A/HRC/4/21/Add.1 page 21 Bhutan Police station the same night by the village elder. Both Mr. Dhungana and Mr. Tamang were handed over to the Royal Bhutan Police on 8 January 2006. The next day, they were brought before the Court. They were charged for and found guilty of an offence of official misconduct under Section 294 of the Bhutan Penal Code, having violated also Article 9 of the National Security Act, an offence of deceptive practice under Section 309 of the Bhutan Penal Code, and an offence of breach of trust and criminal misappropriation of Government property under Sections 265 and 267 of the Bhutan Penal Code. 72. The above mentioned persons have not appealed the judgement. They are currently serving their sentences in Thimphu District Jail. They are allowed to receive visitors in accordance with the prison rules and they have actually been receiving visits from their family and friends on a daily basis. Moreover, they have not been detained incommunicado, as said in the urgent appeal sent to the Government; and medical attention is provided to all detainees if required by the individual concerned. 73. Regarding the arrest itself, it is incorrect what is alleged concerning the above mentioned Lt. Col., due to the fact that he was not present during the arrest. It is also untrue that both detainees have been subjected to torture and ill treatment. Torture is prohibited by law in Bhutan. Concerning the existing policies of the Government, people are free to practice any religion of their choice, but proselytism of any religion is prohibited in order to maintain and preserve society’s harmony. The right to freedom of religion or belief is guaranteed in the draft Constitution of Bhutan. To conclude, the Government also indicated that Bhutan has not faced sectarian or religious violence and that there is no social tension between people of different faiths. The Government continues to promote peaceful coexistence between the different religious groups in the country. Observations 74. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the Government’s response and she encourages the Government to reply also to her request to visit the country. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur would like to refer to her framework for communications, more specifically to the international human rights norms and to the mandate practice concerning “Teaching and disseminating materials, including missionary activity” (see above para. 1, category I. 3. f). In her 2005 report to the General Assembly, she noted the following (see A/60/399, para. 62): “Whereas the scope of freedom afforded to persons for the practice of their religion or belief by producing and distributing information about their religion or belief is wide, certain limitations can be imposed in accordance with article 18, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. However, it should be noted that this article allows for restrictions only in very exceptional cases. In particular the fact that it mentions the protection of “fundamental rights and freedoms” (emphasis added) of others as a ground for restriction indicates a stronger protection than for some other rights whose limitation clauses refer simply to the “rights and freedoms of others” (e.g. article 12, 21 and 22). It could indeed be argued that the freedom of religion or belief of others can be regarded as such a fundamental right and freedom and would justify limitations to missionary activities, but the freedom of religion and belief of adults basically is a question of individual choice, so any generalized State limitation (e.g. by law) conceived to protect “others’” freedom of religion and belief by limiting the right of individuals to conduct missionary activities should be avoided.”