A/56/253 156. They are thus serious partners in furthering the realization of the mandate; their enriching contribution must be emphasized and welcomed. IV. Conclusions and recommendations 157. While 2001 marks the twentieth anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, the situation with regard to freedom of religion and belief throughout the world is most distressing, especially if one refers to the successive resolutions of the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly, particularly the most recent one, whereby the Commission on Human Rights noted with alarm that serious instances of intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, including acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, occurred in many parts of the world and threatened the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. 158. However, an assessment of the activities of the mandate since its creation, in the area of management as well as prevention, can afford a better perspective and a more balanced view of the evolution of the situation with regard to freedom of religion or belief. A comparative analysis of general and mission reports and communications sent within the framework of the mandate since 1988 shows, to be sure, intolerance and discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in various parts of the world, but also positive situations and cases with respect to the 1981 Declaration and, in particular, improvements in certain fields and in certain countries. Such an analysis shows the following developments: (a) A gradual decline in anti-religious policies or policies of total control of religious life in the name of a political ideology since the end of the cold war. In the case of many States that have abandoned “hard-line” Marxist ideology, this trend has been reflected in the restoration of normal relations between State and religion, while for certain others, renewed close bonds with the traditional church have ensued. In a very small number of States, on the other hand, a policy of hostility to religion has persisted, but is more subtle; although, outwardly, the official policy is one of recognition of religion, in fact, religion is used as a tool and becomes a prisoner of policy; (b) The maintenance of discriminatory or intolerant policies with regard to minorities in States having an official religion; or anti-religious secularism; (c) sects; A marked increase in policies against minorities which are described as (d) An increase in extremism affecting all religions, whether Islam, Christianity, Judaism or Hinduism. In many cases, such extremism has gradually become a characteristic of non-State entities; sometimes these are fanatical and obscurantist groups, sometimes they are groups whose conscious goal it is to use politics in order to impose their own religious interpretation on society; but very often they are professional extremists who use religion for political ends. Quite often, however, such extremist activism is based on the active or tacit complicity of national and foreign State entities; (e) A gradual shift towards non-belief within society, characterized by a growing militancy that enters into competition or even into conflict with religions; 42