A/60/399 was recognized by the Human Rights Committee as the manifestation of a belief in the sense of article 18, paragraph 1. 60. The question of missionary activities and other forms of propagating s religion has been at the centre of the mandate on freedom of religion since the beginning. In one of his reports, Special Rapporteur Amor considered “constitutional provisions prohibiting proselytism to be inconsistent with the 1981 Declaration and stresse[d] the need for greater respect for internationally recognized human rights norms, including freedom to convert and freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief, either individually or in community with others, and in public or private, except where necessary restrictions are provided for by law” (A/51/542/Add.1/para. 134). 61. Also, while not explicitly including religious rights, article 19 of ICCPR, which protects freedom of expression, is formulated in a way that also covers missionary activities: “[T]his right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of [one’s] choice”. The Human Rights Committee’s constant jurisprudence has deemed the protection afforded by article 19 extremely strong.3 62. Whereas the scope of freedom afforded to persons for the practice of their religion or belief by producing and distributing information about their religion or belief is wide, certain limitations can be imposed in accordance with article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. However, it should be noted that this article allows for restrictions only in very exceptional cases. In particular the fact that it mentions the protection of “fundamental rights and freedoms” (emphasis added) of others as a ground for restriction indicates a stronger protection than for some other rights whose limitation clauses refer simply to the “rights and freedoms of others” (e.g. article 12, 21 and 22). It could indeed be argued that the freedom of religion or belief of others can be regarded as such a fundamental right and freedom and would justify limitations to missionary activities, but the freedom of religion and belief of adults basically is a question of individual choice, so any generalized State limitation (e.g. by law) conceived to protect “others’” freedom of religion and belief by limiting the right of individuals to conduct missionary activities should be avoided. 63. The test f legality of a prohibition of any act motivated by belief or religion is therefore extremely strict. In practice, the European Court of Human Rights has given some guidance concerning the distinction between permissible religious persuasion, on the one hand, and coercion on the other in Larissis v. Greece,4 the court decided that an officer of the Greek army had exploited his position of authority over his subordinates in trying to convert them. However, in Kokkinakis v. Greece,5 the Court did not find any violation when Jehovah’s Witnesses called on their neighbour to discuss religious issues with her since that act, in the Court’s view, fell under “bearing Christian witness” and was therefore protected by article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Judge Pettiti, in his partly concurring opinion, made this particularly clear: “Freedom of religion and conscience certainly entails accepting proselytism, even where it is not respectable. Believers and agnostic philosophers have a right to expound their beliefs, to try to get other people to share them and even to try to convert those whom they are addressing.” 18