A/71/269 76. Violations of freedom of religion or belief can originate from States or non-State actors, or a combination of both. While some State-induced infringements, such as the criminalization of “apostasy”, “proselytism” or “blasphemy”, openly display the intention of controlling religion, other measures do not show any relationship to religion or belief on the surface and yet have a negative impact on freedom of religion or belief. Encroachments may also include bureaucratic stipulations that impose unreasonable burdens on certain religious communities, for instance by requesting them to undergo complicated administrative procedures in order to be allowed to exercise any community-related aspects of freedom of religion or belief. State-enforced family laws may discriminate against persons on the basis of their religion or belief, thus effectively preventing certain individuals from changing their religion for fear that it could result in a loss of inheritance rights or the denial of custody of their own children. School education is another area warranting systematic monitoring, since it may expose children from religious minorities, for example, to a non-accommodating national curriculum, to the authority of teachers or to pressure exercised by fellow students. 77. Governments are also obliged to prevent abuses of freedom of religion or belief committed by non-State actors, including terrorist groups or vigilante groups, or originating from authoritarian societal milieux that do not accommodate any religious diversity. In quite a number of countries, a prevailing atmosphere of impunity encourages militant groups to continue to stigmatize, harass and intimidate minorities, dissidents, critics, converts or people — often women and girls or persons with different sexual orientations and gender identities — whose conduct is deemed “inappropriate” from a certain narrow-minded interpretation of religious norms. Such abuses can even assume degrees of physical violence, sometimes perpetrated with the silent complicity of law enforcement agencies or other parts of the State apparatus. Even Governments that are not complicit in such acts may lack the awareness that they bear the full responsibility for any violation of freedom of religi on or belief if they fail to take appropriate measures to protect persons under their jurisdiction from abuses by non-State actors, whether they are armed groups, business corporations or individuals. 78. While States remain the main duty bearers for the implementation of human rights obligations within their jurisdiction, the international community, too, has to live up to its obligations. Apart from regularly monitoring the worldwide human rights situation within United Nations forums, which would be impossible without the contributions of civil society organizations, there are situations in which the international community has to take direct action, for example, to ensure that terrorist organizations operating in the name of religion do not receive financial or logistical support. Unfortunately, serious shortcomings have been seen recently in the provision of international protection for refugees and in the prevention of massive violations of freedom of religion or belief, in particular in situations of armed conflict. The international community should remind Governments of their international obligation to provide protection to refugees, regardless of their specific religion or belief. The pretext that hosting certain refugees would erode the tradition al religious make-up of a country amounts to a “territorialization” of religion or belief, which violates the spirit and the letter of the universal right to freedom of religion or belief. 22/22 16-13296