E/CN.4/1995/91 page 133 religious freedom is not negated by individual, administrative or political design. It is essential to secure the principle of religious freedom and its manifestation and to limit it only in exceptional circumstances justified by objective legal grounds of which the persons concerned are notified immediately. Furthermore, it is necessary to define the notion of "trespass to the person" expressly as an act committed by a public official, which may be unrelated to the performance of that person’s duties or of a public service activity, so that the official has greater personal liability under civil and criminal law for direct or indirect, overt or covert infringements of or interference with religious freedom. The Special Rapporteur noted during his talks that the distinction between normal and abnormal religious activities was not drawn very clearly and was applied fairly flexibly. In some cases, for example, it had been found that people had been prosecuted for engaging in abnormal activities, whereas, in others no action had been taken on activities which might be regarded as abnormal. The Rapporteur is of the opinion that this flexible approach should be extended so that ultimately the distinction effectively disappears. The Special Rapporteur considers that there must be no interference with religious activity falling within the scope of the 1981 Declaration. At all events, there must not be any surveillance of a kind to infringe the right to freedom of belief and to manifest one’s belief. With regard to sects, the Special Rapporteur particularly wishes to point out that the 1981 Declaration protects not only religion, but also theist beliefs and that article 1, paragraph 3, of that Declaration states that freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. With regard to the alleged arrest or detention of members of religious orders and believers belonging to unofficial religious organizations (including members of sects and Tibetan monks) and restrictions affecting them, the Special Rapporteur reiterates his request that these persons be freed. A decision of this kind would be even clearer evidence of the moves in China towards religious freedom which the Special Rapporteur discerned during his visit. The Special Rapporteur realises that it is difficult to draw a distinction between the religious and the political sphere in Tibet. This distinction cannot be general or absolute. Nevertheless, although he was aware of these real or supposed links between politics and religion in Tibet, the Special Rapporteur deliberately examined only questions which principally concerned religious freedom as defined in the 1981 Declaration, without passing any judgement whatsoever on other aspects. The Special Rapporteur noted the extremely devout attitude perceptible in Tibet, the full scale and extent of which has not, perhaps, been sufficiently appreciated so far. This factor must be taken into account when analysing the religious situation in Tibet. Moreover, the question of Tibet would be less acute if it did not have an added dimension, in other words if it turned solely on religious aspects.