CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 15 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sE207830C { margin-top:54pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5E66B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-style:italic; vertical-align:super } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s59272B2C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8C6C4B { width:7.65pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5F22C909 { width:27.66pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s5490EF62 { width:22.1pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA3566487 { width:23.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD0A716D { font-family:Arial; font-size:9.33pt; text-transform:uppercase; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sA527F4CF { font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s8773B649 { width:25.2pt; display:inline-block } .s827E7349 { width:140.75pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .sAEDF3CB5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FIRST SECTION CASE OF RABCZEWSKA v. POLAND (Requête n o 8257/13)     JUDGMENT   Art 10 • Freedom of expression • Lack of sufficient reasons for applicant’s conviction and fine for offending religious feelings of others through publicly insulting the Bible • Statements not amounting to hate speech or abusive attack and not threatening public order • Wide margin of appreciation overstepped   This version was rectified on 15 September 2022 under   Rule   81 of the Rules of Court.   STRASBOURG 15 September 2022   FINAL   30/01/2023   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Rabczewska v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Péter Paczolay, President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Alena Poláčková,   Gilberto Felici,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Ioannis Ktistakis,   Ksenija Turković, Judges , and Renata Degener, Section Registrar , Having regard to: the application (no.   8257/13) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Ms   Dorota Rabczewska (“the applicant”), on 21   January 2013; the decision to give notice to the Polish Government (“the Government”) of the complaint concerning Article 10 of the Convention, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application; the observations submitted by the Government and the observations submitted in reply by the applicant; the comments submitted by Article 19 and Ordo Iuris, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section; Having deliberated in private on 5 July 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns the applicant’s conviction for blasphemous statements made about the Holy Bible. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1984 and lives in Ciechanów. She was represented by Mr D. Raczkiewicz, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 3.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and, subsequently, by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 4.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. They are to a large extent based on the facts established by the domestic courts. 5.     The applicant is a popular pop singer known as Doda. 6 .     On 24 July 2009 the applicant gave an interview for a news website called Dziennik , which was published on 3 August 2009. Part of the interview was subsequently reprinted in the tabloid Super Express . The title of the article was: “Doda: I don’t believe in the Bible.” One of the questions in the interview was as follows: “You say that the Pope is an authority figure for you, you are a religious person, so why you are seeing somebody who desecrates the Bible and conveys anti-Christian sentiment?” In reply, the applicant described her relationship with her then partner, A.D. She then explained that the biblical message did have some value; however, the facts depicted in it were not reflected in scientific discoveries. For instance, in the description of the creation of the world there was no mention of dinosaurs. The applicant believed in a higher power ( siła wyższa ), she had had a religious upbringing, but had her own views on those matters. She stated that she was more convinced by scientific discoveries, and not by what she described as “the writings of someone wasted from drinking wine and smoking some weed” ( napruty winem i palący jakieś zioła ). When asked who she meant, the applicant replied “all those guys who wrote those incredible [biblical] stories”. The applicant did not submit to the Court the complete text of the interview she gave. 7.     After publication of the interview, two individuals, R.N and S.K., complained to a public prosecutor that the applicant had committed an offence proscribed by Article 196 of the Criminal Code (see paragraph   21 below). The case was initially discontinued by the Warsaw District Prosecutor but on 14 October 2009 the Warsaw District Court overturned this decision. 8.     On 30 April 2010 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor issued a bill of indictment against the applicant for offending the religious feelings of the two individuals by insulting the object of their religious worship – the Holy Bible. 9.     During the investigation, the applicant pleaded not guilty and argued that she had not intended to offend anybody. She was a peaceful person who respected everybody’s religion. Her interview should not have been taken seriously, as she had given it in a humorous and detached manner, and had been using the language of young people, which was full of metaphors. She explained that “wasted” meant colourful, with a positive outlook, that by wine she had meant communion wine, and that she had also been referring to healing plants which had been used at that time. Before the court the applicant reiterated that her intention had not been to offend or to spark revolt. She had replied to the journalist’s questions in a sincere, subjective and frivolous manner, and her views were based on historical and scientific television programmes, of which she was a fan. 10.     The court heard R.N and S.K., who reiterated what they had argued before the prosecuting authorities. The journalist who had interviewed the applicant was also heard. She confirmed in particular that the interview had been viewed a record number of times. 11.     On 16 January 2012 the Warsaw District Court convicted the applicant as charged and fined her 5,000 Polish zlotys (approximately 1,160   euros). The court found that the applicant’s case concerned a conflict of two constitutional freedoms: the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed in Article 53 of the Constitution and the freedom of expression enshrined in Article 54 of the Constitution. The court observed that the legislature had balanced the two conflicting freedoms in Article 196 of the Criminal Code. In its judgment the court stated, inter alia : “It is impossible to accept that the applicant did not understand the meaning of the words she used, and understood their meaning differently. One cannot agree that she did not intentionally mean to offend and was not aware that her statements would be understood and evaluated in that way ... Her statements should not be understood as falling within the [margins of] freedom of expression. ... The meanings given by the applicant to the expressions ‘wasted’ or ‘smoking weed’ should be considered totally absurd, and contrary to logic and basic life experience. Any person with an average [amount of] knowledge and experience can perfectly understand the meaning of those expressions ... The applicant clumsily and mockingly explained the meaning of her statements. Analysing her explanation as a whole, one has to establish that [the statements] were not consistent: when talking of wine she first indicated that she meant communion wine, but afterwards [she said] homemade wine which was allegedly drunk by apostles travelling with Jesus. The explanations of the applicant were not supported by the evidence collected. In the light of the explanations of the victims R.N. and S.K., it is indisputable that the statements of the applicant offended their religious feelings.” 12.     The court referred to the opinion of the journalist who had interviewed the applicant. The latter considered that the statement in question had been “spontaneous” but at the same time “intentionally aimed at shocking the audience” and “gaining media interest”. The expressions she had used had been chosen for their iconoclastic character in order to raise maximum public interest. The court also relied on an expert opinion which found that the applicant had deliberately used youth slang words and that her way of communicating had been marked by the tendency to shock, hurt and dominate others. 13 .     The court noted that the applicant’s comments had been made public and they had reached a wide audience. It considered that the question of whether her statements amounted to insult had to be examined taking into account the average person’s sensibility in Poland. It also noted that the Bible, along with the Torah, was considered in the different Christian religions and in Judaism to be inspired by God and was an object of veneration. The court accepted the experts’ opinions that the applicant’s statements had debased the Bible by suggesting that its authors had written it under the influence of alcohol and narcotics. The applicant’s behaviour had gone beyond analysis or criticism and become a tool for hurting other persons. She had expressed her views in a way that offended Christians and Jews and displayed contempt of believers. 14.     The court concluded that the statements made by the applicant had been objectively insulting and could not be considered to have been made for artistic or scientific purposes. The applicant’s actions had been intentional. In sum, her actions had fulfilled the conditions of the offence proscribed by Article 196 of the Criminal Code. 15.     The applicant’s lawyers lodged two appeals against the judgment of 16   January 2012. The applicant alleged errors of fact and law and incorrect assessment of evidence. She complained that one of the experts had been a priest and that the courts had wrongly concluded that her intention had been to offend the religious feelings of others. She alleged that the courts had arbitrarily assessed the evidence and should have heard other persons to see whether they had felt offended by her statements. The applicant further complained of a violation of her procedural rights, as one of the hearings had been held in her absence and her lawyer had not been given sufficiently early notice of it. The applicant also contested the manner in which the interview had been approved by her manager. She considered that her actions had not been public and that the interview had been a private conversation taking place in her flat. 16.     On 18 June 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment, amending it only by specifying the date of the offence as 24   July 2009. The Regional Court agreed with the lower court as regards the facts and the assessment of the applicant’s guilt. It considered that, as established by the Warsaw District Court, all the conditions of the offence proscribed by Article 196 of the Criminal Code had been fulfilled: the statement had been public, had offended the religious feelings of other persons, had concerned an object of religious worship, and amounted to insult ( zniewaga ). 17.     The applicant’s lawyer was notified of the judgment on 23   July 2012. 18.     On 22 October 2012, on her behalf, the applicant’s lawyer lodged a constitutional complaint alleging that Article 196 of the Criminal Code was unconstitutional. In particular, it was argued that Article 196 had disproportionately limited the applicant’s right to freedom of expression. 19 .     On 6 October 2015 the Constitutional Court gave judgment in the case and found that the provision of the Criminal Code in question was compatible with the Constitution, in particular with Articles   42, 53 and   54. The Constitutional Court analysed the domestic case-law under Article 196 of the Criminal Code, stating that the Supreme Court, for example, had held that the offence of religious insult proscribed by Article 196 was characterised by the “expression of contempt to another person with the intention to humiliate or taunt” ( wyrażeniem pogardy, chęcią poniżenia lub wyszydzenia ). The assessment of whether behaviour contained such an insult had to be based on objective criteria and take into account the cultural rules and social conventions generally accepted in society. The Constitutional Court assessed in detail whether the provision respected the principles of foreseeability and proportionality in the light of the Court’s case-law. The court stated, inter alia : “The right to the protection of religious feelings, to which the contested provision refers, concerns both the freedom from behaviour insulting the object of religious worship and the freedom to manifest an individual’s religion. There is also no doubt that the protection of religious feelings, and therefore human emotions associated with an individual’s faith, is also linked to the protection of the inherent and inalienable dignity of human beings, which constitutes a source of freedoms and human and civil rights – Article 30 of the Constitution. ... Under Article 196 of the Criminal Code, what is protected are the religious feelings of other persons directly related to religious freedom and human dignity. The punishment for the offence of offending religious feelings by insulting in public an object of religious worship is therefore meant to counteract such a type of ‘criticism’, which consists in replacing, with reference to freedom of speech, meritorious arguments with insults, which as such cannot be the standard accepted in a democratic State (see the judgment of the Constitutional Court in case no.   P   3/06). The insulting of an object of religious worship deliberately offends the religious feelings of other people, and thus also, like other forms of insult, harms their personal dignity. The Constitutional Court maintains the position that in a democratic State, which is to the common good of all citizens, public debate, in which everyone is guaranteed freedom of expression also in the religious sphere, should take place in a civilised and cultural manner, without any detriment to human and civil rights and freedoms (see the judgment of the Constitutional Court in case no. P 12/09). The answer to a rhetorical question of whether the law should prevent the spread in the language of the public debate of phrases that are offensive, aggressive, humiliating, degrading, and that violate human dignity, replacing the authentic exchange of views with insults, is also clear (see the judgment of the Constitutional Court in case no. P 3/06). ... The Constitutional Court found ... that the punishment of the offence of offending religious feelings by insulting in public an object of religious worship is, from the point of view of Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution, a necessary restriction on the constitutional freedom of expression protected by Article 54 § 1 of the Constitution, and thus the measures applied are necessary for the protection of the interests to which they are connected. In a democratic State, it is necessary to restrict freedom of expression that insults or offends the religious feelings of others. What needs to be assessed, however, is the manner in which the limits of freedom of expression are defined and the intensity of the restrictions themselves. ... The measure restricting the constitutionally protected freedom of expression employed in pursuance of Article 196 of the Criminal Code cannot be considered disproportionate, meaning not necessary and not leading to the intended purpose (Article   31 §   3 of the Constitution).” RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE DOMESTIC LAW Relevant Constitutional provisions 20.     The relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Poland provide as follows: Article 25 § 2 “Public authorities in the   Republic   of   Poland   shall be impartial in matters of religious and philosophical convictions, and shall ensure freedom to express them in public life.” Article 30 “The inherent and inalienable dignity of the person shall constitute a source of freedoms and rights of persons and citizens. It shall be inviolable. The respect and protection thereof shall be the obligation of public authorities.” Article 31 § 3 “Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be imposed only by statute, and only when necessary in a democratic State for the protection of its security or public order, or to protect the natural environment, health or public morals, or the freedoms and rights of other persons. Such limitations shall not violate the essence of freedoms and rights.” Article 53 “1.     Freedom of conscience and religion shall be secured to everyone. 2.     Freedom of religion shall include the freedom to profess or to accept a religion by personal choice as well as to manifest such religion, either individually or collectively, publicly or privately, by worshipping, praying, participating in ceremonies, performing rites or teaching. Freedom of religion shall also include the availability of sanctuaries and other places of worship designed to meet the needs of believers as well as the right of individuals, wherever they may be, to benefit from religious services. 3.     Parents shall have the right to provide their children with a moral and religious upbringing and teaching in accordance with their convictions. The provisions of Article   48 §   1 shall apply as appropriate. 4.     The religion of a church or other legally recognised religious organisation may be taught in schools, but other peoples’   freedom of religion and conscience shall not be infringed thereby. 5.     The freedom to publicly express religion may be limited only by means of statute and only where this is necessary for the defence of State security, public order, health, morals or the freedoms and rights of others. 6.     No one shall be compelled to participate or not to participate in religious practices. 7.     No one may be compelled by organs of public authority to disclose his philosophy of life, religious convictions or beliefs.” Article 54 § 1 “Everyone shall be guaranteed freedom to express opinions and to acquire and to disseminate information.” Criminal Code 21 .     Article 196 of the Criminal Code provides as follows: “Whoever offends the religious feelings of other persons by publicly insulting an object of religious worship, or a place designated for public religious ceremonies, is liable to pay a fine, have his or her liberty restricted, or be deprived of his or her liberty for a period of up to two years.” 22.     Article 256 § 1 of the Criminal Code prohibits hate speech: “Whoever publicly promotes fascist or other totalitarian State systems or incites to hatred on grounds of national, ethnic, racial or religious differences or on grounds of irreligiousness shall be subject to a fine, or the penalty of limitation or deprivation of liberty for up to two years.” INTERNATIONAL MATERIAL United Nations standards 23.     Article 20 § 2 of the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides: “Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.” 24.     On 16 December 2005 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 60/150 on combating defamation of religions (UN   Doc.   A/RES/60/509/Add.2 (Part II)), the relevant parts of which read as follows: “The General Assembly, ...   Noting with concern that defamation of religions is among the causes of social disharmony and leads to violations of human rights,   Noting with deep concern the increasing trend in recent years of statements attacking religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums,   1.   Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still in evidence in some regions of the world;   2.   Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious symbols;   3.   Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;   4.   Expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;   5.   Also expresses its deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by Governments;   6.   Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion;   7.   Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism and the reaction to counter-terrorism measures, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups, as well as their economic and social exclusion;   8.   Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions, Islam and Muslims in particular, especially in human rights forums;   9.   Urges States to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination through political institutions and organizations of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;   10.   Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;   11.   Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect different religions and beliefs and do not discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief, and that necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;   12.   Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising;   13.   Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to schooling;   14.   Calls upon the international community to initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and religious diversity, and urges States, non-governmental organizations, religious bodies and the print and electronic media to support and promote such a dialogue;   15.   Calls upon the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in the dialogue among civilizations, inter alia , through:   (a)   Integrating them into topical seminars and special debates on the positive contributions of cultures, as well as religious and cultural diversity, including through educational programmes, particularly the World Programme for Human Rights Education proclaimed on 10 December 2004;   (b)   Collaboration by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights with other relevant international organizations in holding joint conferences designed to encourage this dialogue and promote understanding of the universality of human rights and their implementation at various levels;   16.   Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation of the present resolution to the General Assembly at its sixty-first session.” 25.     On 27 March 2008 the Human Rights Council adopted at its 40th   session Resolution 7/19 on combating defamation of religions, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “The Human Rights Council, ... 1.     Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief; ... 4.     Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation; ... 7.     Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols; 8.     Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence; 9.     Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance; 10.     Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; ... 12.     Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals; 13.     Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred; 14.     Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion; 15.     Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session; 16.     Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions to the Council at its ninth session.” 26.     On 22 March 2013 the Human Rights Council adopted at its 50th   session Resolution 22/31 on combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against, persons based on religion or belief, the relevant parts of which read as follows: “The Human Rights Council, ... 1.     Expresses deep concern at the continued serious instances of derogatory stereotyping, negative profiling and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief, as well as programmes and agendas pursued by extremists organizations and groups aimed at creating and perpetuating negative stereotypes about religious groups, in particular when condoned by Governments; 2.     Expresses its concern that incidents of religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of individuals on the basis of religion or belief, continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, as set forth in the present resolution, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents; 3.     Condemns deeply any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, whether it involves the use of print, audiovisual or electronic media or any other means; 4.     Welcomes international, regional and national initiatives aimed at promoting interreligious, intercultural and interfaith harmony and combating discrimination against individuals on the basis of religion or belief, in particular the series of experts meetings in the framework of the Istanbul Process, and notes also in this regard the efforts of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the holding of five regional workshops on separate but related issues, including the final workshop in Morocco and its outcome document, the Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and the recommendations and conclusions contained therein. 5.     Recognizes that the open, public debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue, at the local, national and international levels, can be among the best protections against religious intolerance and can play a positive role in strengthening democracy and combating religious hatred, and convinced that continuing dialogue on these issues can help to overcome existing misperceptions; 6.     Notes the speech given by Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the fifteenth session of the Human Rights Council, and draws on his call on States to take the following actions to foster a domestic environment of religious tolerance, peace and respect by: (a)     Encouraging the creation of collaborative networks to build mutual understanding, promoting dialogue and inspiring constructive action towards shared policy goals and the pursuit of tangible outcomes, such as servicing projects in the fields of education, health, conflict prevention, employment, integration and media education; (b)     Creating an appropriate mechanism within Governments to, inter alia , identify and address potential areas of tension between members of different religious communities, and assisting with conflict prevention and mediation; (c)     Encouraging the training of government officials in effective outreach strategies; (d)     Encouraging the efforts of leaders to discuss within their communities the causes of discrimination, and evolving strategies to counter these causes; (e)     Speaking out against intolerance, including advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence; (f)     Adopting measures to criminalize incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief; (g)     Understanding the need to combat denigration and negative religious stereotyping of persons, as well as incitement to religious hatred, by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national, region and international levels through, inter alia , education and awareness-building; (h)     Recognizing that the open, constructive and respectful debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national and international levels, can play a positive role in combating religious hatred, incitement and violence; 7.     Calls upon all States: (a)     To take effective measures to ensure that public functionaries, in the conduct of their public duties, do not discriminate against an individual on the basis of religion or belief; (b)     To foster religious freedom and pluralism by promoting the ability of members of all religious communities to manifest their religion, and to contribute openly and on an equal footing to society; (c)     To encourage the representation and meaningful participation of individuals, irrespective of their religion in all sectors of society; (d)     To make a strong effort to counter religious profiling, which is understood to be the invidious use of religion as a criterion in conducting questionings, searches and other law enforcement investigative procedures; 8.     Encourages States to consider providing updates on efforts made in this regard as part of ongoing reporting to the Office of the High Commissioner; 9.     Calls upon States to adopt measures and policies to promote full respect for and protection of places of worship and religious sites, cemeteries and shrines, and to take measures in cases where they are vulnerable to vandalism or destruction; 10.     Requests the High Commissioner to prepare and submit to the Human Rights Council, at its twenty-fifth session, a report based upon information provided by States on the efforts and measures taken by them for the implementation of the action plan outlined in paragraphs 6 and 7 above, as well as their views on potential follow-up measures for further improvement of the implementation of that plan; 11.     Calls for strengthened international efforts to foster a global dialogue for the promotion of a culture of tolerance and peace at all levels, based on respect for human rights and diversity of religions and beliefs.” 27.     The UN Human Rights Committee adopted at its 102nd session (11 ‑ 29   July 2011) General Comment No. 34 on Article 19 (Freedoms of opinion and expression), the relevant parts of which read as follows: “3.     Freedom of expression is a necessary condition for the realization of the principles of transparency and accountability that are, in turn, essential for the promotion and protection of human rights. ... 47.     Defamation laws must be crafted with care to ensure that they comply with paragraph 3, and that they do not serve, in practice, to stifle freedom of expression. All such laws, in particular penal defamation laws, should include such defences as the defence of truth and they should not be applied with regard to those forms of expression that are not, of their nature, subject to verification. At least with regard to comments about public figures, consideration should be given to avoiding penalizing or otherwise rendering unlawful untrue statements that have been published in error but without malice. In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism should be recognized as a defence. Care should be taken by States parties to avoid excessively punitive measures and penalties. Where relevant, States parties should place reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the successful party. States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty. It is impermissible for a State party to indict a person for criminal defamation but then not to proceed to trial expeditiously – such a practice has a chilling effect that may unduly restrict the exercise of freedom of expression of the person concerned and others. 48.     Prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 2, of the Covenant. [...] Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious doctrine and tenets of faith. 49.     Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression. The Covenant does not permit general prohibition of expressions of an erroneous opinion or an incorrect interpretation of past events. Restrictions on the right of freedom of opinion should never be imposed and, with regard to freedom of expression, they should not go beyond what is permitted in paragraph 3 or required under article 20.” The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) 28.     The final 2019 Report on Hate Crime prepared by OSCE/ODHIR collected contributions from thirty-nine states, complemented by reports on hate incidents from 148 civil society groups, covering 45 participating States. The report gathered data of same 7,000 incidents motivated by bias against different groups, including 3,757 “descriptive incidents”. The overview of the total number of reported incidents indicated that 2,026 of them were motivated by anti-Semitism, 577 motivated by bias against Christians and 511 by bias against Muslims. In respect of Poland the report noted 972 hate crimes recorded by police. Other sources reported 187 incidents in Poland, including fifty-two incidents motivated by anti-Semitism, thirty-five motivated by bias against Christians, and six and against Muslims. Council of Europe 29 .     The relevant parts of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Recommendation 1805 (2007) on blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion provide as follows: “4.     With regard to blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on the grounds of their religion, the state is responsible for determining what should count as criminal offences within the limits imposed by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In this connection, the Assembly considers that blasphemy, as an insult to a religion, should not be deemed a criminal offence. A distinction should be made between matters relating to moral conscience and those relating to what is lawful, matters which belong to the public domain, and those which belong to the private sphere. Even though today prosecutions in this respect are rare in member states, they are legion in other countries of the world. ... 14.     The Assembly notes that member states have the obligation under Article 9 of the Convention to protect freedom of religion including the freedom to manifest one’s religion. This requires that member states protect such manifestations against disturbances by others. However, these rights may sometimes be subject to certain justified limitations. The challenge facing the authorities is how to strike a fair balance between the interests of individuals as members of a religious community in ensuring respect for their right to manifest their religion or their right to education, and the general public interest or the rights and interests of others. 15.     The Assembly considers that, as far as it is necessary in a democratic society in accordance with Article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention, national law should only penalise expressions about religious matters which intentionally and severely disturb public order and call for public violence.” 30 .     The relevant parts of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) Report on the relationship between Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion: the issue of regulation and prosecution of Blasphemy, Religious Insult and Incitement to Religious Hatred (CDL-AD(2008)026) provide as follows: “89.     As concerns the question of whether or not there is a need for specific supplementary legislation in the area of blasphemy, religious insult and incitement to religious hatred, the Commission finds: a)     That incitement to hatred, including religious hatred, should be the object of criminal sanctions as is the case in almost all European States ... b)     That it is neither necessary nor desirable to create an offence of religious insult (that is, insult to religious feelings) simpliciter, without the element of incitement to hatred as an essential component. c)     That the offence of blasphemy should be abolished (which is already the case in most European States) and should not be reintroduced. 90.     As concerns the question of to what extent criminal legislation is adequate and/or effective for the purpose of bringing about the appropriate balance between the right to freedom of expression and the right to respect for one’s beliefs, the Commission reiterates that, in its view, criminal sanctions are only appropriate in respect of incitement to hatred (unless public order offences are appropriate). 91.     Notwithstanding the difficulties with enforcement of criminal legislation in this area, there is a high symbolic value in the pan-European introduction of criminal sanctions against incitement to hatred. It gives strong signals to all parts of society and to all societies that an effective democracy cannot bear behaviours and acts which undermine its core values: pluralism, tolerance, respect for human rights and non‑discrimination. It is essential however that the application of legislation against incitement to hatred be done in a non-discriminatory manner. 92.     In the Commission’s view, instead, criminal sanctions are inappropriate in respect of insult to religious feelings and, even more so, in respect of blasphemy.” European Union 31.     The relevant part of the European Parliament resolution of 27   February 2014 on the situation of fundamental rights in the European Union (2012) (2013/2078(INI)) provides: “The European Parliament, ... 35.     Recalls that nat