A/HRC/2/6 page 4 Introduction 1. This report is submitted pursuant to Human Rights Council decision 1/107 of 30 June, 2006, which expressed “concern over the increasing trend of defamation of religions, incitement to racial and religious hatred and its recent manifestations”, and requested the “Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief and the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance as well as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights to report to the next session on this phenomenon, in particular its implications for article 20, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”. 2. The report presents initial findings, conclusions and recommendations from very preliminary research conducted by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In the short time available between the decision of the Human Rights Council in June and this session, OHCHR has only been able to undertake a preliminary review of the status of international law and regional and national jurisprudence and practice which is presented here. As proposed below, substantial additional work is needed to flesh out in more detail the full scope of the current state of the law and practice on this complex issue, and to explore the range of available policy options to deal with the global challenge of fostering tolerance and understanding globally. 3. While international human rights law, as well regional and national jurisprudence and practice, permits States to curb speech and other forms of manifestations that have the potential to foster racial and religious hatred and violence, there is no consensus on critical elements of the law and practice varies considerably. Global experience, from the Nazi atrocities to the genocide in Rwanda and more recent episodes, demonstrates how speech and the media in general can be abused to promote hatred, discord and even violence. It is precisely for this reason that many of the international human rights instruments and mechanisms have focused attention on the issue. 4. Curbing speech that incites hatred and violence generally involves restrictions and curtailment on the freedom of speech and other human rights and freedoms that are at the core of the international human rights framework. The challenge has, therefore, been how to deal with the nefarious effect of hate speech without jeopardizing freedom of speech, the free exchange of ideas and thought, and other freedoms that form the very foundation of human rights. For this reason, international law and most regional and national jurisprudence generally regard any action to limit or sanction speech as an exceptional measure to be applied in strictly defined circumstances on the basis of clearly identified criteria. 5. Consensus has not fully emerged on the precise boundary and parameters of this exception. Among the key issues, there is a great deal of uncertainty about: (a) the notion of incitement itself and how to assess its applicability in practical situations; (b) the precise circumstances under which incitement may be prohibited; and (c) the scope of permissible sanctions and remedies that may be employed. There is also particular concern about impact of the potential prohibition of hate speech on freedom of expression. While freedom of speech is certainly not absolute, international law as well as most regional and national jurisprudence, requires a careful balancing of any limitations on speech or other forms of expression. Clarity on the objectives of the law and its contours is essential in attaining this balance.