A/77/512 discrimination is aimed at guaranteeing substantive equality, as well as formal provisions of equality. States must take action to combat intentional or purposeful racial discrimination, as well as de facto or unintentional racial discrimination. She reminds States that they cannot derogate from their obligations to uphold the jus cogens prohibition of racial discrimination in international law, even in times of public emergency. 81. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights both impose strong limitations on the propagation of racist and xenophobic ideas, and outlaw the advocacy of national, racial or religious prejudices that amount to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. Speech that constitutes advocacy of antisemitic racial and religious prejudices amounting to incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is thus unlawful and prohibited under the applicable legal frameworks. The Special Rapporteur also recalls that, under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, any forms of propaganda for war must be prohibited by States parties. 82. The Special Rapporteur recalls that, in accordance with article 2 (1) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, States parties are not to sponsor, defend or support racial discrimination by any persons or organizations, including those espousing racial superiority and intolerance. Under article 4 of the Convention, States parties are required to condemn all propaganda and all organizations that are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form. This means that States parties must take action to prohibit organizations that meet the conditions established in article 4 (b), including in contexts in which such organizations use antisemitic fervour to attempt to mainstream their extreme ideologies or racial, ethnic or religious hatred and intolerance. Legislation alone is not sufficient. As is made clear in article 6 of the Convention, effective protection from and remedies for racial discrimination are just as important as formal provisions. 83. Under article 4 of the Convention, States parties are also required to undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination, and to make punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has recommended concrete guidance for States parties on the adoption of legislation combating racist speech falling under article 4, and the Special Rapporteur encourages States to review general recommendation No. 35 (2013) on combating racist hate speech in order to benefit from that guidance. In the general recommendation, the Committee recalls that the proscription of racist hate speech and the flourishing of freedom of expression should be seen as complementary, and that the rights to equality and freedom from discrimination, and the right to freedom of expression, should be fully reflected in law, policy and practice as mutually supportive human rights. 84. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of opinion and of expression. Any restriction on freedom of speech must not only be a matter of necessity, but must be proportionately tailored to achieve the legitimate end that warrants the restriction. It is specifically stated in article 20 of the Covenant that States parties must prohibit, by law, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The Human Rights Committee and a number of other human rights mechanisms have interpreted this provision as creating a high threshold, because limitations on speech 22-22915 17/20