A/HRC/19/60/Add.2 belief. The Special Rapporteur was invited to participate in a round table on the revision of the 2007 law, organized by the Ministry of Justice and the United Nations country team, on 6 September 2011, to which religious communities and civil society organizations had been invited. The Special Rapporteur is grateful to have had the opportunity to attend this consultation by which the Government set a positive example of transparency and dialogue with civil society. 26. The Special Rapporteur was also impressed by the commitment, knowledge and professionalism of civil society organizations working on human rights and antidiscrimination issues. 27. At the same time, the various discussions held by the Special Rapporteur also revealed a number of problems existing in the Republic of Moldova. Members of religious minorities repeatedly reported manifestations of intolerance and even some incidents of assault, intimidation or vandalism allegedly perpetrated by some followers of the predominant Orthodox Church. This affects in particular Jews, Muslims and members of different Evangelical groups, including Jehovah’s Witnesses. Although a few cases of conflict were reportedly settled successfully, the Special Rapporteur noticed existing scepticism concerning the efficiency of the judiciary and other formal remedies provided by the State. B. Privileged status of the Moldovan Orthodox Church 28. According to the Constitution, the Republic of Moldova is a secular State in which freedom of religion or belief for everyone is guaranteed. The Constitution also provides for equal rights for all citizens. At the same time, however, the 2007 Law on Religious Denominations explicitly acknowledges “the special importance and leading role of the Orthodox Christian religion and, respectively, of the Moldovan Orthodox Church in the life, history and culture of the Republic of Moldova” (art. 15.5). The importance of Orthodox Christianity in the past and present of the country is a well-established historical fact. From the perspective of human rights, however, the problem is that the formal appreciation of Orthodoxy in a legal document can easily be seen as justifying privileged treatment of one religious tradition at the expense of the principles of equality and nondiscrimination. 29. The Special Rapporteur heard many testimonies confirming that this is, to a large extent, effectively the case. From the various Orthodox denominations existing in the country, the Metropolis of Chisinau and all Moldova (Moldovan Orthodox Church), subordinate to the Moscow Patriarchate, enjoys privileged treatment in many fields, including the restitution of property confiscated during the Soviet era, chaplains serving in the military, the presence of priests in public schools and involvement in the management of municipal cemeteries. 30. Conflicts have also arisen between the various churches representing the Orthodox tradition in the country. The Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia, subordinate to the Patriarchy of Bucharest, had to go to court in order to receive registration status as a religious community, despite the fierce opposition of the Moldovan Orthodox Church and parts of previous Governments. After years of national litigation, the case was finally settled in December 2001 by a judgement of the European Court of Human Rights, which decided in favour of the Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia. 8 However, even though the Moldovan Orthodox Church does not monopolize the Orthodox tradition in the country, 8 Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia v. Moldova, application no. 45701/99. 9