A/68/290 different religious traditions. This can lead to more gender-sensitive readings of religious texts and far-reaching discoveries in this field. In virtually all traditions one can indeed find persons or groups who make use of their freedom of religion or belief as a positive resource for the promotion of equality between men and women, often in conjunction with innovative interpretations of religious sources and traditions. This accounts for the possibility of direct synergies between freedom of religion or belief on the one hand and policies for promoting the equal rights of women on the other. Impressive examples of initiatives undertaken by women and men of different religious persuasions clearly show that synergetic efforts in this regard actually exist and should not be underestimated. 29. At the same time, one has to face the reality of conflicting interests in this area. For instance, some religious community leaders have rejected anti-discrimination stipulations imposed by the State, in which they may see an undue infringement of their right to internal autonomy. There are also cases of parents objecting to gender-related education programmes becoming part of the school curriculum, since they fear this may go against their religious or moral convictions. Dealing with such complicated conflicts requires a high degree of empirical precision, communicative openness and normative diligence with a view to doing justice to all human rights claims involved. 30. Moreover, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that such harmful practices as female genital mutilation, forced marriage, honour killings, enforced ritual prostitution or denying girls their rights to education are defended in the name of religious traditions. Such defence is frequently controversial within the various religious communities themselves, and many followers of the respective communities (possibly their overwhelming majority) may be heavily opposed to such practices and also voice their opposition publicly. If those still performing harmful practices try to invoke religious freedom for their actions, this must become a case for restricting the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate what his predecessor pointed out in her final report to the General Assembly: “The Special Rapporteur strongly believes that the mandate needs to continue highlighting discriminatory practices that women have had to suffer over centuries and continue to do so, sometimes in the name of religion or within their religious community. It can no longer be taboo to demand that women’s rights take priority over intolerant beliefs used to justify gender discrimination.” (see A/65/207, para. 69). The current mandate holder fully shares the assessment formulated by his predecessor. Indeed, as a human right, freedom of religion or belief can never serve as a justification for violations of the human rights of women and girls. 31. When arguing for limitations of a right to freedom, it remains crucial to exercise empirical and normative diligence at all times. Sometimes supposed conflicts between freedom of religion or belief and equality between men and women may rest on mere conjectures. Moreover, restrictions on freedom of religion or belief cannot be legitimate unless they meet all the criteria prescribed for limitations in article 18, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The reasonable assumption that promoting equality between men and women always constitutes a legitimate purpose does not in itself suffice to justify restrictions; such restrictions must also have a legal basis, they must actually be conducive to pursuing the said purpose and one has to demonstrate that less restrictive means are not available. Finally, freedom of religion or belief strictly 8/22 13-42191