A/56/253 (since an apostate, that is to say a person declared to be non-Muslim, cannot stay married to a Muslim) following a petition by Islamic extremists who consider his writings on the interpretation of the Koran to be anti-Islamic. (ii) Reactions of States to the communications 90. As can be seen from table 6, it is important to make a distinction between what conclusions can be drawn, on the one hand, from the first percentage, which reflects the reaction of a State (whether or not it replies) within the year and, on the other, the second percentage, which indicates the final reaction of a State (that is to say whether or not it replies within more than one year). 91. If we look at the first percentage, we will see a downward progression, that is to say, overall, a rate of replies that is below average starting in 1992 and 1993 but especially since 1995. 92. If we look at the second percentage, we see an evolution that is, on the whole, above average (save in 1993, 1996 and 1997). This is especially true in the period from 1998 to 2001. 93. The evolution in the first percentage, specifically, a declining rate of reply essentially since 1995, can be explained by — and, in fact, coincides with — the rise in the number of communications and States concerned during this period. As a result, States were not able to reply within the time limits given. 94. However, as can be seen from the evolution in the second percentage, most States seem to be adjusting and, on the whole, to be replying to the communications, albeit somewhat late (the reply is sent during the year following the mandate). 95. As regards urgent appeals, aside from 1995, the year this new procedure was established, the rates of reply are pretty much satisfactory (there are three rates of 100 per cent, one of 75 per cent and two of 50 per cent). 96. It is, however, true that the rates of reply to communications must improve; this will entail improved cooperation among all States, particularly those which have never replied since the mandate was established (Angola, Benin, Cambodia, Comoros, Dominican Republic, Gabon, Kenya, Liberia, Malawi, Mali, Nauru, Niger, Papua New Guinea, Qatar, Samoa, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Africa, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Zimbabwe. It should, however, be noted that, in the case of Nauru, Papua New Guinea and South Africa, the communications were sent in the context of the report to the most recent session of the Commission on Human Rights,4 which means that, based on the one-year delay noted above, replies may be expected at the Commission’s next session. (b) Analysis of the substance of communications 97. This analysis identifies the main categories of violations of freedom of religion or belief and of the religions or beliefs concerned. (i) Violations of the freedom of religion or belief 98. If we analyse the communications since the start of the mandate in light of the principles, rights and freedoms set forth in the 1981 Declaration, we can establish seven categories of violations as follows: 29