A/HRC/9/25 page 6 17. In its article 5, ICERD provides that “States Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of … (vii) the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”. 18. The three dimensions to freedom of religion or belief as articulated in these instruments are freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In its general comment No. 22 (1993) on article 18, the Human Rights Committee notes that freedom of thought and freedom of conscience are protected equally with freedom of religion and belief. The fundamental character of these freedoms is reflected in the fact that this provision cannot be derogated from, even in time of public emergency, as stated in article 4 (2) of ICCPR. 19. In addition to the individual right to freedom of religion or belief, the ICCPR also stipulates in article 27 that persons belonging to ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities “shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language”. In general comment No. 22, the Human Rights Committee points out that the prohibition of advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, under article 20 (2) constitutes an important safeguard against infringements on the rights of religious minorities and of other religious groups to exercise the rights guaranteed by articles 18 and 27, and against acts of violence or persecution directed towards those groups. Relations of freedom of religion to freedom of expression and other fundamental human rights and freedoms 20. Paragraph 12 of Human Rights Council resolution 7/19 states that freedom of expression is not unlimited. Indeed, ICCPR envisages limitations to freedom of expression, in particular article 19 (3) which provides that certain restrictions may be imposed on freedom of expression in order to protect the rights or reputations of others, national security or public order, public health or morals. However, in general comment No. 10 (1983) on freedom of expression, the Human Rights Committee underlined that restrictions may not put in jeopardy the right itself. The limitations must be “provided by law”, they should be imposed for one of the purposes set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of the article, and they must be justified as being “necessary” for one of those purposes. 21. In the case of Malcolm Ross v. Canada (2000) the Human Rights Committee held that the dismissal of a schoolteacher from his teaching position because of anti-Semitic statements that he published while he was working as a schoolteacher constituted a restriction covered by the limitation clause contained in paragraph 3 of article 19 , and therefore did not violate the author’s right to freedom of expression. 22. In Robert Faurisson v. France (1996), the Human Rights Committee held that the restriction of the freedom of expression of the author and his prosecution under France’s 1990 Gayssot Act which made it an offence to contest the existence of certain crimes against humanity under which Nazi leaders were convicted by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1946 were permissible and necessary under article 19, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant.