A/HRC/58/49/Add.1 respected”. Rules 65 and 66 recognise that the religious beliefs of prisoners should be respected, and that relevant principles should be applied without distinction as to religion/religious belief.42 82. The Human Rights Committee has confirmed that “[T]reating all persons deprived of their liberty with humanity and with respect for their dignity is a fundamental and universally applicable rule without distinction as to religion or other status”. 43 The Committee has also commented on the permissible limitations on freedom of religion or belief where persons are deprived of their liberty: “[p]ersons already subject to certain legitimate constraints, such as prisoners, continue to enjoy their rights to manifest their religion or belief to the fullest extent compatible with the specific nature of the constraint.”44 83. The Special Rapporteur’s visit highlighted a number of problems regarding realization of freedom of religion or belief in detention settings, including in relation to burial-related rights, worship, diet and access to religious guidance/chaplaincy. 84. Burial-related rights for detainees consist of three main elements: farewell to the dying person, attending funerals, and visiting their grave. In Hungary, interlocutors reported a “security above all” consideration, with excessive discretionary powers given to prison officials, and a lack of access to appropriate individual assessments. A number of NGOs also expressed concerns at what they described as the lack of adequate protection of detainees by the CFR. 85. Although the law stipulates that the exercise of rights related to the death of a close relative must be guaranteed by the prison, in practice less than one fourth of applications are granted (including online attendance). According to 2023 information made available to the Special Rapporteur, visiting a dying relative was allowed in 9% of cases, attending a funeral in 24% of cases and visiting a grave afterwards in 9% of cases. By law, the commander of the institution may refuse funeral attendance only in ‘exceptional’ cases. However, exceptional cases are not specified, there is no deadline for the assessment, procedures seem to be prolonged, unrestricted discretion remains a systemic issue, there is no access to appropriate individual assessment, and there is an overly restrictive interpretation of relatives. 86. The Special Rapporteur notes that the time between death and burial is often very short, particularly for religious reasons. She heard reports of attendance only being permitted in a humiliating way (e.g. in uniform and handcuffs), that some requests had been considered only after the funeral, or that some detainees had been required to cover all related expenses. In short, systemic violations of burial-related rights for detainees, contrary to international human rights standards,45 were reported. 87. The Special Rapporteur also heard reports of discriminatory distinctions between members of historic churches and others inside penitentiary institutions. A Muslim detainee was informed by the prison authorities that no Islamic care and Quranic education were available in the prison. Guards in another prison refused to point out the Qibla Direction for Muslim prayer. Meals in prisons are often not in line with religious requirements (e.g. pork is given to people of Jewish and Muslim faith; in one case, Krishna believers were denied vegetarian meals for months; fish was given to a Buddhist saying it fits a vegetarian diet). In cases where worship services are available, prisoners might not be escorted to them due to staff shortages. Degrading treatment or discrimination based on religious grounds was also reported, as well as confiscation of devotional objects. 88. Prison chaplains need to pass an exam on prison security rules. The provision of religious services by prison chaplains is highly constrained. The Hungarian Islamic Community reportedly could no longer provide chaplaincy services in correctional facilities due to financial constraints. Prison chaplains are appointed by their church, but they are at the same time employed by the prison authority. They do not ‘belong’ to either system, but 42 43 44 45 14 The Basic Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners, Principle 3 and the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment, Principle 5. General Comment no. 21 (1992), para. 4. General Comment no. 22 (1993), para. 8. Previous ECtHR judgments on funeral attendance include: Császy v. Hungary (leading), 2014; Pintér v. Hungary, 2014 (pending): Rigó v. Hungary (not adjudicated yet).