E/CN.4/2004/63/Add.1 page 9 31. More fundamentally, it has been argued that it was less the content of the agreement than its very existence that posed a problem, since the religious minorities, already lacking any real status, found themselves pushed even further towards the sidelines while the powers and rights of the Orthodox Church were extended in a number of areas. In the current setting of intolerance towards religious minorities, the agreement was said to accentuate the imbalance between the minorities and the Orthodox Church and provide further justification for those who opposed the existence of religious minorities. 32. Last, the wording of the agreement rules out any notion of dissidence within the Orthodox Church. This may raise problems as regards the consistency of the agreement with both international law and the Georgian Constitution. Here, the situation of the Orthodox Church in Georgia, a dissenting movement of the majority Orthodox Church, is telling. For purely doctrinal reasons, the Orthodox Church in Georgia has not recognized the authority of the Patriarch since 1997. Under article 6, paragraph 6, of the constitutional agreement, however, [u]pon agreement with the Church [i.e. the Georgian Orthodox Church], the State issues permits or licences for using the official symbols and terminology of the Church as well as for producing, importing and distributing items for Church worship. 33. This means that the Orthodox Church in Georgia ought to secure the assent of the majority Church, which appears inconceivable to both sides. Article 6 of the agreement may thus be likely to violate the rights of certain individuals as set forth in article 14 of the Constitution, guaranteeing equality and non-discrimination, and article 19, guaranteeing freedom of religion, as well as international law on the subject. An appeal along these lines was lodged with the Constitutional Court but rejected, chiefly on the grounds that the rights of the plaintiffs had not been shown to be adversely affected by the agreement. 2. The Orthodox Church and religious minorities 34. On the topic of coexistence with other religious minorities, the Orthodox Church stresses at the outset that, because of its history, Georgia is a country of religious tolerance in which a number of religious communities have evolved, without friction, side by side for centuries. Such historical religious tolerance is, however, generally cited in connection with members of the so-called “traditional” religious communities such as Muslims, Jews, Catholics or Armenians. The Orthodox Church’s attitude towards other religious communities which have taken root since the break-up of the Soviet Union is less clear-cut. 35. The Orthodox Church believes it has a historical role as guardian of the morals and spiritual life of the nation and, as such, ought to enjoy a certain precedence over the other religious communities present in Georgia. 36. The Patriarchate also criticizes certain practices of religious minorities which it regards as illegal, in particular the “proselytizing” by Jehovah’s Witnesses which it considers unacceptable. Other practices observed by Jehovah’s Witnesses, such as refusing blood transfusions and declining to perform military service, are regarded by the Orthodox Church as intolerable.