E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.2 page 25 103. Even greater concern is raised by article 4 of the Constitution, which sets forth the principle of the Vietnamese Communist Party as the “guiding force” of the State and of society (para. 9). State policies are therefore those of the Communist Party, which has its own ideology with regard to religion, initially perceiving religion to be the opium of the people and therefore to be combated, and later evolving towards a special recognition of religion. In this connection, the Directive of 2 July 1998 recognizes religious belief as fulfilling a spiritual need and establishes guidelines for its control. 104. Whatever the ideology, the Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that, from the international law standpoint, the problems involved are similar to those of a State religion. If, for the sake of analysis, we take the communist ideology as the “State religion”, the problem, in terms of international law, is not seen in relation to that given, but in terms of its manifestations. It is essential that that given should not be used to undermine human rights, in particular freedom of religion or belief. State policies must therefore not be used as policies for regulating religion, by defining its content, concepts or limitations, apart from those strictly necessary, i.e. those established in article 1, paragraph 3, of the 1981 Declaration and article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 105. As the Human Rights Committee stated in General Comment No. 22 of 20 July 1993 on article 18 of the Covenant, “Limitations may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. Restrictions may not be imposed for discriminatory purposes or applied in a discriminatory manner” (HRI/GEN/1/Rev.3, p. 37, para. 8). 106. With regard to the other legal texts (Decree No. 69/HDBT, Directive No. 379/TTg, Directive No. 500 HD/TGCP, Directive of 2 July 1998), some of their provisions may be regarded as progress, such as the guarantee of freedom of religion and belief and the principle of non-discrimination based on religion or belief, the guarantee of religious activities (Decree No. 69/HDBT, Directive of 2 July 1998), the return of places of worship to the churches or their owners when their use is no longer justified (Directive No. 379/TTg, Directive No. 500 HD/TGCP) and the announcement of the preparation of an order relating to religion, a project for the establishment of a printing house for the publication of religious books and works and the announcement of a project on the publication of a journal for use in religious studies, guidance and continuing education in the field of religion. 107. However, several provisions of Decree No. 69/HDBT, Directives Nos. 379/TTg and 500 HD/TGCP and the Directive of 2 July 1998, as well as Decree No. CP/312 and the Penal Code, raise serious problems of compatibility with international law to the extent that they allow the authorities to interfere and exercise direct or indirect control over religious matters, as follows: (a) Article 21 of Decree No. 69/HDBT makes the establishment and entry into activity of religious congregations subject to an obligatory request for