El daño, resultado de un despido contra el servidor público procede de un Contrato de

A. General observations on the human rights situation

21. Although the Special Rapporteur generally noticed a strong human rights commitment in the State and society, virtually all interlocutors from Government and civil society agreed that many challenges remain to be addressed. A major problem broadly affecting the situation of human rights in Paraguay seems to be the weakness of implementation mechanisms. Given the enormous social inequalities in such areas as distribution of wealth, access to public or private education, political influence, ethnic and linguistic minority status and gender-related differences, the weak presence and poor capacity of State institutions render certain sectors of the population structurally vulnerable to possible human rights abuses, including in the field of freedom of religion or belief. This problem seems to be even more pronounced outside the capital, especially in remote areas. A number of interlocutors stated that, in certain remote regions, the State is virtually absent, with the result that human rights guarantees and policies in those areas are rarely effective. This can have serious consequences for, for instance, members of indigenous peoples, but also for other individuals in situations of particular

vulnerability, including members of ethnic, religious or sexual minorities, women, children and people living in poverty.

22. While finding broad consensus on many human rights topics and challenges, the Special Rapporteur also became aware of certain politically contentious issues relating to his mandate. Open tensions that came up repeatedly during discussions concerned problems where education met anti-discrimination policies, especially in the field of gender- and sexual orientation-related discrimination. The Pedagogical Regulating Framework (Marco Rector Pedagógico), a Government initiative recently prepared with the involvement of civil society and the support of the United Nations system in Paraguay aiming to provide population sectors at risk, for example young people and pregnant women, with information and education on sexual and reproductive health, had elicited strong opposition from advocates of traditional family values. The opposition against the initiative apparently received much support from religious groups across different denominations and some Congress members. A similar political controversy, which was also reflected in many discussions held during the country visit, concerned the role of anti- discrimination principles in the school curriculum. In this context, the Special Rapporteur learned that anti- discrimination legislation had been repeatedly shelved as a result of opposition in Congress and in certain religious and conservative groups.

D. Freedom of religion or belief and the school system

42. In discussions about school education, the Special Rapporteur was repeatedly witness to highly emotional exchanges over the Pedagogical Regulating Framework (see paragraph 22 above) initiated by the Government with the purpose of providing, as part of the mandatory school curriculum, information on sexual and reproductive health. Whereas interlocutors from specific Government sectors, civil society organizations, women’s organizations and representatives of sexual minorities strongly supported the initiative, some vocal members of Christian churches and other religious groups mostly expressed reservations or even harsh opposition. Advocates of the Framework put the initiative into the context of the ongoing fight against gender-based discrimination. Opponents in turn saw it in sharp contradiction to their own religious or moral convictions, and felt that their concerns had not been taken seriously. This bitter controversy led not only to a blockage within Parliament and to divisions in society at large, but also had a negative impact on school life. According to allegations received from civil society, certain religious organizations directly targeted young-age school children in the context of public campaigns by urging them to sign petitions against the Framework. The Special Rapporteur also received credible information about acts of intimidation and harassment by the part of religious groups opposing the Framework, which, in some instances, have been close to physical violence and led to the cancellation of public information meetings about the initiative.

43. The Special Rapporteur does not see himself in a position to make a comprehensive analysis of the complex conflict around the Pedagogical Regulating Framework, nor to give concrete advice on how to act. However, he received the clear impression that communication between the opposing camps had partly broken down, leading to bitterness, mistrust and lack of mutual understanding. In this context, he regards any act of intimidation and harassment as unacceptable, and would like to recall that the Human Rights Council has, on many occasions, advocated for a holistic understanding of human rights, all of which should be seen as mutually reinforcing one another. This also includes the relationship between freedom of religion or belief and rights to be free from discrimination on grounds like gender or sexual orientation. According to the formulation of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, agreed upon at the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993, “all human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated”. In addition, with regard to the rights to life, health and education, the Special Rapporteur refers to the relevant recommendations made by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and the Special Rapporteur on the right to education.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Addendum: Summary of cases transmitted to Governments and replies received, A/HRC/13/40/Add.1, 16 February 2010

Indonesia. Urgent Appeal

Keywords: discrimination, religion

and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special

Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, and the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions

Allegations transmitted to the Government

114. The Special Rapporteurs brought to the attention of the Government information they had received regarding the adoption of the new Islamic Criminal Code (Qanun Jinayah) in Aceh. On 14 September 2009, the Aceh Legislative Council adopted a new Islamic Criminal Code which imposes severe sentences for consensual extra-marital sexual relations, rape, homosexuality, alcohol consumption and gambling. Among other sanctions, the Code imposes the punishment of stoning to death for adultery; 100 cane lashes for sexual intercourse outside marriage; between 100 and 300 cane lashes or imprisonment for rape; and 100 lashes for homosexuality. In addition, the new Code legalizes marital rape.

Response from the Government dated 23 December 2009

116. In its response dated 23 December 2009, the Government indicated that the Province of Aceh is given a special status under law no. 18 of 2001, which incorporated a special system of autonomy. In the preamble of this law, special status is granted to Aceh for its distinct contribution to the formation of the Indonesian nation, as much as for Aceh’s unique historical and cultural background, as well as its religious, moral and social values which had been preserved from generation to generation. The special status of Aceh as anautonomous region was expressed through four specific areas over which it had sole decisional power: religious issues, customs, education and the role of the Ulema in the local policy-making process. This special status was further reinforced through law no. 11 of 2006 on the Governing of Aceh.

Observations of the Special Rapporteur

123. The Special Rapporteur is grateful that the Government of Indonesia replied to the joint urgent appeal of 2 October 2009. She would like to refer to General Assembly resolution 63/181, in which the Assembly urges States “to ensure that no one within their jurisdiction is deprived of the right to life, liberty or security of person because of religion or belief and that no one is subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, or arbitrary arrest or detention on that account and to bring to justice all perpetrators of violations of these rights” (para. 9 b). The Special Rapporteur also recalls that the General Assembly in the same resolution urges States “to step up their efforts to eliminate intolerance and discrimination based on religion or belief, [...] devoting particular attention to practices that violate the human rights of women and discriminate against women” (para. 12 a). Furthermore, the General Assembly invites all actors to address “situations of violence and discrimination that affect many women as well as other individuals on the grounds or in the name of religion or belief or in accordance with cultural and traditional practices” (para. 16 b). Moreover, the Human Rights Committee in its general comment no. 22 emphasizes that “[i]f a set of beliefs is treated as official ideology in constitutions, statutes, proclamations of ruling parties, etc., or in actual practice, this shall not result in any impairment of the freedoms under article 18 or any other rights recognized under the Covenant nor in any discrimination against persons who do not accept the official ideology or who oppose it”.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Addendum: Republic of Serbia, including Kosovo, A/HRC/13/40/Add.3, 28 December 2009

Keywords: equality & non-discrimination legislation

I. Freedom of religion or belief in Central Serbia and Vojvodina

C. Domestic legal framework on freedom of religion or belief

13. The Parliament of the Republic of Serbia adopted a law on the prohibition of discrimination in March 2009. The law defines “discrimination” and “discriminatory treatment” as any unjustifiable differentiation or inequitable treatment, i.e. act of omission regarding persons or groups, as well as their family members or people close to them, performed in an overt or concealed manner, on grounds of, inter alia, religious convictions. According to article 18 of the 2009 law, “discrimination occurs when the principle of freedom of expressing one’s religious beliefs is breached, i.e. if a person or group is denied their right to adopt, maintain, express or change their religious beliefs, or to behave in accordance with their religious beliefs”. Shortly before the adoption of the 2009 law, a second paragraph was added to article 18 of the law, providing that “priests’ or other religious officials’ actions that are in accordance with the

doctrine, beliefs or goals of the churches and religious communities” registered under the 2006 Law on Churches and Religious Communities should not be deemed to be discriminatory. Reportedly, pressure by religious and conservative groups regarding issues such as religious conversion and free expression of sexual orientation had led to a temporary withdrawal of the bill from the legislative agenda in early March 2009. An amended anti-discrimination law was finally adopted on 26 March 2009 by a narrow ajority.

E. Issues of concern for the mandate

23. Furthermore, the recently adopted anti-discrimination law provides for specific exemptions of the prohibition of discrimination with regard to actions of priests or other religious officials which are in accordance with the doctrine, beliefs or goals of registered churches and religious communities. Members of civil society organizations emphasized that this exemption was introduced shortly before the adoption of the 2009 Law on the Prohibition of Discrimination in its article 18 due to lobbying efforts by “traditional” churches and religious communities, inter alia, in order to protect priests against charges of discriminating against others on grounds of sexual orientation.

Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief. Addendum: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, A/HRC/7/10/Add.3, 7 February 2008 Keywords: religion

III. RESPECT FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF IN THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT