E/CN.4/2002/73/Add.1 page 31 144. The Special Rapporteur’s approach and his modus operandi naturally remain the same regarding the affair of the skinheads, the affair of the conductor Merenson and the case of the desecration of Jewish graves, on the one hand, and, on the other, the attacks against the Muslim community (against the mosque of Ad’Tahid on 20 January 2001, the Buenos Aires mosque in 1983 and the Flores mosque in 2000), the Protestant communities (evangelical churches set on fire in 1999 and 2000, and a Methodist church in 2000) and the Armenian Apostolic community (attack on the San Gregorio El Iluminado school on 18 March 2000), which, most fortunately, did not result in the losses of lives and property caused by the attacks on AMIA and the Embassy of Israel. 145. This approach is all the more justified as it is absolutely impossible to state categorically the nature of these attacks - religious, political, racist, xenophobic or other. However, it has been established that they had an effect on ethnic and/or religious communities and must be brought to court and prevented in the future. 146. The Special Rapporteur also noted some Islamophobia accompanied by Arabophobia fostered by some parts of the written and audiovisual media, especially those aimed at the mass market, where Arabs in general and Islam in particular are linked with intolerance and discrimination. This phenomenon of defamation consisting of the imputing of isolated cases and situations involving individuals and groups that draw their inspiration from Islam and/or belong to the Arab world, but of course in no way represent the great majority of Islam and Arabs, is not specific to Argentina and is regrettably prevalent all over the world (see, in particular, the reports on the Special Rapporteur’s visits to the United States (E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1) and Australia (E/CN.4/1998/6/Add.1). Such media campaigns of denigration naturally affect the Arab and Muslim communities in Argentina and must be firmly denounced and combated. Other communities of religion or belief 147. Concerning the question of sects, in the light of the consultations held with non-governmental and official sources, it is clear that, aside from cases which were undoubtedly serious, but few in number, such as the cases of the Alchemy Center for Transmutation and those reported by the SPES Foundation, these communities are not the focus of a real debate in society and State institutions, not even controversies, and still less “witch-hunts”. Their place among religions or beliefs in Argentina has not been challenged. Moreover, under relevant international law, which is applicable to all groups and individuals, whatever their religion or belief, the State intervenes only within the context of the restrictions stipulated, inter alia, by the case law of the Human Rights Committee (Comment No. 22 of 20 July 1993) to the effect that restrictions imposed on freedom to manifest religion or belief are permitted only if they are prescribed by law, are necessary to ensure public safety, order and health and to protect morals or the fundamental freedoms and rights of others and are applied in a manner that will not vitiate the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The State also applies these principles of cooperation and respect for autonomy in the case of certain communities, such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, by means of laws recognizing conscientious objection in the context of military service and education and, in the case of the Mennonites, through agreements relating to the education of children at home.