A/HRC/9/7 page 14 45. The Becket Fund concludes that, while religious intolerance and hatred against any religious group are serious issues that need to be addressed, the concept of defamation of religions as a response would restrict more freedoms than it protects. In the view of the Becket Fund, religious freedom is best preserved through the protection of the freedom of religion of all faiths, not by restricting the speech of people of some faiths. International Humanist and Ethical Union 46. The International Humanist and Ethical Union expressed concern over the impact of blasphemy legislation on freedom of expression and freedom of religion, including on those who do not practise the predominant religion in a Member State. In this connection, the Union recommends that the study requested by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 7/19 should include both an examination of existing blasphemy laws and an assessment of the implications for human rights of defamation of religion laws. The Union also recommended that a resolution be tabled calling on States in which blasphemy constitutes a capital offence to remove the death sentence. Additionally, the Union suggested that United Nations bodies considering the question of defamation of religions adopt a similar position as the Council of Europe, where freedom of expression is given much greater weight. International Pen 47. International Pen submitted a general comment on Council resolution 7/19 and a sample of cases of individuals whose fundamental rights have been severely restricted by the application of legislation aimed at combating offences to religions. Laws aimed at protecting religions from defamation can exacerbate religious tensions and could be abused to dampen legitimate criticism. It is for this reason that it was deeply disappointed by the Council’s adoption of resolution 7/19. III. SUMMARY OF ISSUES ARISING FROM RESPONSES 48. Despite the limited number of responses, they did raise several important issues of relevance to the implementation of Council resolution 7/19. A. Freedom of religion 49. Almost all the responses emphasized the importance of religion as an individual right and as a source of common values, inspiration and cohesiveness in society. For Bahrain, Islam provides the basis for national cohesion; for Costa Rica, religion is among the essential elements for peace and democracy. To the Council of Europe, freedom of expression and freedom of religion constitute the foundations of democratic societies and are instrumental to pluralism. 50. The constitutions and national laws in all the countries that responded guarantee freedom of religion, conscience and belief. The Constitution of Chile recognizes freedom of religion and conscience for all religions “so long as they do not violate moral standards, customs or public order”. For Costa Rica, freedom of religion is guaranteed so long as it is exercised in a manner respectful of “universal morals and norms”. In Mauritius, freedom of religion includes the freedom not to worship or believe or to profess any religion, and there is no requirement for religious education or instruction in any educational institution. Freedom of religion is protected