E/CN.4/2004/63/Add.2 page 20 97. More generally, with regard to the bill on religions and the question of whether or not such a bill is absolutely necessary, the Special Rapporteur believes there is no blanket rule in this area. While there are situations in which special laws of this kind lay down the legal rules and the various rights of the religious or faith-based communities in a country and thereby guarantee the principle of freedom of religion, there are also other situations in which such laws, far from guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief, are used to restrict various aspects of the exercise of this freedom, sometimes in a manner that is incompatible with international law. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur would like to stress that a State has international obligations in respect of freedom of religion or belief regardless of whether or not it has a special law of this kind. 98. The Special Rapporteur also believes that a special law could act as a catalyst in the implementation of international obligations relating to freedom of religion or belief, particularly in a country where a religion followed by a very large majority has acquired such importance that the consequences of its actions or positions go beyond the limits of purely religious matters. 99. Consequently, as part of the process of drafting and adopting this law and in the light of the above comments, the Special Rapporteur specifically recommends that the Government should consult, as it already has done, with all religious minorities about the new draft that it intends to submit to Parliament for approval and to take into account alternative drafts prepared by non-governmental organizations, with the aim of producing a law that is perfectly in keeping with Romania’s international obligations in this area. 100. With regard to the issue of returning religious property, the Special Rapporteur believes that this concerns situations that do not necessarily violate the right to freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur makes a distinction between, on the one hand, the actual places of worship and the religious items used in acts of worship and, on the other, other property that belonged to religious communities. The Special Rapporteur notes that most of the confiscated property in the latter category was in one way or another in the possession of the State, whereas the places of worship and associated items had mostly been handed over to the Orthodox Church. 101. The Special Rapporteur notes that it has taken a very long time to return the religious property that was confiscated during communist rule and then entered the possession of the State - this concerns most of the religions in Romania - and that most of the property in this category had not yet been returned at the time of the Special Rapporteur’s visit. Consequently, while stressing that the failure to return property or the length of time taken to return it is not, at least for property in this category, necessarily a violation of the right to freedom of religion or belief of the members of the communities concerned, the Special Rapporteur requests the authorities to significantly speed up the process of returning property and to complete it as soon as possible. 102. With regard to the places of worship and the items used in acts of worship that were handed over to the Orthodox Church, the Special Rapporteur notes that this mainly concerns churches that had previously belonged to the Greek Catholic Church. The authorities expressly told the Special Rapporteur that they did not wish to become involved