A/HRC/11/2 page 20 reason relates to the difficulty of defining with any accuracy the conduct being proscribed. The second is the difficulty of ensuring respect for other rights, including cultural rights and freedom of speech and religion in such contexts. In the vast majority of cases examined, the offence has been defined in a vague and open-ended manner, which lends itself almost unavoidably to abuse. The vaguely defined elements of the “crime” can easily operate to permit those with a personal grudge or enmity to accuse others of having practised witchcraft. A third reason is empirical evidence, which shows that, in most instances, the criminalization of witchcraft is interpreted as legitimizing the punishment of accused witches in vigilante-like fashion, with no regard for the specific details of the alleged conduct, no due process protections being accorded to the accused, and no evidentiary burdens being met. Instead, there is usually a flagrantly discriminatory approach that results in the singling out of those who are simply “different”, feared or disliked. The accused witches are then often killed by vigilantes or mobs. 56. Even in States that have detailed laws providing for the punishment of witches, the law does not always explicitly address penalties for the persecution or killing of witches. Where it does, it sometimes permits the defence to invoke witchcraft as an extenuating circumstance warranting a lesser sentence. Where Governments identify genuinely abusive practices on the part of those accused of witchcraft, the challenge is to identify which criminal laws have been violated by the conduct and not to use the nebulous, catch-all label of “witchcraft”. Similarly, those who live in fear of witches should be educated and sanctioned to act within the law and on the basis of a criminal code that respects human rights when taking measures against those whom they believe to be engaging in harmful acts. In such circumstances, it is wholly unacceptable to invoke a subjective and highly manipulable accusation of witchcraft as the basis for either arbitrary private acts of violence or for Government-sponsored or tolerated acts of violence. 57. For present purposes, the most important point is to ensure that all killings of alleged witches are treated as murder and investigated, prosecuted and punished accordingly. In most of the cited problem situations, the Governments concerned have not been accused of playing an active part in the persecution or killings of witches. There are, however, questions as to whether they have met their due diligence obligations to prevent such killings. These require Governments to take all available measures to prevent such crimes and prosecute and punish perpetrators, including private actors.57 Indeed, there is an interesting historical parallel with anti-lynching statutes in the United States, which were proposed in response to the almost 5,000 lynchings reported between 1882 and 1968. They were explicitly designed to go beyond the simple criminalization of the murder involved, and provided severe penalties for State or municipal officials who failed to take reasonable steps to prevent a lynching. In addition, any county in which a lynching occurred would have to compensate the victim’s family.58 57 This would include religious groups that designate children as witches, leading to stigmatization and persecution. 58 See George C. Rable, “The South and the politics of anti-lynching legislation, 1920-1940”, 51 Journal of Southern History, 1985.