A/HRC/9/25 page 10 “defamation of religions may offend people and hurt their religious feelings but it does not necessarily or at least directly result in a violation of their rights, including their right to freedom of religion” (paras. 36 and 37). 37. The report further emphasized that criminalizing defamation of religions can be counterproductive since “rigorous protection of religions as such may create an atmosphere of intolerance and can give rise to fear and may even provoke the chances of a backlash” (para. 42). The Special Rapporteurs recommended that the Human Rights Committee consider the possibility of adopting complementary standards on the interrelations between freedom of expression, freedom of religion and non-discrimination, in particular by drafting a general comment on article 20 of ICCPR. 38. In his report to the sixth session of the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/6/6), the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance underlined that “fighting religious discrimination in general requires a strong focus on preventing the direct and indirect consequences of defamation of religions, including its role in legitimizing racist and discriminatory discourse” (para. 13). 39. On 22 April 2008, during the first substantive session of the Preparatory Committee for the Durban Review Conference, he suggested, inter alia, that based on his experience in reporting on defamation of religions, the focus of the debate on racism and religion should be shifted away from defamation of religions to incitement to racial and religious hatred. In his view, while defamation of religions is a sociological concept, incitement to racial and religious hatred is a legal concept that can be dealt with under international instruments; in the framework of human rights, incitement to racial and religious hatred is prohibited by ICCPR, ICERD and the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and by many national constitutions. 40. In her report on the elimination of all forms of religious intolerance submitted to the sixty-second session of the General Assembly, the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief underlined that several domestic blasphemy laws “protect only the prevailing religion in the State concerned, or they are applied in a discriminatory sense” and are used to repress minorities, dissenters, atheists and non-theists (A/62/280, para. 70). She suggested that “a useful alternative to blasphemy laws could be to fully implement the protection of individuals against advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence according to article 20 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” (para. 76). She also pointed out that in view of the huge number of religions and beliefs, genuine differences of opinion between their believers may arise and that “it would be difficult and potentially dangerous to define in abstracto what constitutes a ‘defamation of religion’ as well as to find an impartial, independent and non-arbitrary body for adjudicating such cases” (para. 77). 41. In her report on a country visit (E/CN.4/2006/5/Add.2) the Special Rapporteur affirmed that the State has the responsibility to ensure that justice is done promptly and properly, stressing that “there cannot be a lasting solution without proper justice for the perpetrators and victims of all acts of violence on religious grounds that have occurred. A climate of impunity can only encourage those who plan to foment further violence” (para. 95). The State has the obligation to