A/HRC/43/48 general laws and standards for combating discrimination. Equally relevant for the experiences represented in the present report is the prohibition of religious-based discrimination under international law, which includes: (a) treating a person unfavourably because of his or her faith or belief; (b) imposing undue restrictions on an individual’s right to manifest his or her religion or belief; and (c) exerting limits on an individual’s enjoyment of other fundamental rights in the name of, or on the basis of, an individual’s religion or belief (see A/HRC/37/49). Additionally, the right of members of religious minorities to practise their religion with other members of their religious group is protected by article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 65. The Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has illustrated that reasonable accommodation for the manifestation of religion or belief can be an important part of combating indirect discrimination based on religion or belief, and should be provided by States and private employers in situations where such measures would not amount to “a disproportionate or undue burden” (A/69/261, para. 59). The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights also treats the doctrine of reasonable accommodation as part of antidiscrimination law, but is clear that accommodations may be denied when third-party rights or public safety is affected. 60 The Human Rights Committee held that, while some neutral laws might have a discriminatory impact, national laws based on objective and reasonable grounds did not constitute religious discrimination. 61 In Canada, accommodations on the manifestation of religion or belief must comply with other human rights standards, in particular concerns to gender equality and the principle of the religious neutrality of the State. 66. Freedom of religion or belief includes the right to maintain the internal institutional affairs of religious community life without State intervention (A/69/261, para. 41; and A/HRC/22/51, para. 25). As outlined by the Special Rapporteur’s predecessor, the autonomy to determine the rules for appointing religious leaders or for governing “monastic life”, for example, allows religious communities to adhere to the self-understanding of the respective group and their traditions (A/69/261, para. 41). It must also be noted, however, that the autonomy of religious institutions falls within the forum externum dimension of freedom of religion or belief, which, if the need arises, can be restricted in conformity with the criteria spelled out in article 18 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (A/68/290, para. 60). VI. Conclusions 67. On the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that serious obstacles to the realization of gender equality persist in every region of the world. It is of great concern that discriminatory laws and gender-based violence should remain so pervasive, and it is deeply alarming that efforts to achieve gender equality have experienced setbacks in some regions in recent years, rather than advancing. 68. In 2010, the late Special Rapporteur Asma Jahangir wrote in her final report to the General Assembly that the mandate needs to continue highlighting discriminatory practices that women have had to suffer over centuries and continue to do so, sometimes in the name of religion or within their religious community. It can no longer be taboo to demand that women’s rights take priority over intolerant beliefs used to justify gender discrimination (A/65/207, para. 69). Her successor, Heiner Bielefeldt, stated similarly that freedom of religion or belief can never serve as a justification for violations of the human rights of women and girls (A/68/290, para. 30). The Special Rapporteur fully affirms these views, and further stresses that the universal right to equality is unqualified in a way that the obligation to promote the right to manifest religion or belief, which can be subject to limitation where necessary to protect the rights of others, is not. However, acknowledging and rebuking practices rooted in claims to religion or belief that perpetuate harmful stereotypes, attitudes and practices does not mean tacitly accepting an inherent incompatibility between the right 60 61 16 See European Court of Human Rights, Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom, Application Nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10, Judgment, 27 May 2013. See Prince v. South Africa (CCPR/C/91/D/1474/2006).