A/78/207 death penalty. 71 They may impose limitations on the freedom of religion or belief of minorities in the name of protecting or promoting an official State religion, secularism, national security 72 or cohesion; or they may fail to offer witness protection against intimidation and attacks in relation to such cases. 62. It is of crucial importance that courts be neutral and impartial, allowing for fair litigation and decision-making, mediation, reparations and guarantees of non-repetition. Religious or belief prejudices and discrimination are an affront to the impartiality and independence of judges and lawyers. 63. Fear of reprisals may make judges reluctant to address certain cases or pronounce in favour of freedom of religion or belief, affecting due process rights. 73 State-provided legal representatives may fear repercussions for carrying out their professional work with fairness, 74 placing the fair trial of victims in great jeopardy. 64. States must ensure that judicial authorities at all levels are aware of their international human rights obligations, including as they relate to freedom of religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur wishes to draw attention to helpful training and awareness-raising programmes, materials and methods, 75 strongly encourages such initiatives and wishes to reiterate her availability to offer technical assistance or other support in their development and implementation. I. Legislative bodies at the national level 65. National legislative bodies have unparalleled opportunities to contribute to freedom of religion or belief. In drafting, debating, scrutinizing and reviewing laws that may apply throughout the State, legislators are extremely well placed to ensure that the freedom of religion or belief of the populations they represent is reflected in the constitutional and legal order and effectively implemented at all levels. 66. Many violations of freedom of religion or belief arising in the institutional contexts described above are facilitated by, or a direct result of, the actions or inactions of national legislatures. The mandate holder regularly observes legislatures actively or complicitly creating or sustaining legal environments that are hostile or discriminatory to religious and belief diversity or to particular communities. Those actions often constrain the abilities of the other actors identified above to carry out their roles in a manner that respects freedom of religion or belief. 67. A particular danger to rights holders from religious or belief minorities arises in contexts of political polarization, where harmful stereotypes and hate speech are spread against them in political and social discourse. 76 Legislators, or those who seek to obtain political office in elections, may cynically seek to gain popularity by encouraging discrimination or violence against individuals on the basis of their religion or belief or motivated by the religion or belief of the population whose sympathy they hope to win. Actions of this kind are deplorable and contribute to further discrimination and violations. Legislators should speak out against, and publicly condemn, intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes __________________ 71 72 73 74 75 76 14/24 OHCHR, communications sent to the Governments of Pakistan (PAK 2/2022 and PAK 3/2022), Somalia (SOM 4/2022) and to the de facto authorities in Somaliland (OTH 129/2022). See A/73/362. OHCHR, communication sent to the Government of Pakistan (PAK 3/2022). A/HRC/37/49/Add.2, para. 71; and A/HRC/43/48/Add.2, para. 24. See, for example, those developed by the Oslo Coalition on Freedom of Religion or Belief, the Brazilian Center of Studies in Law and Religion and the Association of Judges of Rio Grande do Sul; available at www.direitoereligiao.org/capacitacao/sistema-de-justica/5-Curso/program-inenglish. A/HRC/43/48/Add.1, paras. 53 and 60; and joint submission by Sarah Teich and Maria Reisdorf. 23-14116