A/HRC/7/10/Add.4 page 9 Rapporteur requested but was not provided with any of the reports of the provincial commission. 21. In a 1997 report, the Special Rapporteur’s predecessor Mr. Abdelfattah Amor elaborated on religious sects as follows: “In actual fact, the fairly widespread hostility towards sects can be largely explained by the excesses, the breaches of public order and, on occasion, the crimes and despicable conduct engaged in by certain groups and communities which trick themselves out in religion, and by the tendency among the major religions to resist any departure from orthodoxy. The two things must be treated separately. Sects, whether their religion is real or a fiction, are not above the law. The State must ensure that the law – particularly laws on the maintenance of public order and penalizing swindling, breach of trust, violence and assaults, failure to assist people in danger, gross indecency, procurement, the illegal practice of medicine, abduction and corruption of minors, etc. – is respected. In other words, there are many legal courses open and they afford plenty of scope for action against false pretences and misdirection. Beyond that, however, it is not the business of the State or any other group or community to act as the guardian of people’s consciences and encourage, impose or censure any religious belief or conviction” (E/CN.4/1997/91, para. 99). 22. The Human Rights Committee in its general comment No. 22 (1993) provided the following guidance: “The terms ‘belief’ and ‘religion’ are to be broadly construed. Article 18 is not limited in its application to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. The Committee therefore views with concern any tendency to discriminate against any religion or belief for any reason, including the fact that they are newly established, or represent religious minorities that may be the subject of hostility on the part of a predominant religious community.” Furthermore, the Human Rights Committee reiterated that article 18 of the ICCPR “protects theistic, non-theistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as the right not to profess any religion or belief” (para. 2). 23. In accordance with the foregoing reasoning, the Special Rapporteur also interprets the scope of application for freedom of religion or belief in a broad sense, bearing in mind that manifestations of this freedom may be subject to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. Ms. Rosalyn Higgins, currently President of the International Court of Justice and a former member of the Human Rights Committee during the drafting of General Comment No. 22, “resolutely opposed the idea that States could have complete latitude to decide what was and what was not a genuine religious belief. The contents of a religion should be defined by the worshippers themselves; as for manifestations, article 18, paragraph 3, existed to prevent them from violating the rights of others” (CCPR/C/SR.1166, para. 48). 24. Both Commission on Human Rights resolution 2005/40 and Human Rights Council resolution 6/37 urge States “to review, whenever relevant, existing registration practices in order to ensure the right of all persons to manifest their religion or belief, alone or in community with others and in public or in private”. The Special Rapporteur would like to reiterate that registration procedures should be easy, quick and should neither depend on reviews of the substantive content of the belief nor on extensive formal