A/HRC/10/8 page 17 2. Right to an adequate standard of living 44. The Special Rapporteur has raised the issue of the right to adequate food of persons deprived of their liberty. For example, in a recent communication, she took up the case of a Hare Krishna follower who complained of being denied access to food meeting the specific dietary needs in accordance with his belief (A/HRC/4/21/Add.1, paras. 57-68). While the prison authorities provided one hot meal per day, the detainee complained that, as a vegetarian, he most often could not eat it since the vegetables were covered with meat sauce. According to prison rules, specific food was provided to detainees only for medical reasons, and detainees had in any case the possibility to either buy cold snacks at the cafeteria or to receive specific food from their religious communities. However, the complainant argued that there was no local Hindu community available to accommodate his dietary needs. This example illustrates that discrimination can also occur when individuals are treated in the same way although their situation is different. The Special Rapporteur recalls that persons deprived of their liberty find themselves in a situation of enhanced vulnerability since prison authorities are given total control over the most basic activities of the inmates, including over what they eat. 45. With regard to discrimination based on religion or belief and its impact on the right to adequate housing, the mandate addressed the situation of members of a Muslim minority community in several communications to a Government (E/CN.4/1993/62, para. 45, E/CN.4/2005/61/Add.1, para. 173 and A/HRC/7/10/Add.1, paras. 180-181). Reportedly, Muslims were systematically relocated through eviction from villages, where afterwards members of the Buddhist majority settled in so-called “model villages”. In the course of these evictions, mosques were reportedly destroyed and replaced by Buddhist pagodas. In addition, the land of existing mosques in certain places was confiscated by the authorities. 46. During a country visit, the previous mandate-holder noted that personal property, including residential premises, of the Bahá’í community had allegedly been confiscated (E/CN.4/1996/95/Add.2, para. 62). In a more recent country report, the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living also addressed this issue (E/CN.4/2006/41/Add.2, paras. 81-85). He highlighted how the housing situation of religious minorities was adversely affected by discriminatory laws, such as legal provisions concerning inheritance rights, as well as by the abusive use of property confiscation. In particular, he reported on several cases of land confiscation against members of the Bahá’í faith, which were often accompanied by threats and physical violence before and during related forced evictions. The properties confiscated since 1980 included houses and agricultural land, but also Bahá’í sacred places, such as cemeteries and shrines. The Special Rapporteur on adequate housing expressed his concern at the clear evidence of discriminatory conduct with respect to Bahá’í property, including housing. 3. Right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health 47. Cases of direct and indirect discrimination based on religion or belief adversely affecting the right to health have also been reported by the mandate. In the very first annual report, Mr. d’Almeida Ribeiro criticized the fact that the members of a religious community in one country were denied access to medical care (E/CN.4/1987/35, para. 64). In a recent country visit, the current mandate-holder also addressed the situation of members of the Muslim minority with