the expert seminar organized by OHCHR on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as to the agreement reached in the outcome document of the Durban Review Conference. 35. In the report, a brief overview is offered of the information sent to the Special Rapporteur by the Organization of the Islamic Conference on “Islamophobic incidents” and by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights on the discrimination and racially motivated crimes experienced by Muslims in the European Union. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur distinguishes between intolerant mentalities, incitement to religious hatred, religious discrimination and violence perpetrated against members of religious or belief communities. In the same chapter, he emphasizes that, when discussing incitement to racial or religious hatred, the interrelatedness of international human rights standards should be taken into account. In particular, he refers to the interdependence and interrelatedness of articles 18, 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination. In this context, he extensively refers to a joint statement on “freedom of expression and incitement to racial or religious hatred” presented with the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the right to freedom of 09-45097 9