E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.3 Page 12 widely circulated among the public by different means of communication, including the Internet. Government officials have not raised any problem in this respect. The Special Rapporteur therefore considers that she may openly refer to certain parts of the drafts in question. 59. The Special Rapporteur has noted that those who supported the adoption of specific legislation to fight “unethical” conversions argued that the existing legislation, in particular the Criminal Code of Sri Lanka, does not appropriately address such behaviour. These arguments have, however, not been sufficiently substantiated. The Supreme Court has indeed held that the use of force and the adoption of fraudulent means in this regard were offences already punished by sections 169 c (2)(b) and 23 of the Penal Code. 60. While it is not disputed that Christian communities such as Anglicans and Roman Catholics may have complained about certain behaviour or actions by other Christian groups, including Evangelical Churches, they also oppose the criminalization of unethical conversions. So-called traditional Christian Churches have taken a clear position against the draft laws and have proposed alternative solutions to emerging religious tensions. 61. During her visit, the Special Rapporteur noticed that a number of political leaders, government officials as well as religious leaders of all communities were not in favour of the adoption of this legislation. The Buddhist leaders were clearly irritated and upset by the methods of proselytism of “non-conventional” Christian groups but they recognized that the adoption of such legislation might add to religious tensio ns. B. Content of the bills and Supreme Court determination 62. The first draft, entitled “Prohibition of forcible conversion of religion” and presented by members of (JHU), based on article 9 of the Constitution, was designed to “protect and foster the Buddha Sasana”7 which is “the foremost religion professed and practised by the majority of people of Sri Lanka”8 . In this context, the JHU Bill provides in its article 2 that “No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means nor shall any person aid or abet any such conversions.” 63. Those who contravene the above provision may be sentenced to imprisonment for up to five years and a fine of up to 150,000 rupees. These penalties are increased (up to seven years and 500,000 rupees) if the victim of the attempted conversion is a woman, a minor, or a person listed in the first schedule to the Bill. 9 The proceedings can be instituted by a great variety of persons. The police may take action upon complaint by any “person who has reasons to believe that the provisions of the act have been violated” or by “a person aggrieved by the offence”. 10 64. The JHU Bill also provides that those who have converted to another religion as well as those who have converted another person should report the conversion to the authorities. 11 65. The other draft bill proposed by the Ministry of Buddha Sasana has similar provisions, but its definition of the offence of “unethical conversion” appears wider that the one of the JHU Bill. According to its article 2: