A/HRC/8/52 page 175 tolerance and respect between the different religions”. The provisions concerning faiths other than Islam simply extended to those faiths the provisions in force governing Islam and included: • Order No. 77-03 of 19 February 1997, concerning charitable contributions; • Executive decree No. 91-91 of 23 March 1991, concerning mosques; • Article 87 bis of Act No. 01-09 of 26 June 2001. 526. The Order of 28 February 2006 thus sought to correct a legal oversight. It constituted a response to numerous requests by citizens, who believed that the current social problems were being exploited by an aggressive form of proselytizing carried out in the name of freedom of worship that was sowing discord and tearing families and communities apart. Furthermore, those destabilizing acts were being carried out by unqualified and unauthorized persons. In short, whatever was applicable to Islam, the main religion in Algeria, had been extended to other faiths in the name of non-discrimination. To accuse Algeria, which was proud of being the homeland of Emir Abdelkader, the saviour of persecuted Christians, of intolerance was an oxymoron. Meanwhile, the evangelical proselytizing that was destabilizing the state of inter-faith coexistence was also affecting African countries, both those with a Christian majority and those where Muslims were predominant. 527. Public opinion in Algeria had been hostile to the missions of some of the special procedures and mandate holders. Algerians were in fact looking for stronger expressions of solidarity amidst the trials they had faced, particularly from human rights mechanisms and not, as had been the case, efforts to justify the acts of the criminals. Currently Algeria was on the path to reconciliation and a pacifying of hearts and easing of spirits. The situation had changed entirely, and life and hope had triumphed over terrorism. It was in the light of that situation that those mandate holders who had been unable to visit Algeria should explain why they wished to visit the country in their applications, which would be given careful consideration. Algeria did not have any particular dispute with those mechanisms that might be a source of concern, since their urgent appeals and communications were treated with diligence. Poland 528. The review of Poland was held on 14 April 2008 in conformity with all the relevant provisions contained in Council resolution 5/1, and was based on the following documents: the national report submitted by Poland in accordance with the annex to Council resolution 5/1, paragraph 15 (a) (A/HRC/WG.6/1/POL/1); the compilation prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (b) (A/HRC/WG.6/1/POL/2); and the summary prepared by OHCHR in accordance with paragraph 15 (c) (A/HRC/WG.6/1/POL/3). 529. At its 16th meeting, on 10 June 2008, the Council considered and adopted the outcome of the review on Poland (see section C below). 530. The outcome of the review on Poland is constituted of the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review (A/HRC/8/30), together with the views of Poland concerning the recommendations and/or conclusions, as well as its voluntary commitments and its replies