U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

RESPECTING RIGHTS?

Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws
A gavel is seen in a hearing room in Panama City April 7, 2016. REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
By Joelle Fiss and Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

WWW.USCIRF.GOV

RESPECTING RIGHTS?

Measuring the World’s Blasphemy Laws

JULY 2017

COMMISSIONERS

Daniel Mark, Chairman

Sandra Jolley, Vice Chair

Kristina Arriaga de Bucholz, Vice Chair

Tenzin Dorjee

Clifford D. May 

Thomas J. Reese, S.J.

John Ruskay

Jackie Wolcott

Erin D. Singshinsuk

Executive Director
PROFESSIONAL STAFF

Dwight Bashir, Director of Research and Policy

Elizabeth K. Cassidy, Director of International Law and Policy

Judith E. Golub, Director of Congressional Affairs & Policy and Planning

John D. Lawrence, Director of Communications

Sahar Chaudhry, Senior Policy Analyst

Elise Goss-Alexander, Researcher

Andrew Kornbluth, Policy Analyst

Tiffany Lynch, Senior Policy Analyst

Tina L. Mufford, Senior Policy Analyst

Jomana Qaddour, Policy Analyst

Karen Banno, Office Manager

Roy Haskins, Manager of Finance and Administration

Travis Horne, Communications Specialist

This report, containing data collected, coded, and analyzed as of June 2016, was overseen by 

Elizabeth K. Cassidy, J.D., LL.M, Director of International Law and Policy at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. At USCIRF, Elizabeth is a subject matter expert on 

international and comparative law issues related to religious freedom as well as U.S. refugee 

and asylum policy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

About USCIRF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Introduction by USCIRF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Report Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Part I. Background: Laws Prohibiting Blasphemy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Part II. International Law Principles Implicated by Blasphemy Laws and 

Indicators to Measure Adherence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Part III. Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Part IV. Study findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Part V. Beyond the Study of the Laws: The Importance of National Context 

and Implementation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Part VI. Study Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Annexes

A. Compendium of Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Afghanistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Algeria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Andorra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Antigua and Barbuda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Austria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Bahrain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Bangladesh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Brazil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Brunei Darussalam. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Canada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Comoros. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Cyprus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Denmark. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Egypt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Eritrea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Ethiopia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Finland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Germany. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Greece. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Grenada. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Guyana. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

India. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Indonesia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Iran. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Iraq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Ireland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Israel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Jordan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Kazakhstan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Kuwait. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Lebanon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Libya. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Liechtenstein. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Malaysia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Malta. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Mauritius. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Montenegro. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Morocco. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Nigeria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

New Zealand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Oman. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Pakistan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Papua New Guinea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Philippines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Poland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Qatar. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Rwanda. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Russia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

San Marino. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Saudi Arabia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Singapore. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Somalia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

South Sudan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Spain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Sri Lanka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

St. Lucia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

St. Vincent and Grenadines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Sudan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Suriname. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Syria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Switzerland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Tanzania. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Thailand. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Tunisia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Turkey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

United Arab Emirates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Vanuatu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Yemen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Zambia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Zimbabwe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

B. Codebook: Blasphemy Laws: Measuring Impact & Assessing Risks for 

Targeted Law Reform Advocacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Codebook Table of Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

General Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

About the Authors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

About the Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic. . . . . . . . . . . 138

Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Dedication. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

ix

ABOUT THE UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

WHO WE ARE 

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission created by the 1998 International Religious Freedom 

Act (IRFA) that monitors the universal right to freedom of religion or belief abroad. USCIRF uses 

international standards to monitor violations of religious freedom or belief abroad and makes 

policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress. USCIRF Commissioners are appointed by the President and Congressional leaders of both political parties. The 

Commission’s work is supported by a professional, nonpartisan staff of regional subject matter 

experts. USCIRF is separate from the State Department, although the Department’s Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom is a non-voting, ex officio Commissioner.

WHAT IS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

Inherent in religious freedom is the right to believe or not believe as one’s conscience leads, 

and live out one’s beliefs openly, peacefully, and without fear. Freedom of religion or belief is 

an expansive right that includes the freedoms of thought, conscience, expression, association, 

and assembly. While religious freedom is America’s first freedom, it also is a core human right 

international law and treaty recognize; a necessary component of U.S. foreign policy and America’s commitment to defending democracy and freedom globally; and a vital element of national 

security, critical to ensuring a more peaceful, prosperous, and stable world.

RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

1

INTRODUCTION BY USCIRF

Across the globe, billions of people view blasphemy, defined as “the act of insulting or showing 

contempt or lack of reverence for God,” as deeply offensive to their belief in a deity or deities. 

Based on this view, a number of nations continue to maintain and enforce laws against 

blasphemy. These laws, which penalize expression or acts deemed blasphemous, defamatory 

of religions, or contemptuous of religion or religious symbols, figures, or feelings, include punishments ranging from public censure and fines to imprisonment and death. 

As members of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) who 

believe that all human beings should be accorded dignity and respect no matter their convictions, we understand the opposition to blasphemy. However, while it is legitimate to speak out 

against blasphemy, we believe that laws against blasphemy are detrimental to religious freedom. 

Freedom of religion or belief implies that people have the right to embrace a full range of thoughts 

and beliefs, including those that others might deem blasphemous; freedom of expression implies 

that they have the right to speak or write about them publicly. People also have a right to speak out 

against what they consider blasphemy as long as they do not incite others to violence. These rights 

are guaranteed in international documents to which most countries have agreed, including the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

We have seen in our monitoring of religious freedom worldwide how blasphemy laws, in 

both theory and practice, harm individuals and societies. In commissioning the study found in 

the following pages, USCIRF sought to ascertain the prevalence of blasphemy laws worldwide 

and measure how the content of these laws adheres to basic principles of international law. 

The findings are sobering indeed. According to the study:

• Blasphemy laws are astonishingly widespread. Seventy-one countries, spread out across 

many regions, maintain such statutes. 

• Every one of these blasphemy statutes deviates from at least one internationally recognized 

human rights principle. Most of these laws fail to respect fully the human right of freedom 

of expression.

• All five nations with blasphemy laws that deviate the most from international human rights 

principles maintain an official state religion.

• Most blasphemy laws studied were vaguely worded, as many failed to specify intent as part 

of the violation. The vast majority carried unduly harsh penalties for violators. 

• Most blasphemy laws were embedded in the criminal codes and 86 percent of states with 

blasphemy laws prescribed imprisonment for convicted offenders. Some blasphemy statutes 

even imposed the death penalty.

Clearly, blasphemy laws, in both conception and scope, remain problematic. We trust that 

this report will draw greater attention to the problem, provoke further discussion about the 

challenges and encourage constructive attempts to reform or repeal blasphemy measures.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2

OVERVIEW

This report examines and compares the content of laws prohibiting blasphemy (“blasphemy 

laws”) worldwide through the lens of international and human rights law principles. The laws 

examined in this study prohibit or criminalize the expression of opinions deemed “blasphemous,” or counter to majority views or religious belief systems, and many impose serious, often 

criminal, penalties. Blasphemy laws are actively enforced in many states throughout the world. 

Many governments deem repeal not feasible or desirable and justify the prohibition and criminalization of blasphemy as necessary to promote religious harmony. 

This study seeks to evaluate the language and content of blasphemy laws to understand 

what aspects of these laws adhere to—or deviate from—international and human rights law 

principles. A better understanding of the laws’ compliance with these principles may assist in 

the public policy community in developing clear, specifically-tailored recommendations for 

areas for reform. By analyzing and quantifying the adherence to or deviation from international 

and human rights law principles, examined systematically through a point-system assessment 

tool, this study identifies specific language that may increase blasphemy laws’ risk for abuse, 

indicating areas where targeted advocacy for reform potentially could lower that risk. 

Part I defines blasphemy for the purposes of this study and explains the risks for potential 

abuse in the implementation of these laws. 

Part II introduces the study methodology, including the collection of laws, the creation of 

indicators to measure adherence or non-adherence to international and human rights principles, 

the coding process, and the analysis. 

Part III explains the underlying international and human rights law principles on which the 

indicators are based. Additionally, it outlines the questions developed to measure each indicator 

and the points assigned to each question to evaluate the extent to which each law respects the 

core principles of international and human rights law implicated by prohibiting blasphemy. 

Part IV discusses the numerical composite scores attributed to each country, and examines 

findings and patterns within and among the eight indicators. 

Part V highlights the study results and situates select findings within the political, cultural, 

and legal contexts that shape how blasphemy laws may be implemented. 

Part VI concludes the study, noting some of its limitations and provides a template for future 

studies of blasphemy law. 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

3

REPORT FINDINGS

1. Blasphemy laws were found in 71 countries from all regions of the world. Regionally, 25.4 

percent of the laws found are from countries in the Middle East and North Africa, 25.4 percent from Asia-Pacific, 22.5 percent from Europe, 15.5 percent from Sub-Saharan Africa, 

and 11.2 percent from the Americas.

2. A majority—62 percent—of these laws received scores between 29 and 40 points out of 

80 total points, indicating that all blasphemy laws studied deviate from some—and most 

deviate from a significant number—of the international and human rights law principles 

examined.

3. The data indicate that a majority of laws do not fully respect international standards of 

freedom of opinion and expression. In fact, every state received at least some points on the 

indicator measuring Freedom of Expression.

4. Most laws received the lowest scores, on average, for the indicator measuring the language 

of the laws’ adherence to the principle of Freedom of Religion or Belief. This finding of 

relative adherence may be unexpected, or even counter-intuitive, because, in many countries, individuals belonging to religious or belief minorities are disproportionately accused 

of—and punished for—blasphemy. One reason for this apparent contradiction is that only 

a detailed, precisely worded law explicitly reflecting its coercive capacity with regard to 

religion or belief will receive a high score on this indicator.

5. An overwhelming majority of the laws analyzed were found in national penal codes, with 

many of these laws containing moderately to grossly disproportionate criminal punishments ranging from prison sentences to the death penalty.

6. The most common punishment among blasphemy laws is imprisonment, with 86 percent 

of all states imposing a prison penalty (and a few laws imposing lashings, forced labor, and 

the death penalty).

7. Blasphemy laws are vaguely worded, and few specify or limit the forum in which blasphemy 

can occur for purposes of punishment. Only one-third (33 percent) of criminal laws studied 

specify intent, or mens rea, as an element of the crime.

8. Each of the top five countries with the highest scoring laws has an official state religion. 

Although state religions can exist without necessarily resulting in discrimination against 

other belief groups, the coders did note a pattern where higher scoring (less adherent) laws 

are found in states where a state religion exists. 

9. The countries with the lowest scores, and thereby adhering more closely to international 

law principles, have blasphemy laws that neither discriminate among different belief 

groups nor protect a state religion through punitive measures. The five countries with the 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

4

lowest scoring laws received 0 points under Discrimination Against Groups and State 

Religion Protections, with agreement among all three coders.i

10. Conversely, the laws that discriminate among different belief groups have the highest scores, 

are the most human rights noncompliant, and, thus, are at higher risk for abuse. The countries with the five highest scoring laws received 10 out of 10 possible points on the indicators 

measuring Discrimination Against Groups and State Religion Protections.

11. The indicators receiving the highest average number of points are: Freedom of Expression, 

Vagueness of the Law, and Speech and Forum Limitations. This indicates that all blasphemy 

and related laws analyzed: (1) deviate from international free speech standards in some way; 

(2) have vague formulations and are difficult to interpret narrowly; and (3) have limitations 

that are seldom narrowly defined. 

12. Given that blasphemy laws are vague and therefore difficult to measure, we recognize that 

the indicators tend to underestimate the laws’ deviations from international law principles 

and therefore also underestimate the risk of abuse of these laws in practice.

13. Speech and Forum Limitations, the indicator concerned with the degree to which a blasphemy law limits the forum, either public or private, in which a person can express or display 

his/her opinions or beliefs and control written or spoken words, was a high-scoring indicator 

across almost all countries. Of the 71 countries, 64 countries, or 90 percent, had laws that 

received an average of 5.5 points or higher out of 10 points for this indicator, suggesting that 

the laws have few forum and types of speech limitations.

14. Although they are often enforced in abusive ways, blasphemy laws are also on the books in 

regions with low levels of enforcement, such as the Caribbean and Europe, which signals 

potential for reform or even repeal.

i This research was a team effort over several years with more than a dozen participants. Three of 

the researchers were trained to code and analyze the compendium of blasphemy and related laws.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

5

PART I. BACKGROUND: LAWS PROHIBITING BLASPHEMY

“Blasphemy is defined as the act of expressing contempt or a lack of reverence for God or 

sacred things.”2 For the purposes of this study, laws prohibiting blasphemy (“blasphemy laws”) 

include provisions that sanction insulting or defaming religion and seek to punish individuals 

for allegedly offending, insulting, or denigrating religious doctrines, deities, symbols or “the 

sacred,” or for wounding or insulting religious feelings.3 Blasphemy laws are located throughout 

the states’ legal texts, including constitutions, criminal codes, and media laws, among others.

This study compiles and examines blasphemy laws4 currently on the books in 71 countries 

from each region of the world. Most of the blasphemy laws examined in this study criminalize in 

national penal codes the expression of opinions deemed “blasphemous” or counter to majority 

views or religious belief systems. 

LEGEND

■ Countries without blasphemy laws

■ Countries with blasphemy laws

Afghanistan

Algeria

Andorra

Antigua and 

Barbuda

Austria

Bahrain

Bangladesh

Barbuda

Brazil

Brunei

Canada

Comoros

Cyprus

Denmark*

Egypt

Eritrea

Ethiopia

Finland

Germany

Greece

Grenada

Guyana

India

Indonesia

Iran

Iraq

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Jordan

Kazakhstan

Kuwait

Lebanon

Libya

Liechtenstein

Malaysia

Malta*

Mauritius

Montenegro

Morocco

New Zealand

Nigeria

Oman

Pakistan

Papua New 

Guinea

Philippines

Poland

Qatar

Russia

Rwanda

San Marino

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

Somalia

South Sudan

Spain

Sri Lanka

St Lucia

St. Vincent and 

Grenadines

Sudan

Suriname

Switzerland

Syria

Tanzania

Thailand

Tunisia

Turkey

United Arab 

Emirates

Vanuatu

Yemen

Zambia

Zimbabwe

71 COUNTRIES THAT HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS ON THE BOOKS

*Blasphemy laws for Malta and Denmark were repealed after the data for this report was coded and analyzed. 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

6

Blasphemy laws are generally deemed inconsistent with universal human rights standards 

and violate international standards of freedom of expression and freedom of religion or belief. 

Despite the fact that some UN member states publicly support blasphemy laws, several UN 

reports and authoritative documents contest their legality. For example, the Human Rights 

Committee has found that: 

[p]rohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the [International Covenant on Civil and 

Political Rights], except in the specific circumstances envisaged in article 20, paragraph 

2, of the Covenant. . . . [I]t would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in 

favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents over 

another, or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such 

prohibitions to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary 

on religious doctrine and tenets of faith.5

Furthermore, the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief has called for repeal 

of criminal blasphemy laws, finding that: 

[a]t the national level, blasphemy laws are counter-productive, since they may result 

in de facto censure of all inter-religious or belief and intra-religious or belief dialogue, 

debate and criticism, most of which could be constructive, healthy and needed. In 

addition, many blasphemy laws afford different levels of protection to different religions 

and have often proved to be applied in a discriminatory manner.”6

When examined through a human rights lens, blasphemy laws, as a category of laws, run 

serious risk of inviting abuse on several vectors. They position states as arbiters of truth and ultimate deciders of what is or is not offensive to the sacred, an assessment with inherent subjectivity. 

In addition, these laws protect religions, not human beings.7 The enforcement of blasphemy 

laws is particularly problematic, leading in some cases to human rights abuses and violence.8 In 

some contexts, individuals have been subjected to severe state sanctions and both non-state and 

state-sponsored violence for expressing their beliefs that, to the listener, are offensive to the sacred.9

Blasphemy laws empower authorities to sanction citizens who articulate what are often 

minority positions. Those who support and enforce the laws argue that such prohibitions are 

necessary to: (1) fight incitement to discrimination, hostility, and violence pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights’ (ICCPR) article 20(2); and (2) protect freedom of 

religion under article 18 of the ICCPR.10 Unfortunately, however, the evidence tells a very different 

story. Accusations of blasphemy have resulted in arrests and arbitrary detentions and have sparked 

assaults, murders, and mob attacks. Allegations of blasphemy can serve as a pretext for religious 

extremists to polarize society and to foment hate and riots, as was the case when the posting of the 

Innocence of Muslims video on YouTube led to violent protests and attacks on U.S. embassies. They 

have also led to individuals committing extra-judicial killings to punish alleged blasphemers.11
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

7

Thus, blasphemy laws can promote intolerance through governmental restrictions on the 

freedoms of expression, thought, and religion. Such intolerance can result in devastating consequences for society and, in particular, for religious minorities and political dissidents, including 

the weakening of religious pluralism.

WHY DOES THE WORDING OF THE LAWS MATTER? 

Examining the language of blasphemy laws and measuring their adherence to international law principles is 

important because each law is central to the state’s reasoning for sanctioning expression concerning religion. The 

laws’ content can provide insight as to how governments view speech related to religion and the state’s role in 

regulating such speech. This regulation of expression can be a valuable indicator to measure a state’s tolerance 

for pluralistic discourse and the respect for human rights. In addition, pinpointing problematic language can assist 

policymakers in reform or repeal efforts in order to protect individual rights and freedoms.

PART II. INTERNATIONAL LAW PRINCIPLES 

IMPLICATED BY BLASPHEMY LAWS AND INDICATORS 

TO MEASURE ADHERENCE

To evaluate blasphemy laws, the research team developed eight indicators and questions within 

each indicator that reflect the international law principles implicated by blasphemy laws. The 

research team based these eight indicators on international law principles or norms found in the 

core human rights instruments—such as the ICCPR and the Universal Declaration of Human 

Rights (UDHR)—international jurisprudence, and general principles of international law.12 The 

standards within these instruments and principles generally apply to all countries irrespective 

of geography, culture, ethnicity, or religious affilitation.13 The coding questions reflect both the 

fundamental nature of the rights and interpretations of their legitimate limits.

Principle 1: Freedom of Opinion and Expression (Indicator 1: Freedom 

of Expression)

The first international law principle examined is the right of all persons to freedom of opinion 

and expression.14 Article 19 of the ICCPR mandates that:

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to 

seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either 

orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

Although a fundamental human right, the right to freedom of expression has limitations 

enumerated in both the UDHR15 and ICCPR.16 These limitations generally allow states to protect 

other important social goods, including the rights and freedoms of others, morality, public order, 

and the general welfare. 

Given these limitations, international human rights law permits laws, such as those prohibiting blasphemy, to limit the right to freedom of opinion and expression if they: (1) are provided by 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

8

law, and not based on traditional, religious, or other customary laws;17 (2) do not confer unfettered 

discretion to authorities;18 (3) are necessary, proportional, and narrowly tailored;19 (4) are based 

on principles not deriving from any single tradition;20 and (5) are based on the universality of 

human rights and the principle of nondiscrimination.21

Based on this international human rights law principle, the research team developed the 

following list of questions. The coders then were required to answer each question and attribute 

a score to each blasphemy law.

IS THE LAW IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION UNDER 

INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS SPECIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 19 OF THE UDHR AND ARTICLE 19 OF 

THE ICCPR?

(1.1) Does the language of the law specify its purpose to be:

(1) To respect the rights or reputations of others?

(2) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public)?

(3) For the protection of public morals?

(4) For the general welfare in a democratic society? 

(A lower score is attributed when purpose as allowed under international law is written in the law 

(0 – 2.5 points))

(1.2) Is the law criminalizing the expression of opinions that may run counter to a religion or belief? 

(Y=2.5 points, N=0 points)

(1.3) Is the law providing for a blanket prohibition on the seeking, receiving, and imparting of information and 

ideas? (Y=2.5 points, N=0 points)

(1.4) Could the law impede on expression over religious discourse? (Y=2.5 points, N=0 points)

Principle 2: Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion 

(Indicator 2: Freedom of Religion or Belief) 

International human rights law also protects the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.22

Article 18(1) of the ICCPR obligates that:

Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right 

shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, 

either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest 

his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.23

Article 18(3) enumerates exceptions to the freedom of religion. Specifically, states can limit 

the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion if:

. . . such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, 

order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others.24

For freedom of religion, the exceptions are narrower than those found in the human rights 

principles of freedom of expression.25 To evaluate whether blasphemy laws were drafted in such a 

way as to permit only narrow limitations on freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, questions 

that researchers asked focused on, inter alia, whether the language of the law infringed upon rights 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

9

to adopt a religion or belief, imposed a particular religion or belief, or otherwise curbed religious 

belief or practice in any way that was beyond the permissible scope of human rights norms.

Based on this principle, the research team devised the following list of questions.26 The 

coders were then required to answer each question and attribute a score to each blasphemy law.

IS THE LAW IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF FREEDOM OF RELIGION UNDER 

INTERNATIONAL LAW, AS SPECIFIED UNDER ARTICLE 18 OF THE UDHR AND ARTICLE 18 

OF THE ICCPR?

(2.1) Does the language of the law infringe upon the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one’s 

choice? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.2) Does the language of the law specify its purpose to be necessary in order to respect the freedom of another 

person to practice a religion? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.3) Does the language of the law actually impose the respect of one religion or belief? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.4) Does the law subject one to coercion that would impair one’s freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief 

of one’s choice? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.5) Does the language of the law infringe upon the freedom, either individually or in community with others, in 

public or in private, to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, observance, practice, and teaching?

(Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.6) Does the language of the law infringe upon the freedom to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places of worship for these purposes? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.7) Does the language of the law infringe upon the right to display religious symbols? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.8) Does the law infringe upon the freedom to write, issue, and disseminate religious publications to express 

one’s religious beliefs? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.9) Does the law infringe upon the freedom to establish and maintain communications with individuals and 

communities in matters of religion and belief at the national and international levels? (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(2.10) Does the law infringe upon the freedom of religion in time of public emergency? (Note: public emergency 

is not a valid derogation.) (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

Principle 3: Legality (Indicator 3: Vagueness of the Law)

Found in various human rights instruments as well as core general principles of international 

law,27 the principle of legality requires that the applicable law define offenses clearly and narrowly28 so that “the individual can know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need 

be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it, what acts and omissions will make him 

liable.”29 Moreover the principle of legality in criminal law requires that crimes be enumerated 

in “precise and unambiguous language that narrowly defines the punishable offense.”30 Thus, 

vague laws are generally found to be void when people in typical situations may not understand 

the meaning of the prohibition and would not be able to comport themselves in a manner consistent with the law.31

The Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 34 on Freedom of Opinion and 

Expression stresses the importance of precision in law drafting to ensure that individuals are: (1) 

given notice of what a law prohibits and how to adhere to the law accordingly; and (2) protected 

from executing authorities’ abuse of discretion.32 Thus, researchers evaluated blasphemy laws’ 

language to assess whether states drafted their provisions with the precision required under 

international law.33
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

10

Based on this principle, the research team devised the following questions. The coders were 

required to answer each question and to attribute a score to each blasphemy law:

IS THE LAW IMPERMISSIBLY VAGUE UNDER PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? 

(3.1) Is the prohibited conduct clearly and narrowly defined? (Y=0 points, N=2 points)

(3.2) Are there any limitations on authorities to decide for themselves what constitutes blasphemy? 

(Y=0 points, N=2 points)

(3.3) Does the law demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat to “public 

order, public health, safety, morals, reputation of others”? (Y=0 points, N=1 point)

(3.4) Does the law specify the intent, or mens rea, of the accused to commit the crime? (Y=0 points, N=3 points)

(3.5) Does the law distinguish expression that constitutes a criminal offense and expression that justifies a civil 

lawsuit or administrative sanctions? (Y=0 points, N=2 points)

Principle 4: Proportionality of Punishment (Indicator 4: Severity of Penalty)

A general principle of law, proportionality is a criterion of fairness and justice that ensures balance between the restriction or punishment imposed by a corrective measure and the severity 

of the prohibited act. The concept evolved from a prohibition of disproportionality (the state 

must not act too broadly or harshly); consequently, the state should clearly define crimes and use 

proportional means to the legitimate end of punishing crimes.34 In criminal law, proportionality 

conveys the idea that the punishment should fit the crime. 

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has outlined four stages to a proportionality 

test.35 A measure must: (1) have a legitimate aim and be (2) suitable, (3) necessary, and (4) reasonable to achieve that aim.36 Thus, the proportionality principle requires a relationship between 

means and ends and, in particular, that the state chooses a means that is suitable or appropriate, 

and no more restrictive than necessary to achieve a lawful end.37

International law strictly prohibits certain penalties, such as forced or compulsory labor,38 or 

torture and other cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment.39 At present, international law requires that the principle of proportionality reserve the use of the death penalty 

and hard labor only for the most serious crimes.40 

Based on this principle, the research team devised the following questions. The coders were 

required to answer each question and to attribute a score to each country’s blasphemy laws.

IS THE PENALTY PERMISSIBLE UNDER PRINCIPLES OF PROPORTIONALITY IN INTERNATIONAL LAW?

(4.1) Is the measure the death penalty? (Y=10 points, N=0 points)

(4.2) Is the measure torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment? (i.e., lashings) 

(Y=10 points, N=0 points)

(4.3) Is the measure penal or forced labor? (Y=10 points, N=0 points)

(4.4) Is the measure detention or incarceration? (Y=5 points, N=0 points)

(4.5) Is the measure depriving a person of his property? (i.e., fine, taking of goods, etc.) (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

(Score the highest penalty only.)
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

11

Principle 5: Nondiscrimination and Equality (Indicator 5: Discrimination 

Against Groups)

Indicator 5 (discrimination against groups) is rooted in the principles of nondiscrimination and 

equality, which apply to all rights implicated by blasphemy laws. The ICCPR’s Articles 2(1)41 and 

2642 guarantee respectively the rights to equality and nondiscrimination with regard to all rights 

under the Covenant, including the rights to freedom of religion43 and expression.44

The UN Special Rapporteur on the Freedom of Religion or Belief has found that:

. . . [A]ggravated discrimination tends to intensify or become more likely to occur when 

the State itself officially adopts the religion of the majority or of the ethnically dominant 

minority, or subscribes to a particular ideology.45

Based on this principle, the research team devised the following questions. The coders were 

required to answer each question and to attribute a score to each blasphemy law.

DOES THE LAW DISCRIMINATE AGAINST DIFFERENT RELIGIOUS OR BELIEF GROUPS OR VALUES?

(Y=10 points, N=0 points)

Factors to consider:

Does the law express preference for specific religious or belief groups? 

Does the law exclude certain religious or belief groups?

Does the law restrict the activities of some religious or belief groups but not others? 

Principle 5: Nondiscrimination and Equality (Indicator 6: State Religion 

Protections)

Also related to the principles of nondiscrimination and equality is the protection or preference 

of state religions. Although international human rights law does not prohibit the establishment 

of an official or state religion, states must not privilege a state religion or discriminate against 

other religions or beliefs.46 In particular, Article 27 of the ICCPR prohibits states from denying 

ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities their “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.”47

Based on this principle, the research team devised the following questions. The coders were 

required to answer the questions and to attribute a score to each blasphemy law.

ARE THE PROTECTIONS AFFORDED TO STATE RELIGION CONSISTENT WITH PRINCIPLES OF 

INTERNATIONAL LAW? 

(6.1) Does the law recognize certain religions or groups of believers and not others, or institute a different status 

among certain categories of religions? 

(Y=5 points, N=0 points)

(6.2) Does the law protect the official state religion through sanctions/punishment? (Y=5 points, N=0 points)
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

12

Principle 7: Protection of Privacy (Indicator 7: Speech and 

Forum Limitations)

International law protects individuals’ rights to privacy.48 Moreover, the right to freedom of 

opinion and expression includes the “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas 

of all kinds . . . orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media . . .”49

with specific restrictions.50

To varying degrees, blasphemy laws: (1) prohibit acts, writings, or other forms of speech; and 

(2) place limitations on the forum in which individuals could be manifesting or expressing beliefs 

or opinions. Thus, Indicator 7 is concerned with the degree to which a particular blasphemy law 

limits the forum, both public or private, in which a person can express or display his/her opinions 

or beliefs and controls written and/or spoken words.

Based on this principle, the research team devised the following questions. The coders were 

required to answer the questions and to attribute a score to each blasphemy law.

DOES THE BLASPHEMY LAW REFER TO THE SPEECH (SPOKEN V. WRITTEN WORDS) OR FORUM 

(PUBLIC V. PRIVATE PLACE)?

(7.1) Are the forum limitations clearly and narrowly defined? (Y=0 points, N=4 points)

(7.2) Does the law seek to punish individuals who disseminate the idea/speech with both spoken and written 

words? (Y=2 points, N=0 points)

(7.3) Does the law distinguish speech that is spoken in the public versus the private sphere? 

(Y=2 points, N=0 points)

(7.4) Does the law seek to punish individuals who disseminate the idea/speech in public?

(Y=1.5 points, N=0 points) In private? (Y=2 points, N=0 points) Both? (Y=2 points, N=0 points)

Principle 8: Hierarchy of the Law (Indicator 8: Hierarchy of the Law)

As an attempt to express the notion of statutory interpretation that all laws are not created 

equal—for example, provisions of a country’s constitution carry more weight than a local 

ordinance—Indicator 8 measures the blasphemy law’s position in the hierarchy of laws of 

that state.51 In addition, rooted in this hierarchy, the research team assumed: (1) it is the 

most difficult to pass or repeal constitutional provisions; (2) national laws are also difficult 

to repeal, given the broader consensus inherent in the legislative process in most countries; 

and (3) national penal laws and constitutional provisions are more visible and carry with 

them more legitimacy or, at least, greater reverence in most societies. Thus, the research 

team concluded that blasphemy laws enshrined in constitutions and national laws, including 

national penal codes, are more entrenched and more widely accepted than those found in 

state or local laws.52

Based on this principle, the research team devised the following questions. The coders were 

required to answer each question and to attribute a score to each blasphemy law.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

13

CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING GENERAL HIERARCHY AS AN INDICATION, WHERE DOES THE 

BLASPHEMY LAW FALL?

A. Country Constitution (Y=10 points, N=0 points)

B. Country Statutory Laws (i.e. national civil and criminal codes) (Y=5 points, N=0 points)

C. All other laws (Y=1 point, N=0 points)

PART III. METHODOLOGY

This study is a comparative law analysis based on: (a) extensive desk research from multiple 

sources to assemble a compendium of blasphemy laws from 71 countries; (b) legal analysis of 

relevant international and human rights law principles to develop a set of indicators to measure 

the laws’ compliance with those principles; (c) qualitative coding of each law’s content against 

those indicators; and (d) analysis of the results of the coding process, and situating the findings 

within the relevant political, cultural, and legal contexts. 

A. Compendium Compilation

The original compendium of laws from 52 states was compiled by Human Rights First and the 

Cardozo Law Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic (the “research team”) and published 

in May 2014.53 The research team in this 2014 study collected laws that refer to sanctioning insult, 

blasphemy or defamation of religion, in accordance with the concept of blasphemy as defined 

by Human Rights First.54 This definition, and therefore the compendium, did not include laws 

against hate speech aimed at members of religious groups.

Since its original publication, the authors have updated and expanded the compendium to 

include a total of 71 laws. Through extensive desk research, the laws no longer applicable were 

removed, and additional laws were identified and added. Many sources were used for cross 

checking and verification, including those from the Pew Research Center, the International 

Humanist and Ethical Union,55 the Library of Congress,56 and the Venice Commission.57 When 

the language of a law was identical in all sources, the research team added that linguistic version 

to the compendium. When the language of a law differed across different versions, the authors 

selected the linguistic version found in the majority of sources consulted.

In determining whether a law was a “blasphemy law” for inclusion in the compendium and 

in going beyond the original compendium, the authors defined blasphemy laws narrowly as 

laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy, or defamation of religion and 

“seek to punish individuals for offending, insulting, or denigrating religious doctrines, deities, 

symbols or the sacred, and . . . for wounding or outraging religious feelings.”58 Laws included in 

the compendium specifically reference such prohibitions. The authors also included provisions 

to assist researchers in determining whether a country had a state religion and whether that state 

religion received protections under the law. 

All research was conducted in English. When the authors could only find laws in the original 

language, every attempt was made to locate translations or translate laws as closely as possible to 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

14

the original wording, with the assistance of USCIRF’s translation services. Where exact wording 

of the laws was not available in English, researchers included detailed summaries of the laws.

Excluded from the compendium and study are: (1) laws that restrict criticizing religion but 

do not prohibit blasphemy per se;

59 (2) laws prohibiting apostasy,60 which can sometimes be used 

to convey blasphemy; (3) “hate speech” laws and/or “hate crime” laws (for example, desecration 

of places of worship or graves);61 and (4) the laws of countries where complete information was 

lacking. This study focuses solely on the parts of laws that prohibit and/or criminalize “blasphemy” or insult to religion or “the sacred.” It takes into account the broader legal landscape of 

the country, only as indicated supra. 

B. Indicators Development

Next, the research team studied the compendium of laws and conducted an in-depth legal 

analysis to determine the international and human rights legal principles relevant to—or implicated by—the existence and implementation of blasphemy laws.62 This phase of the work was 

undertaken in order to create a set of indicators to measure the laws’ adherence to—or deviation 

from—such principles. This process identified, defined, and delineated the following international and human rights law principles—as well as the indicators to measure such principles, 

explained infra—implicated by blasphemy laws:

1. Freedom of Opinion and Expression (Indicator 1: Freedom of Expression)

2. Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion (Indicator 2: Freedom of Religion or Belief)

3. Legality (Indicator 3: Vagueness of the Law) 

4. Proportionality (Indicator 4: Severity of Penalty) 

5. Non-Discrimination and Equality (Indicator 5: Discrimination Against Groups) 

6. Non-Discrimination and Equality (Indicator 6: State Religion Protections)

7. Protection of Privacy (Indicator 7: Speech and Forum Limitations)

8. Hierarchy of the Law (Indicator 8: Hierarchy of the Law)

Next, the research team developed a method for legal analysis—an indicator assessment tool, 

or codebook—composed of indicators with numerical ratings reflecting the weight, or importance, 

attached to each question. (See Annex B, Codebook.) The indicators and the questions to score 

each indicator weigh the adherence of each country’s law or laws to the enumerated international 

law principles. In developing these questions, the research team considered interpretations of 

the language of the international and human rights law norms, as interpreted by international 

monitoring institutions and international courts and defined in a codebook. The assessment 

tool measures—based on the text of the law and without regard to the specific context in which it 

operates—the extent to which a blasphemy law, at least on its face, adheres to international and 

human rights law principles. Thus, this study is limited to examining the content of the laws.63
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

15

The research team trained three law student coders to undertake a qualitative analytical 

coding study based on this set of eight indicators. A 13-page codebook was prepared for the 

coders’ use. (See Annex B, Codebook.) Each indicator was valued equally, although certain legal 

principles, such as the principles of nondiscrimination and equality, are reflected across more 

than one indicator,64 giving such principles additional weight. Each indicator theoretically could 

receive a minimum score of 0 points (complete adherence to the relevant legal principle) and 

a maximum score of 10 points (complete deviation from the principle). Coding questions were 

assigned points to weight certain aspects of certain norms more heavily than others depending 

on the importance of particular aspects of the norms.65 Where necessary, guidance notes were 

provided in the codebook to assist the coders in understanding the international norms and the 

rationale behind their relevance to blasphemy laws.

C. Qualitative Coding and Analysis

Countries were randomized and de-identified66 in order to reduce internal bias, or, in other 

words, to ensure that context did not influence coders’ scores.67 Using randomizer.org, the 

authors entered the 71 countries in alphabetical order, and the online program generated a list 

in random order. At that stage, each country was assigned a random number. The authors then 

replaced each country’s name with the corresponding number and removed any mention of 

specific religions, religious deities or leaders, religious sites, religious objects, and religious texts. 

The research team replaced these words with generic terminology in brackets (e.g., [RELIGION 

OR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS]). 

TABLE 1

Example of a de-identified law: Somalia

SOMALIA COUNTRY 71

Religious framework of the state Religious framework of the state

CONSTITUTION

Article 2 State and Religion

(1) Islam is the religion of the State.

(2) No religion other than Islam can be propagated in 

the country.

(3) No law which is not compliant with the general 

principles of Shari’a can be enacted

CONSTITUTION

Article 2 State and Religion

(1) [RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS] is the 

religion of the State.

(2) No religion other than [RELIGION OR RELIGIOUS 

FOLLOWERS] can be propagated in the country.

(3) No law which is not compliant with the general principles of [RELIGIOUS HOLY TEXTS] can be enacted

2. Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning 

insult, blasphemy, or defamation of religion:

2. Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning 

insult, blasphemy, or defamation of religion:
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

16

TABLE 1

Example of a de-identified law: Somalia

SOMALIA COUNTRY 71

Religious framework of the state Religious framework of the state

PENAL CODE

Part IV, Chapter 1 

Article 313 [Bringing the Religion of the State into 

contempt]

1. Whoever publicly brings the religion of Islam [1 

Const.] into contempt shall be punished with imprisonment [96 P.C.] up to two years.

2. Whoever publicly insults the religion of Islam [1 

Const.] by bringing into contempt persons professing 

it or places or objects dedicated to worship shall be

liable to the same punishment.

PENAL CODE

Part IV, Chapter 1 

Article 313 [Bringing the Religion of the State into 

contempt]

1. Whoever publicly brings the religion of [RELIGION 

OR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS; RELATED TO STATE 

RELIGION] [1 Const.] into contempt shall be punished 

with imprisonment [96 P.C.] up to two years.

2. Whoever publicly insults the religion of [RELIGION 

OR RELIGIOUS FOLLOWERS; RELATED TO STATE 

RELIGION] [1 Const.] by bringing into contempt 

persons professing it or places or objects dedicated to 

worship, shall be liable to the same punishment.

After de-identifying all countries and laws, the coders used the codebook to guide their 

assessment and record their scores on an Excel spreadsheet for each question, tallying up all 

scores for each indicator and coming up with a composite score for each country. Each of the 

three coders independently analyzed each of the 71 countries’ laws. The coders were prohibited 

from discussing their findings with each other before entering their final scores. According to 

the coding design and process, coders could assign a score between 0 and 10 points for each 

indicator, which meant that countries could receive a total composite score between 0 and 80 

points for all indicators.

The coders sent their coding scores separately to the research team for comparison and 

analysis. The research team next compared the coder’s scores for each country. In instances in 

which a variance of more than 5 points existed among the coders’ findings regarding a particular 

indicator, the research team met with the coders to discuss the reasoning behind their scoring 

to improve inter-coder reliability in the process.68 In addition, in order to ensure a continually 

shared understanding of indicators and codes, the research team met weekly with the coders to 

resolve misunderstandings in order to ensure that similar laws or provisions of laws would be 

treated consistently moving forward. If necessary, the research team made minor adjustments 

to the codebook to reflect any new insights or fine tuning of the indicators. 

Through this process of coding followed by discussions and recoding laws if necessary, the 

authors reduced potential errors that are introduced when multiple coders code the laws, and 

resolved discrepancies in the definition of indicators and accuracy in applying codes to laws. 

Similar to previous studies, the steps taken here have ensured a high level of consistency across 

the coding team (with a Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient 0.60 – 0.65, indicating a moderate-strong 

linear relationship between and among coders)69 and assisted in maximizing the inter-coder 

reliability in the study.70 In the few instances in which the coders, under the supervision of the 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

17

researchers, identified or modified questions for specific indicators that were not in the original 

codebook, these notes to clarify questions were added to the codebook. In these instances, previously analyzed laws were re-coded to ensure consistency across the coding process.71

PART IV. STUDY FINDINGS

This research compiles the largest collection of laws prohibiting blasphemy to date. Although 

the world’s legal landscape is constantly shifting, the research team has tried to collect the most 

accurate, up-to-date information as of June 2016. 

We have compiled laws that fit our definition from 71 countries, which means that at least 

one-third (37 percent) of the world’s countries have blasphemy laws.72 The laws are found in all 

regions of the world as follows:

TABLE 2

Regional Distribution of the Laws

Regions of the World 

(%)73 Countries in Region with Blasphemy Laws

Middle East and North 

Africa (25.4%)

Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, 

Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, Yemen

Asia–Pacific (25.4%) Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cyprus, India, Indonesia, Iran, Kazakhstan, 

Malaysia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, 

Sri Lanka, Thailand, Turkey, Vanuatu

Europe (22.5%) Andorra, Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, 

Liechtenstein, Malta, Montenegro, Poland, Russia, San Marino, Spain, Switzerland

Sub-Saharan Africa (15.5%) Comoros, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan, 

Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

Americas (11.2%) Antigua and Barbuda, Brazil, Canada, Grenada, Guyana, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent 

and the Grenadines, Suriname

Total composite scores (0 to 80 possible points) vary from a low average score of 25.7 points to a 

high average score of 66.7 total points, with most countries (59 percent) scoring between an average 

of 29 and 40 points. The discrepancies among the countries are not wide despite the broad margin 

between the lowest scoring country (Ireland) and the highest scoring country (Iran).

One finding that was quickly noted was that all blasphemy laws analyzed: 

• Deviate from international free speech standards in some manner; 

• Have vague formulations and are difficult to interpret narrowly; and

• Have limitations that are rarely narrowly defined. 

For example, many blasphemy laws tend to deviate from international human rights law 

standards for freedom of expression in some respect. Therefore, when laws were analyzed 

according to Freedom of Expression, coders assigned points to every country with a blasphemy 

law. The research team concluded that the very existence of a blasphemy law could compromise 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

18

full compliance with free speech standards (if legal exemptions are not fulfilled). All countries 

obtaining higher scores have a “higher than average” or the “highest” deviation from international and human rights law principles. 

In addition to Freedom of Expression, other indicators receiving the highest number of 

points were: Vagueness of the Law and Speech and Forum Limitations. On these three indicators, all laws received some points. 

The research team observed that the scores of some states’ blasphemy laws place that state in 

the “highest deviation” category (meaning lowest adherence to international and human rights 

law principles). Generally, higher than average scores mean that blasphemy laws of these states 

deviate from principles of nondiscrimination and equality in that they Discriminate against 

Groups and include State Religion Protections. 

The 10 highest scores (indicating that these states’ prohibitions on blasphemy most run 

counter to international law principles) were: 

1. Iran (66.7)

2. Pakistan (64.2)

3. Yemen (63.5) 

4. Somalia (63.0)

5. Qatar (59.3)

6. Egypt (56.2)

LEGEND

■ Countries without blasphemy laws

■ Average countries 

■ Higher than average countries

■ Highest countries

TABLE 3

Total Scores and Trends 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

19

■ Average countries (25-40)

■ Higher than average countries (>40-55)

■ Highest countries (>55)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Ireland

Score

Spain

Philippines

Guyana

St. Lucia

Grenada

Vanuatu

Brazil

Canada

Tunisia

Switzerland

Poland

Nigeria

Eritrea

South Sudan

Syria

New Zealand

Turkey

Israel

Mauritius

Tanzania

Bangladesh

Brunei

Zambia

Singapore

St. Vincent and Grenadines

Malaysia

Cyprus

Rwanda

India

Germany

Finland

Montenegro

Lebanon

Ethopia

San Marino

Austria

Iraq

Kuwait

Russia

Zimbabwe

Denmark*

Sri Lanka

Kazakhstan

Antigua and Barbuda

Sudan

Morocco

Paupa New Guinea

Suriname

Indonesia

Oman

Andorra

Thailand

Jordan

Greece

United Arab Emirates

Liechtenstein

Afghanistan

Bahrain

Saudi Arabia

Libya

Malta*

Comoros

Algeria

Italy

Egypt

Qatar

Somalia

Yemen

Pakistan

Iran

*Since the data for this report was collected, coded, and analyzed, both Malta and Denmark repealed their blasphemy laws. 

TABLE 3A

Total Scores and Trends 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2 0

7. Italy (56.2) 

8. Algeria (52.8)

9. Comoros (52.5)

10. Malta (50.3)

11. Libya (49.5)

NOTE ON COMOROS

Comoros proved to be one of the hardest countries to code. It has a high score but with low/weak inter-coder 

reliability.74 It posed great difficulties to the coders because in its de-identified form, it was not clear if the law was 

singling out one religion or not. 

MALTA’S AND DENMARK’S BLASPHEMY LAWS REPEALED

After all of the data was coded and analyzed for this report, the researchers noted that the Maltese Parliament 

repealed its blasphemy law. The researchers kept Malta’s law in the report, but it is no longer valid as of July 2016.75 

As the report was being finalized in June 2017, Denmark’s Parliament repealed its blasphemy law. 

Some indicators proved to be “game-changers” when it comes to obtaining a high number 

of points. The three indicators that steeply increase the scores are: Severity of the Penalty, 

Discrimination against Groups, and State Religion Protections. In the case of the states with 

the highest scoring laws—Iran and Pakistan—both countries’ laws enforce the death penalty 

against individuals for insulting the Prophet Mohamed, which raises each of their scores by an 

additional 10 points for Severity of Penalty. 

Similarly, all of the countries with the top five highest scoring laws received 10 out of 10 

possible points on both Discrimination against Groups and State Religion Protections. Official state religions can exist without necessarily discriminating against the followers of other 

belief systems; however, the coders noted a pattern in which State Religion Protections led to 

more points, indicating less adherence to relevant international human rights law norms. The 

five highest scoring countries have a state religion. Although permissible, state religions can 

indicate a preference for the state religion or Discrimination Against Groups–that is, direct 

or indirect discrimination against a minority religion or belief to the detriment of individuals’ 

freedom of religion or belief. For example, Somalia’s identification of its state religion is in the 

constitutional language of “Islam is the religion of the State,” with the following restriction: “No 

religion other than Islam can be propagated in the country.”76 This language constitutes direct 

discrimination of non-Muslims. 

As noted earlier, as to Freedom of Expression, the majority of blasphemy laws (42 out of 71, 

or 59 percent) received 7.5 out of 10 points indicating their violations of the right to freedom of 

expression. However, all of the top five countries obtain scores above that average: Yemen (9.2), 

Pakistan (9.2), Somalia (9.2), Iran (8.3), and Qatar (8.3). This trend also applies to risks of violations of Freedom of Religion or Belief, where the top five countries also acquire higher scores 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

21

than the average (which lies between 1 and 3): Somalia (6.7), Yemen (6.3), Iran (4.0), Pakistan 

(3.7) and Qatar (3.0). 

To summarize, all of the top-scoring five countries: 

• Received 10 out of 10 total points on Discrimination Against Groups and State Religion 

Protections;

• Received higher scores than average in diverging from the requirements of Freedom of 

Expression;

• Received higher scores than average in diverging from the requirements of Freedom of 

Religion or Belief;

• Received average or higher than average scores on Severity of the Penalty, and the top two 

countries impose the death penalty;

• Have official state religions and protect or prefer them; and

• Include Italy as the highest scoring law in Europe.

FACT: In July 2015, following the terrorist attacks on Charlie Hebdo (and Hyper Cacher) in France, Iceland repealed 

its 75-year-old blasphemy law.77

The 10 lowest scores (indicating that these states’ prohibitions on blasphemy are most 

adherent to international law principles) were: 

1. Ireland (25.7)

2. Spain (26.0)

3. The Philippines (26.2)

4. Guyana (27.2)

5. St. Lucia (28.7)

6. Grenada (29.0)

7. Vanuatu (29.2)

8. Brazil (29.3)

9. Canada (29.5)

10. Tunisia (29.7) 

The lowest-scoring states obtain fewer points for exactly the same reasons as the highest 

scoring states obtain more points. The three indicators most impacting the lower scores are: 

Severity of the Penalty, Discrimination Against Groups, and State Religion Protections. For 

example, the two lowest scoring countries (Ireland and Spain) are two out of three countries 

catalogued in the compendium with a low Severity of the Penalty since their laws sanction 

blasphemy through a monetary fine only (in addition to Switzerland). The remaining three 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2 2

of the five lowest scoring countries (Philippines, Guyana, and St. Lucia) sanction blasphemy 

through a prison penalty—which was by far the most common penalty among all the countries 

(83.0 percent). 

In addition, the five countries with the lowest scores received 0 points for Discrimination 

Against Groups and State Religion Protections—with agreement among all coders. This is 

notable, as the indicators Discrimination Against Groups and State Religion Protections were 

the most difficult to code. For example, in terms of state religion, Spain specifies in its constitution that “No religion shall have a state character,” but the state will “maintain appropriate 

cooperation relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions.”78 The preamble of the 

Constitution of the Philippines, for example, states: “We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just and humane society,”79 thereby referring to 

monotheistic religion, but without explicit discrimination among faiths. 

Regarding Freedom of Expression, as noted previously, the majority (59.0 percent) of blasphemy laws received 7.5 out of 10 points. However, Guyana (6.7), Philippines (4.2), and Ireland 

(5.8) have lower than average scores. With regard to Freedom of Religion or Belief, none of the 

lowest five countries have a score above 2 points, which is on the lower side of the average range 

(between 1 and 3 points).

To summarize, all of the ten countries with the lowest scores and, thus, the highest level of 

adherence to international law principles: 

• Received 0 points on Discrimination Against Groups and State Religion Protections;

• Received lower than average scores on Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Religion 

or Belief; 

• Received average or lower than average scores on Severity of the Penalty and include two 

of the three countries that impose the least severe penalties in the form of monetary fines 

for committing blasphemy; 

• Include Tunisia, which has the lowest score of the all states in which the official state religion 

is Islam;

• Include four Caribbean states, which means that 40 percent of the lowest scoring states in 

the world are from the Caribbean region. 

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Indicator 1: Freedom of Expression

High scores pertaining to Freedom of Expression for all states is not surprising, as laws prohibiting blasphemy, by definition, are placing limits on speech and expression. Many of the 

blasphemy laws analyzed contained language that criminalizes the expression of opinions that 

may be counter to a religion or belief, and, consequently, impedes free expression over open 

discourse concerning religion. 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

23

To illustrate, Yemen (along with Pakistan and Somalia) scored the highest number of 

points on this indicator (9.2 out of 10 points), making the laws of these states the least adherent to principles of Freedom of Expression. In answering the assessment tool questions, the 

coders found the language of Yemen’s blasphemy laws to: (1) not specify a purpose for the 

infringement on expression; (2) criminalize expression of opinions that may run counter to 

religions; (3) serve as a blanket prohibition on expressing ideas; and (4) potentially impede 

expression over religious discourse.

In looking at particular questions, coders answered “yes” for 94 percent of states80 on the 

question Is the law criminalizing the expression of opinions that may be counter to a religion or 

belief? (Question 1.2 of the codebook), which means that nearly all laws may impede expressions 

of opinions pertaining to freedom of religion or belief. Regarding the question, Could the law 

impede on religious discourse? (Question 1.4 of the codebook), all of the coders answered “yes” 

for 92 percent of states evaluated. 

On the question evaluating whether the language of the law specifies a legitimate purpose—

in other words, whether the law complies with acceptable limits on freedom of expression under 

international law—only two states’ laws were found to specify a legitimate purpose according 

to unanimous agreement of the coders: Germany and Israel. Finally, the coders found it very 

difficult to answer in the affirmative the question: Is the law providing for a blanket prohibition 

on the seeking, receiving, and imparting of information and ideas? Indeed, for no state did the 

coders unanimously agree that such a prohibition is clearly articulated.

Indicator 2: Freedom of Religion or Belief

Most laws received the lowest scores, on average, for the indicator that measures adherence to 

the principle of Freedom of Religion or Belief. Reasons for this relative adherence may include 

that: (1) most laws were found to have been drafted with vague language, which does not explicitly target the freedom of religion; and (2) the legal framework on freedom of religion or belief 

is relatively robust and, thus, questions to measure this indicator are more detailed than other 

indicators (compared to x, y, or z indicators or all others?).

The questions selected to measure the level of compliance to international standards were 

taken from precise criteria outlined by the UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or 

belief.81 Among the questions coders asked were: Does the language of the law infringe upon the 

freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice? Does the law impose the respect 

of one belief? Does it subject one to coercion that would impair one’s freedom to have or adopt a 

religion or belief of one’s choice?

This finding of relative adherence may be unexpected, or even counter-intuitive, because 

in many country contexts, individuals belonging to religious or belief minorities are disproportionately accused of—and punished for—blasphemy. When examined further, however, this 

finding signals a weakness in evaluating laws’ adherence to the principle of freedom of religion 

or belief through an examination of the language of the law alone, without a fuller examination 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2 4

of the particular country context. Only a detailed, precisely worded law that explicitly reflects 

its coercive capacity with regard to religion or belief would receive a high score on this indicator. 

Blasphemy laws, in contrast, are often promulgated for the purpose of protecting religion, albeit 

a particular (usually majority or state-sponsored) religion. As a result, the language in many of 

these laws is seemingly neutral with regard to religious belief and practice. 

The countries obtaining the highest scores for Freedom of Religion or Belief have laws that 

are more specific in their non-adherence to freedom of religion principles. Somalia received the 

highest score (6.7 out of 10), followed by Yemen (6.3 out of 10), Egypt (4.0 out of 10), Iran (4.0 out 

of 10), Pakistan (3.7 out of 10) and Comoros (3.7 out of 10). 

CONTEXT MATTERS: ABUSES OF BLASPHEMY LAWS AGAINST RELIGIOUS MINORITIES

In states where there are unresolved conflicts between two or more religious groups, accusations of blasphemy can 

be used as a tool to strengthen one group’s power over another.82 In particular, members of a majority religion can 

accuse members of religious minorities of blasphemy, who then face harsh consequences.83 Many state-sponsored 

human rights abuses were found in the highest-scoring states, for example, in Pakistan and Egypt.84 Religious minorities and non-conventional thinkers continue to be victims of blasphemy allegations. Still, some states where there 

is violence did not receive very high scores for this indicator. For example, there have been numerous extra-judicial 

killings of atheists in Bangladesh (2.0) or instances of violence in Indonesia (2.3).85

Indicator 3: Vagueness of the Law

Results for this indicator demonstrate that many of the blasphemy laws were not drafted with 

adequate precision to satisfy international law standards. In particular, laws were found to 

contain ambiguous or indefinite language and often failed to specify intent, enumerate the 

acts prohibited, or place limits on the forum for prohibited acts. (See Table 4.) The top scoring 

states for Vagueness of the Law, with scores of 9.4 out of 10 points, are Algeria and Iran. The five 

states that follow in second place, with scores of 8.7 out of 10 points, are Antigua and Barbuda, 

Germany, Jordan, Papua New Guinea, and Saudi Arabia. 

In examining whether blasphemy laws are impermissibly vague under international law 

standards, the coders asked questions such as: (1) Is the prohibited conduct clearly and narrowly 

defined? and (2) Are there any limitations on authorities to decide for themselves what constitutes 

blasphemy? In only one case—Canada—did all coders find adequate the statutory language limiting the governmental authority’s ability to interpret the meaning of the word “blasphemy.” Indeed, 

the Canadian criminal code specifies that “no person shall be convicted of an offence under this 

section for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument 

used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.”86

Another related aspect measured in this study was whether the language of the law contains 

a requirement of specific intent, or mens rea, for an accused to be found guilty of the crime of 

blasphemy. One third (34 percent) of countries with criminal blasphemy laws include mens rea 

explicitly in the law’s language,87 which rendered these laws more precise (less vague) and, thus, 

more adherent to the principle of legality.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

25

TABLE 4

States whose blasphemy laws specify the intent (mens rea) of the accused

Mens rea language Countries whose laws specified mens rea

“Intention” or “intending” Brunei, Bangladesh, Cyprus, India, Malaysia, Nigeria, 

South Sudan, Sri Lanka, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 

Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe

“Good faith” Canada, Guyana, St. Lucia

“Maliciously” Greece, Switzerland

“Purpose of offending,” “in order to offend” Finland, Russia, Spain

“Deliberate,” “deliberately,” or “deliberate 

intention”

Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Singapore

Indicator 4: Severity of Penalty

Of the 71 states studied, 59 or 83 percent sanction blasphemy with imprisonment. Iran and 

Pakistan, the two countries with the highest-scoring laws for Severity of the Penalty, include 

the death penalty as punishment for “insulting the Prophet.”88 Sudan’s blasphemy law specifies 

corporal punishment that includes “whipping, which may not exceed forty lashes.”89 Russia’s 

blasphemy law includes compulsory labor as punishment,90 and Kazakhstan punishes blasphemy with correctional labor.91

Harsh penalties could implicate the states’ level of political and judicial commitment to enforce its ideology or 

theological vision. 

TABLE 5 

Countries’ Maximum Sanctions for Blasphemy

Death penalty Iran, Pakistan

Corporal punishment (whipping) Sudan

Compulsory labor Russia

Correctional labor Kazakhstan

Imprisonment Algeria, Andorra, Austria, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Bahrain, Brazil, 

Brunei, Canada, Comoros, Cyprus, Denmark, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, 

Germany, Greece, Grenada, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Italy,92

Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Lichtenstein, Malaysia, Malta, Mauritius, 

Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, New Zealand, Oman, Papua New Guinea, 

Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Rwanda, San Marino, Singapore, Somalia, South 

Sudan, Sri Lanka, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Syria, 

Tanzania, Thailand, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Vanuatu, Yemen, 

Zambia, Zimbabwe

Fines Ireland, Spain, Switzerland

No sanction specified in written 

law

Afghanistan, Eritrea, Saudi Arabia
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2 6

In several countries—Afghanistan, Eritrea, and Saudi Arabia—the laws do not specify the 

sanction in writing; thus, the laws received 0 points for this indicator. When the law does not 

specify a sanction in writing, the penalty may be contained within another law, or it may rely 

on judges’ interpretations of Shari’a law. 

CONTEXT MATTERS: SAUDI ARABIA

Saudi Arabia’s blasphemy law received 0 points for Severity of the Penalty because the punishment is not ascribed 

in the blasphemy law itself. Despite this low score, its penalties are very severe. Saudi Arabia’s law allows for great 

discretion in designating penalties and, therefore, the penalties imposed are among the harshest in practice. The 

resulting penalty depends upon judicial interpretations of Shari’a law.93 The vague wording of the law empowers 

prosecutors to be rigorous in charging and prosecuting alleged blasphemers. In addition, the lack of specified penalties allows judges to impose harsh sentences, such as long prison terms and repeated public lashings. In several 

recent high-profile cases, courts have sentenced individuals convicted of “blasphemy” to imprisonment and public 

floggings, despite international campaigns to pressure the government into releasing them. For example, blogger 

Raif Badawi was convicted of blasphemy when he created a website dedicated to fostering debate on religion and 

politics. Originally sentenced to seven years in prison and 600 lashes, he was later resentenced to the harsher terms 

of “10 years in prison, separated from his wife and children; 1000 lashes, given in installments of 50 lashes every 

week, in public; a 10-year travel ban after his prison sentence; and a massive fine.”94

Indicator 5: Discrimination Against Groups

If a law expresses a preference for specific religious or belief groups, it may indicate an officially-endorsed hierarchy of faiths, which could pave the way to state-sanctioned discrimination 

against excluded faiths. Some countries do express preferences for religious groups and exclude 

others. The countries obtaining the highest scores for this indicator generally received the highest 

overall scores. All three coders gave points on this indicator to: Afghanistan, Egypt, Italy, Iran, 

Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, and Yemen.

The coders were provided with key constitutional provisions to enable them to respond to the 

questions indicating discrimination against groups. In taking a closer look at the high-scoring 

countries, Afghanistan’s constitution specifies that followers of other religions (aside from Islam) 

are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites “within the limits of the provisions 

of the law.”95 Egypt’s constitution declares Islam as the religion of the state and formally acknowledges Christian and Jewish religious affairs, and its blasphemy law refers to “heavenly religions 

or the sects that belong thereto;” other denominations or religions are therefore disregarded.96

The Italian criminal code includes the offence of insulting the state religion or a minister of the 

Catholic Church, thereby separating Catholicism from other faiths.97 Qatar affirms that Shari’a 

provisions are applicable only to Muslims, while criminalizing offenses against Islam.98

CONTEXT MATTERS. HOW DO STATES DISCRIMINATE AGAINST BELIEF GROUPS? 

Countries with formal state religions can discriminate, at least in some cases, not by recognition but by omission. 

One revealing example is Indonesia, a state that terms itself secular but formally recognizes six official religions 

through its state philosophy Pancasila (Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Confucianism).99

In addition to favoring these faiths through formal recognition, Indonesia’s constitution reiterates that the state shall 

be based upon the belief of “[o]ne and only God,” which effectively places atheists or members of other religions 

outside of the contemplation of the law and, thus, poses risks to these groups.100
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

2 7

Indicator 6: State Religion Protections

This indicator touches upon similar questions as the previous indicator, examining the level 

of adherence to the principle of equality of treatment. To evaluate State Religion Protections, 

coders assessed whether states with an official religion actively protected that religion or its 

followers. The coders unanimously gave 10 points out of 10 to Afghanistan, Algeria, Iran, Italy, 

Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, and Yemen for this indicator. In these states, the laws recognize certain 

religions and not others, and protect the official religions through sanctions. 

Qatar’s blasphemy law, for example, includes a provision specifically prohibiting “offending, misinterpreting or violating the Holy Koran.”101 In addition, it bans the cursing of any of 

the “divine religions,” setting up a clear hierarchy of beliefs within the confines of the state 

religion.102 Article 12 of Yemen’s penal code has a specific provision criminalizing “ridicule 

of the Islamic Religion or any of its Sects.”103 Italy’s criminal code has a series of provisions 

which criminalize “insulting the State religion”104 (Catholicism), “insulting the State religion 

by insulting individuals,”105 “insulting the State religion by offending against property”106

and “offences against religions recognized by the State”107 and “blasphemy and insulting 

the dead.”108

For State Religion Protections question (1), Does the law recognize certain religions or groups 

of believers and not others, or institute a different status among certain categories of religions?, 

all coders gave points to Afghanistan, Algeria, Andorra, Bahrain, Comoros, Egypt, Iran, Italy, 

Pakistan, Qatar, Somalia, and Yemen. For example, Bahrain refers to “recognized religious 

communities” in its penal code,109 thereby creating a different status among categories of religious groups. 

For question (2), Does the law protect the official state religion through sanctions/punishment?, 

all coders gave points to: Afghanistan, Algeria, Greece, Iran, Italy, Jordan, Libya, Malta, Morocco, 

Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Thailand, and Yemen. For example, Article 199 

of Greece’s penal code states: “anyone who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes the Greek Orthodox Church or any religion tolerable in Greece shall be punished by 

imprisonment for not more than two years.”110 The wording presumes that some religions are 

not “tolerable” in Greece. The constitution of Thailand calls on the state to “protect Buddhism” 

and in its penal code declares that those who insult “such religion, shall be imprisoned as from 

two years to seven years or fined . . . .”111

Indicator 7: Speech and Forum Limitations

Indicator 7: Speech and Forum Limitations—measuring the level of adherence to the 

principle of right to privacy—was a high-scoring indicator nearly across the board. Of the 

71 countries, 64 or 90 percent had laws that received an average of 5.5 points or more out 

of 10 total points on this indicator. The research team determined that if a law included the 

word “public” alone (i.e., whosoever “publicly mocks”), the law was still not defining forum 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

2 8

limitations clearly or narrowly enough. As a result, nearly all laws were still found to be 

impermissibly broad in their reach into private speech or actions. As written, few laws specify a forum, which means that public or private speech and writing, among other actions, 

are criminalized under most laws.

There are exceptions to the broad, sweeping laws that do not delineate permissible types of 

speech or forums. For example, St. Lucia (2.8), Grenada (2.8), Zimbabwe (3.5), the Philippines 

(4.3), and Guyana (4.5) all received lower scores on this indicator. 

WHAT ARE SPEECH AND FORUM LIMITATIONS? A LOOK AT GRENADA

A good example of relevant language to this indicator is Grenada’s law:

Section 429 -- Publication or Sale of Blasphemous or Obscene Matter. 

Whoever publishes, sells, or offers for sale any blasphemous or obscene book, writing or representation, shall 

be liable to imprisonment for two years.

This law is very specific on what type of speech (books, writings, or representations) is illegal and in which forum the 

blasphemous material is prohibited (publishing, selling, or offering to sell). Thus, the adherence to the principle of 

privacy is higher and risk of impermissible reach into an individual’s private life is lower for this particular law.

Indicator 8: Hierarchy of the Law

Indicator 8: Hierarchy of the Law was the most objective indicator to code since the coders 

were examining the location of the blasphemy law in the hierarchy of the laws in that country. 

If the blasphemy law was located within a country’s constitution, then coders assigned a score 

of 10 points. If the blasphemy law was located within the country’s statutory laws, then the law 

received 5 points. Finally, if the blasphemy law was not located in either the constitution or 

national statutory laws, then coders assigned 1 point.

Coders found that most countries’ blasphemy laws were found in the national penal code. 

A few laws, such as in Eritrea,112 Ireland,113 and Papua New Guinea,114 were found at the national 

level in civil codes.115 In rare cases, such as the Philippines,116 prohibitions of blasphemy are 

included directly in the constitution. Additional laws were also found in lower order laws, such 

as media laws.117 The main limitation of this indicator is that, although local level ordinances may 

exist, these lower level laws are difficult to find online or in English. As a result, the compendium 

itself may be skewed toward national level laws.118

Additional Findings:

The research team noted that extensively worded laws were easier to evaluate for attribution 

of points under some of the indicators. For instance, the highest scoring states are Iran and 

Pakistan, and their blasphemy laws are extensively worded, with detailed descriptions of the 

constituent offenses. Article 513 of Iran’s Penal Code states: “Anyone who insults the Islamic 

sanctities of any of the imams or her excellency Sadigeh Tahereh should be executed if his insult 

equals to speaking disparagingly of Prophet Muhammad. Otherwise [sic] should be imprisoned 

from one to five years.”
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

2 9

Pakistan’s penal code has no less than eight provisions sanctioning blasphemy. Article 

295-C states: “Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by 

any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the 

Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon Him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to a fine.” Laws with long, extensively worded provisions 

facilitate answering the questions, especially those associated with the indicators Freedom 

of Expression and Freedom of Religion or Belief and, therefore, may affect the laws’ overall 

evaluations and scores.

Nonetheless, the presence of low scores does not necessarily mean high levels of adherence 

to human rights and international law principles. Saudi Arabia, for example, does not have a 

written penal code. Judges rely solely on interpretations of the Shari’a for crimes and punishments. Therefore, with no formal criminal code, the application of the country’s blasphemy law 

relies on jurisprudence. As a result, the overall score for Saudi Arabia is low because the wording 

of its laws does not indicate deviations from international law principles in the way that the 

wording of Pakistan’s or Iran’s laws do. As indicated in Part V supra, Saudi Arabia’s score may 

be disproportionately low in comparison to the way its legislation, granting broad discretion to 

adjudicators, is enforced in practice. 

PART V. BEYOND THE STUDY OF THE LAWS: THE IMPORTANCE 

OF NATIONAL CONTEXT AND IMPLEMENTATION 

Laws do not operate in a vacuum devoid of political, judicial, and social contexts. In the case of 

blasphemy laws, implementation can vary significantly, depending on a range of considerations 

that include a state’s political landscape, governing structures, law-enforcement capabilities, 

judicial culture, socio-historical relationship to religion(s), and pattern of responses to violence, 

as well as public attitudes about blasphemy and blasphemy laws. 

In some cases, states proactively prosecute individuals for transgressing blasphemy laws. 

In other cases, the laws are rarely enforced, if at all. Evaluating the wording of each law helps to 

assess the risk of abuses and identify which aspects of the laws adhere to—or deviate from—international and human rights law principles and may be amenable to targeted reform. However, 

evaluating the plain language of the law cannot quantify the scope or intensity of the abuses 

that may occur in practice. 

In addition to assessing each state law’s score on content, therefore, the following questions 

can be asked to evaluate the context within which blasphemy laws are implemented: 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

3 0

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS

State structures

✔ Does the state rely on a specific religion to form the basis of its political legitimacy?

✔ Does the government explicitly support a particular interpretation of religion or belief?

✔ What is the relationship between the government and religious fundamentalist groups? Are religious fundamentalists groups battling for power against the government?

✔ Is there Internet censorship by the government concerning questions relating to religion or belief?

✔ Is there a clear delineation of power between different branches of government?

✔ Are prosecutors, judges, lawyers, police, or other state officials threatened or intimidated by religious 

fundamentalists or other groups that the government is unable or unwilling to control?

Judicial proceedings

✔ Have there been recent convictions for blasphemy, apostasy, or similar charges?

✔ Do courts frequently apply the maximum penalties?

✔ Is there a right to appeal? 

✔ Do appeals courts frequently uphold the convictions? 

✔ Do higher courts/supreme courts overturn harsh sentences upon appeal?

✔ Can the accused be released on bail? 

✔ Do some courts deny bail after an accused is arrested on blasphemy charges? 

✔ Is there pre-trial detention?

✔ Do accused individuals wait for long periods in pre-trial detention?

✔ Do courts take into consideration the physical and mental conditions of the accused?

✔ Is the burden of proof placed on the accused?

✔ Have lawyers defending accused individuals been threatened in the past? 

✔ What role does the intent of the accused play in order to convict?

✔ Do citizens often abuse blasphemy laws to settle personal disputes?

Law enforcement and state responses to violence

✔ Do the police enforce laws for all groups equally on the basis of nondiscrimination?

✔ Are arrests for blasphemy frequent? 

✔ Do police protect those who face death threats? 

✔ Are police sanctioned for inaction or misconduct?

✔ Is there a history in the country of angry mobs reacting to allegations of blasphemy and threatening to use 

or using violence?

✔ Do police protect the accused in instances of mob violence? 

✔ Do police actively assist victims who are caught in the violence? 

✔ Are perpetrators of violence properly sanctioned and brought to justice?

✔ Are prisons safe for the accused? 

✔ Is there a religious police force responsible for enforcing religious norms or morals in the country?

✔ Are there fundamentalist or violent groups that the government is unable or unwilling to control?

✔ Is there any unresolved conflict between two or more religious or belief groups?
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

31

CONTEXT MATTERS: EGYPT AND ITALY

Blasphemy laws from Egypt and Italy score the same number of points and put these states in the top ten scoring 

countries. Both ranked sixth out of 71 countries and received an average composite score of 56.2 points. The 

coders determined that both laws were equally vague, receiving 8 points out of 10 possible points for Vagueness 

of the Law. Both states also received 5 points out of 10 possible points on Severity of the Penalty, with the highest 

sanction being imprisonment. All of the coders awarded the maximum of 10 points to both states on Indicator 5, 

evaluating Discrimination against Groups. 

Despite receiving identical scores, the contextual realities in Egypt and Italy are starkly different. The most recent 

known blasphemy indictments in Italy occurred in 2009, but the accused was acquitted three years later.119 In 

Egypt, however, the situation is deteriorating, and prosecutions are on the rise. Despite the overthrow of Muslim 

Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi in 2013 and the subsequent more “secular” leadership of President Abdel 

Fattah al-Sisi, blasphemy arrests and prosecutions remain frequent.120 Press reports have noted that crackdowns 

under President al-Sisi are part of the regime’s effort to win public support and “cast itself as a guardian of religion”121 after the fall of the Muslim Brotherhood from power. 

USCIRF’s 2016 annual report notes in its chapter on Egypt that “[b]lasphemy cases have increased since 2011, 

and this trend continued during the reporting period. While the majority of charges are leveled against Sunni 

Muslims, most of those sentenced by a court to prison terms for blasphemy have been Christians, Shi’a Muslims, 

and atheists, largely based on flawed trials. According to Egyptian human rights groups, there were at least 21 

new blasphemy cases between the beginning of 2015 and the end of the reporting period [on February 29, 2016], 

a sharp increase when compared to the previous year.”122

The Italian legal framework was challenging for the coding process. Italy received a high score because Articles 

402 to 406 of the penal code prohibit “offence to religion,” subject to a penalty of imprisonment. Articles 403, 

404, and 405 have been amended by the Constitutional Court so as to provide equal protection to all believers 

and religions. Whereas legal experts continue to discuss the status of Articles 402–406, these provisions still 

endure formally in Italian law. Most importantly, Italy reformed its blasphemy law under Article 724 of the penal 

code, and changed it to a public administrative offense, with the penalty of fines instead of imprisonment.123

Additionally, in 1995, the Constitutional Court declared article 724’s reference to “state religion” discriminatory 

and unconstitutional.124 As such, the law, in effect, was modified to apply to insults to all religions.125 Italy received 

the same score as Egypt on Severity of the Penalty and Discrimination against Groups. As for State Religion 

Protections, Italy received an even higher score than Egypt. Egypt received an average of 6.7 points out of 10 possible points, while Italy received 10 out of 10 possible points. In Italy the Catholic Church still receives a number of 

privileges, benefits, and subsidies from the government, although the Church is independent.126

Although the content of the blasphemy laws in Egypt and Italy both significantly deviate from international and 

human rights principles, the enforcement of their laws operates in very distinct contexts. As a result, the consequences for alleged blasphemers are very different. 

CONTEXT MATTERS: VIOLENCE IN BANGLADESH HAS INCREASED

Although Bangladesh’s law received an “average” score of 32.8 (and scored lower than several other countries, such 

as Brunei or Cyprus), violence against alleged blasphemers has substantially increased in 2015 and 2016 in Bangladesh. The law obtains an average number of points for indicators of Freedom of Expression, Vagueness of the Law, 

and Severity of Penalty. Furthermore, the wording of Bangladesh’s law does not discriminate against groups. On 

State Religion Protections, Bangladesh receives 0 points because according to its constitution: “the state religion of 

the republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony in the Republic.”127 

In reality, those accused of blasphemy face very serious consequences, indicating that the situation is far more 

volatile than is reflected in the law’s wording. For instance, in 2015, four Bangladeshis were assassinated for their 

writings on secularism and freedom of thought.128 Groups such as Al Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS), 

Ansar al Islam, and Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) claimed responsibility.129 A “Hit List,” which appeared in 2013, 

named 84 “atheist bloggers” targeted for assassination.130 Critics then urged the government of Bangladesh to 

better protect secular bloggers and arrest perpetrators. According to press reports, in June 2016, police arrested 

more than 3,000 people in a series of raids intended to quell these attacks.131 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

3 2

CONTEXT MATTERS: SAUDI ARABIA AND IRAN

When governments rely on a faith as a basis of their political legitimacy, laws prohibiting blasphemy can increase 

risks for human rights abuses.132 Blasphemy laws can be manipulated to uphold religious doctrines, enforce rigid 

theological interpretations, or otherwise to defend the political legitimacy of the state and its official religion.133

In some situations, states can equate alleged blasphemers with political dissidents. Saudi Arabia and Iran are 

two examples. Iran’s law resulted in coding scores of 10 points out of a possible 10 points for State Religion 

Protections, whereas Saudi Arabia scored 8.33 points out of 10 total points on the same indicator. Both regimes, 

however, have used their blasphemy laws as a tool to persecute political dissidents and opponents as blasphemers.134 The Saudi Kingdom’s promotion of Wahhabism as the state-sponsored religion plays a role in the 

enforcement of its blasphemy law, as does the promotion of Shi’ism by the Islamic Republic.135

PART VI. STUDY LIMITATIONS

Vagueness of Laws

In this study, researchers found that a significant majority of the blasphemy laws examined 

are vague. The two indicators that consistently received the highest number of points were 

Vagueness of the Law and Forum and Speech Limitations. In assessing these two indicators, 

high scores resulted when a law’s language was ambiguous, indefinite, or non-existent regarding the prohibited actions, the resulting sanctions, or the location or form of the prohibited 

conduct or speech. 

The laws’ vagueness has implications for the findings on other indicators. Vague language 

makes it difficult to evaluate whether or not the laws adhere to certain international law principles—especially Freedom of Religion or Belief and Nondiscrimination and Equality—that 

are contingent on an evaluation of language. As a consequence, the low scores consistently 

received on these indicators may overestimate the laws’ adherence to international and 

human rights principles. Given that laws are more open to interpretation when written with 

indefinite language, vagueness also makes the context in which the laws are implemented 

more important. 

Notably, laws can be vague with regard to international legal principles even when they are 

extensively worded, as is the case of Iran’s blasphemy law. For example, while the law details 

prohibited acts, it omits important language that would adequately adhere to principles of 

legality or limit the forum in which blasphemy can be punished. (See Annex A.) Thus, ultimately, 

the linguistic analysis undertaken here must be complemented with an in-depth contextual 

analysis of the country conditions, legal landscape, and particularly the implementation and 

enforcement of blasphemy laws, to understand more completely these laws’ inconsistencies with 

international norms and the resulting human rights violations.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

33

SUDAN 

Sudan’s blasphemy law illustrates the difficulty in evaluating vaguely written laws for adherence to international 

and human rights law principles. Article 125 of Sudan’s Criminal Act of 1991 penalizes insulting religious creeds 

and received an overall score of 39.3 out of a possible 80 points. The law received 8 out of 10 total points for 

non-adherence to the principle of legality (Vagueness of the Law). In other words, the researchers found the law 

to be extremely vague. The law uses such imprecise terms as “by any means,” “abuses,” or “insults” to define 

prohibited behavior, leaving the law open to wide interpretation as to which acts would qualify as “abusive” or 

“insulting.” At the same time, the vague language led researchers to assign low scores to the Sudanese law on the 

indicators for Freedom of Religion or Belief, Discrimination against Groups, and State Religion Protections (1.3, 

0, and 0 points out of 10 total points, respectively).

What these scores mean is that the Sudanese law generally does not discriminate on its face; this study, however, 

cannot capture the potential or actual discrimination that a vaguely written law can achieve in its implementation.

Coding and Dataset

There also are inherent limitations in a study employing coding as a basis for analyzing laws. 

For example, biases inherent in the dataset—in the laws compiled and in the de-identification 

process—may impact the authors’ ability to draw full conclusions about a country’s blasphemy 

law’s adherence to international legal principles. Laws not available in English have been 

translated or summarized from their original languages into English, and the authors relied on 

these unofficial translations to analyze the provisions. In addition, the dataset may constitute an 

oversampling of states whose laws are available in English, accessible online, or found in related 

reports. The dataset may also have oversampled laws from countries that prohibit blasphemy at 

the national (rather than local) level, as the collection was based on searches for provisions in 

national constitutions and penal codes, which sometimes led researchers to additional related 

national laws, such as media laws. 

Moreover, the analysis looked solely at countries’ laws related to blasphemy, whereas 

states could theoretically use other legal provisions to charge or sanction alleged blasphemers. 

Although this method was deliberate, it may have omitted other laws that should be read in 

conjunction with the actual laws explicitly prohibiting blasphemy in particular countries. For 

example, general sentencing laws or guidelines were not included in our analysis, even though 

they could be relevant to the adherence to the principle of proportionality.

Despite the best efforts of the study team, the researchers may not have captured successfully all repeals and 

modifications of all of the blasphemy laws included in the compendium. (See for example the discussion of the 

legal changes in Italy in Part V supra.136) This constantly shifting reality of states’ legal frameworks applies to all 

states examined. 

Study Tool: Human Rights Indicators

Researchers carefully selected the main principles of international law implicated by laws prohibiting blasphemy. The decision was made not to weight indicators; rather, the tool itself became 

a reflection of the various issues raised. In other words, given the inter-related nature of the 

principles and indicators, the researchers felt that the tool itself naturally “weighed” particular 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

3 4

principles more heavily than others. For example, two indicators attempt to measure different 

aspects of the principles of nondiscrimination and equality: one indicator examines the explicit 

discrimination against groups, while another investigates whether countries with official or state 

religions give preference to that religion to the detriment of other religions or groups of believers. 

In this way, these two separate indicators place more weight on the principle of nondiscrimination as a fundamental principle of international law. As a consequence, the study tool may be 

biased with regard to certain international legal principles over others.

Notwithstanding these limitations, this innovative study provides important findings on 

blasphemy laws’ relative adherence to principles of international law. It also provides hypotheses for future studies on blasphemy through an international and human rights law lens. And 

from a policy perspective, it indicates areas where targeted law reform may be feasible based on 

a rights-based approach, which recognizes that specific revisions to the laws themselves could 

improve overall adherence to international and human rights principles and could lower the 

risk of abuses in the implementation of blasphemy laws.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

35

ANNEXES

A. Compendium of laws

AFGHANISTAN

The religious framework of the state: 

Constitution1

Article 1 [Islamic Republic]

Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic, independent, unitary and indivisible state.

Article 2 [Religions]

(1) The religion of the state of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam

(2) Followers of other religions are free to exercise their faith and perform their religious rites 

within the limits of the provisions of law.

Article 3 [Law and Religion]

In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.

Article 35  [Organizations, Parties]

(3) Formation and functioning of a party based on ethnicity, language, Islamic school of thought 

(mazhab-i fiqhi) and region is not permissible.

Article 149 [Islam, Fundamental Rights]

(1) The provisions of adherence to the fundamentals of the sacred religion of Islam and the regime 

of the Islamic Republic cannot be amended.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Mass Media Law2

Article 45

Production, reproduction, print and publishing of the following reports and material in mass 

media, and agencies mentioned in article (27) of this law are not permissible: 

1. Works and materials those are contrary to the principles and provisions of the holy religion 

of Islam. 

2. Works and materials which are offensive to other religions and sects. 

1 Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, Jan. 4, 2004, available at the International 

Constitutional Law Project, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/af00000_.html (last visited April 28, 2013).

2 Law on Mass Media, 2009 (Afghanistan), available at: http://gfmd.info/images/uploads/

English-Media_Law_2009.pdf (last visited April 18, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

3 6

3. Works and materials which are defamatory, insulting and offensive to the real or legal persons. 

4. Works and materials which are considered libelous/defamatory to real and legal persons, and 

cause damage to their personality and credibility. 

5. Works and materials which are contrary to the Constitution and are considered crime by the 

Penal Code. 

ALGERIA

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution3

Article 2 [State Religion]

Islam is the religion of the State.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code of 19794

Article 144

Allows for up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of 50,000 to 100,000 dinars ($680-$1,360) for 

“insulting the prophet and any of the messengers of God, or denigrating the creed and precepts 

of Islam, whether by writing, drawing, declaration, or any other means.” 5

The Information Code of 19906 [Deals with the media and restricts blasphemy] 

Article 77 bans insults against Islam and the other “heavenly religions” (Christianity and Judaism)

3 The Constitution of the People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Nov. 19, 1976, as amended, Nov. 

28, 1996, available at the International Constitutional Law Project, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/

ag00000_.html (last visited April 18, 2013).

4 Order No. 66-156 [Penal Code], June 8, 1966 (Alg.), available at 

http://www.premier-ministre.gov.dz/images/stories/dossier/Codes/code_p%E9nal.pdf (last visited April 18, 2013).

5 Freedom House, Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights (2010) at 15, 

available at

http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Policing_Belief_Full.pdf (last visited April 18, 

2013).

6 Id. at 13.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

37

ANDORRA

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution7

Article 11 (3) [State Religion]

The Constitution guarantees the Roman Catholic Church free and public exercise of its activities 

and the preservation of the relations of special co-operation with the State in accordance with 

the Andorran tradition. 

The Constitution recognizes the full legal capacity of the bodies of the Roman Catholic Church 

which have legal status in accordance with their own rules. 

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code8

Article 301

Anyone who insults religious beliefs in public or impedes or disrupts a religious act or ceremony 

shall be subject to a maximum prison sentence of six months.

ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution9

Preamble

WHEREAS the People of Antigua and Barbuda1. a. proclaim that they are a sovereign nation founded upon principles that acknowledge 

the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person, the entitlement of all 

persons to the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual, the position of the family 

in a society of free men and women and free institutions; 

7 Andorra’s Constitution of 1993, Constitute Project, available online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Andorra_1993.pdf

8 Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society,” Science and technique of 

democracy No. 47, Venice Commission, available online at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2010)047-e

9 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Antigua_and_Barbuda_1981?lang=en 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

3 8

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Small Charges Act10

Part II

Article 9

Anyone who makes use of any abusive, blasphemous, indecent, insulting, profane or threatening 

language –

(a) in any public place; or

(b) in any place to the annoyance of the public; or

(c) tending to a breach of the peace;

shall be liable to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars or to imprisonment for a term not 

exceeding one month.

AUSTRIA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code11

Section 188 [Disparaging of religious precepts]

Whoever publicly disparages or mocks a person or a thing, respectively, being an object of worship or a dogma, a legally permitted rite, or a legally permitted institution of a church or religious 

society located in Austria, in a manner capable of giving rise to justified annoyance, is liable to 

imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine.

10 http://www.laws.gov.ag/acts/chapters/cap-405.pdf 

11 Strafgesetzbuch [StGB][Penal Code]BGBI. 1974/60 (Austria), available in “Blasphemy, Insult and 

Hatred Finding Answers in a Democratic Society,” Science and Technique of Democracy No. 47, European Commission for Democracy and Law, Mar. 31, 2010 at 156.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

39

BAHRAIN

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution

Article 2

The religion of the State is Islam. The Islamic Shari’a is the primary source of law. The official 

language is Arabic.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code12

Article 309

A punishment for a period not exceeding one year or a fine not exceeding BD 100 shall be inflicted 

upon any person who commits an offence by any method of expression against one of the recognized religious communities or ridicules the rituals thereof.

Article 310

The punishment provided for in the preceding Article shall be inflicted upon any person who 

commits in public an insult against a symbol or a person that is glorified or considered sacred 

to members of a particular sect; (or) upon any person who imitates in public a religious ritual or 

ceremony with the intention of ridiculing it.

12 “Bahrain Penal Code.” N.p., n.d. Web. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&-

source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDQQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.track.unodc.org%2FLegalLibrary%2FLegalResources%2FBahrain%2FLaws%2FBahrain%2520Penal%2520Code%25201976.

pdf&ei=JhvbUaTWH5G44APC1oHYDg&usg=AFQjCNETA5d9uPzGfaf4Lk0o9DQBuQcKjQ&sig2=5FhUlcyjx8ijRdCgRSErNQ&bvm=bv.48705608,d.dmg .
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

4 0

BANGLADESH

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution 13

Article 2A [The state religion]

The state religion of the Republic is Islam, but other religions may be practiced in peace and 

harmony in the Republic.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code14

Article 295 [Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship, with Intent to Insult the Religion of Any 

Class]

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class 

of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the 

knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement 

as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a 

term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Article 295A [Deliberate and Malicious Acts Intended to Outrage Religious Feelings of Any 

Class by Insulting its Religion or Religious Beliefs]

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any 

class of the citizens of Bangladesh, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be 

punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or 

with fine, or with both.

Article 298 [Uttering Words, etc., with Deliberate Intent to Wound Religious Feelings]

Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters 

any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of 

that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment 

of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

13 Bangladesher Shongbidhan [Constitution] Dec. 16, 1972 (Bangladesh), available at http://www1.

umn.edu/humanrts/research/bangladesh-constitution.pdf (last visited April 28, 2013).

14 Penal Code, 1860 (Bangladesh), available at Bangladesh Ministry of Law, http://bdlaws.minlaw.

gov.bd/pdf_part.php?id=11 (last visited April 21, 2013).
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

41

BRAZIL

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code15

Article 208

Publicly mock someone for reasons of belief or religious function, prevent or disrupt the ceremony or practice of religious worship publicly vilify act or object of worship:

Penalty - imprisonment of one month to one year or a fine.

Sole Paragraph - If there is use of violence, the penalty is increased by a third, without prejudice 

to the corresponding violence.

15 Brazilian Penal Code, available at World Intellectual Property Organization, http://www.wipo.

int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=226393#LinkTarget_5222. Accessed Oct 5, 2013,
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

4 2

BRUNEI DARUSSALAM

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution16

Article 3 Religion of Brunei Darussalam and religious observances

(1) The religion of Brunei Darussalam shall be the Muslim Religion according to the Shafeite 

sect of that religion.

Provided that all other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony by the person 

professing them in any part of Brunei Darussalam.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code17

295 Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class

Whoever destroys, damages, or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class 

of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons, or with 

knowledge that any class of person is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement 

as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend 

to 5 years and with fine.

Article 297 Trespassing on burial places etc. 

Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the 

religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to 

be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any 

trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulture, or any place set apart for the 

performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any 

indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the 

performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which 

may extend to one year, and with fine.

Article 298 Uttering words etc. with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings 

Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any 

word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that 

person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment 

for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

16 Brunei’s Constitution of 1959 with Amendments through 1984, Constitute Project, available 

online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Brunei_1984.pdf

17 https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/Brunei_Penal_Code_1951_Full_text.pdf
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

4 3

CANADA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code18

Article 296. (1) Every one who publishes a blasphemous libel is guilty of an indictable offence 

and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

• Marginal note: Question of fact 

(2) It is a question of fact whether or not any matter that is published is a blasphemous libel.

• Marginal note: Saving

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section for expressing in good faith 

and in decent language, or attempting to establish by argument used in good faith and 

conveyed in decent language, an opinion on a religious subject.

• R.S., c. C-34, s. 260.

18 Canadian Penal Code, Justice Laws Website, Government of Canada, http://laws-lois.justice.

gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-150.html#h-89. Accessed October 5, 2013.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

4 4

COMOROS

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution19

Preamble

The Comorian people solemnly affirm their will

• to draw from Islam, the religion of the state, the permanent inspiration of the principles and 

rules that govern the Union; 

This Preamble shall be considered an integral part of the Constitution.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code20

ART.230. - Any person who in any way profane:

1) - Places for or currently used for the performance of a cult; 

2) - The objects of worship in the places listed above, shall be punished by a fine of 15 000 to 1 

00 000 francs and imprisonment from three months to one year. 

ART.231.- Anyone who has insulted the minister of religion, in the exercise of his functions, be 

liable to a fine of 15 000 to 45 000 Swiss francs and an imprisonment of six months to two years.

He who struck the minister of religion in the exercise of his duties, shall be punished with 

imprisonment from two to five years. 

19 Constitution 2001 (rev 2009), https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/

Comoros_2009?lang=en Oxford University Press, Inc; translated by Max Planck Institute

20 Republique Federale Islamique des Comores, Assemblee Federale, Loi N° -082 P/A.F. – Loi 

95-012/AF portant Code penal (Crimes et délits), http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_

id=208475. Automatic translation to English via Google translate. Original French: https://www.unodc.

org/tldb/pdf/Comores%20Code%20Penal.pdf
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

4 5

CYPRUS

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution21

Article 2

For the purposes of this Constitution

(1) the Greek Community comprises all citizens of the Republic who are of Greek origin and 

whose mother tongue is Greek or who share the Greek cultural traditions or who are members of the Greek-Orthodox Church;

(2) the Turkish Community comprises all citizens of the Republic who are of Turkish origin 

and whose mother tongue is Turkish or who share the Turkish cultural traditions or who 

are Muslims;

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code22

Article 138

Any person who destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship or any object which is held 

sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of 

persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, 

damage or defilement as an insult of their religion, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Article 141

Any person who with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person 

utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the 

sight of the person, or places any object in the sight of that person, is guilty of misdemeanor and 

is liable to imprisonment for one year.

21 Cyprus’s Constitution of 1960 with Amendments through 2013, Constitute Project, available 

online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Cyprus_2013.pdf

22 2011 Expert workshop on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatreds, 

available online at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Vienna/Annexes/

Cyprus.pdf. See also “Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society,” Science 

and technique of democracy No. 47, Venice Commission, available online at http://www.venice.coe.int/

webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2010)047-e
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

4 6

Article 142

(1) Any person who publishes a book or pamphlet or any article or letter in a newspaper or periodical which any class of persons consider as a public insult to their religion, with intent to 

vilify such religion or to shock or insult believers in such religion, is guilty of misdemeanor.

(2) A prosecution for an offence under the provisions of this section shall not be commenced 

except by, or with the consent of, the Attorney-General of the Republic.

DENMARK*

*Note: In June 2017, the Danish Parliament repealed its blasphemy law. The researchers kept Denmark’s 

law on the report, but it is no longer valid as of June 2017. 

Penal code23

Section 14024

Any person who, in public, ridicules or insults the dogmas or worship of any lawfully existing 

religious community in this country shall be liable to imprisonment for any term not exceeding 

four months or, in mitigating circumstances, to a fine.

EGYPT

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution25

Article 1. Nature of the Republic

The Arab Republic of Egypt is a sovereign state, united and indivisible, where nothing is dispensable, and its system is democratic republic based on citizenship and the rule of law.

Egypt is part of the Arab nation and enhances its integration and unity. It is part of the Muslim 

world, belongs to the African continent, is proud of its Asian dimension, and contributes to 

building human civilization.

Article 2. Islam, Principles of Islamic Sharia

Islam is the religion of the state and Arabic is its official language. The principles of Islamic Sharia 

are the principle source of legislation.

Article 3. Christian and Jewish religious affairs

23 Due to government shutdown, the Office of Justice Program was closed. Directly quoted from 

Søren Sandfeld Jakobsen,“The Case Regarding the Danish Muhammad Drawings,” in The Database on 

Legal Information Relevant to the Audiovisual Sector in Europe published 2006, accessed October 5, 

2013. Available online at http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2006/8/article105.en.html

24 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_and_freedom_of_the_press_in_Denmark

25 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Egypt_2014 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

47

The principles of the laws of Egyptian Christians and Jews are the main source of laws regulating 

their personal status, religious affairs, and selection of spiritual leaders.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code26

Article 98(f)

Detention for a period of not less than six months and not exceeding five years, or paying a fine 

of not less than five hundred pounds and not exceeding one thousand pounds shall be the penalty inflicted on whoever exploits and uses the religion in advocating and propagating by talk 

or in writing, or by any other method, extremist thoughts with the aim of instigating sedition 

and division or disdaining and contempting any of the heavenly religions or the sects belonging 

thereto, or prejudicing national unity or social peace.

Article 161

These penalties shall be imposed on any encroachment that takes place by one of the methods 

prescribed in Article 171, on a religion whose rituals are publicly held.

The following shall fall under the provisions of this Article:

First: Printing and publishing a book which is viewed as holy by members of a religion whose 

rituals are publicly held, if a text of this book is perverted in a way that changes its meaning.

Second: Imitating a religious celebration in a public place or public community, with the aim of 

ridicule, or for the attendants to watch.

Article 171 [Crimes occurring by Means of Newspapers and Others]

Whoever induces one or more persons to commit a felony or misdemeanor, by talks, shouting 

in public, a deed, or a hint insinuated in public, by writing, drawing, pictures/photographs, 

marks and symbols, or any other method of representation made in public, or in any other 

means of public ness, shall be considered an accomplice in doing it, and shall be punished 

with the penalty prescribed therefor, if such inducement results in actual occurrence of the 

felon or misdemeanor.

However, if the inducement results in just an attempt of murder, the judge shall apply the legal 

provisions on attempt penalty. Talk or shouting shall be considered publicly made if it is declared 

openly or reiterated via any mechanical method at a general meeting, on a public road or any other 

26 Law No. 58 of 1937 (Criminal Code of 1937, reformed in 1952), Al-Jarida Al-Rasmiyya

(Egypt), available at https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&-

cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Ftrack.unodc.org%2FLegalLibrary%2FLegalResources%2FEgypt%2FLaws%2FEgypt%2520The%2520Penal%2520Code%2520Law%25201937.

pdf&ei=Y59vUcn4NrG84AOU-IDAAw&usg=AFQjCNHiRjzauUODRTHUkoDRc4nYY9iUXw&sig2=ARx51QLxrUdzOcUrDcuLWA&bvm=bv.45368065,d.dmg (last visited April 18, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

4 8

frequented place, or if it is declared openly or reiterated, such that any one found on that road or 

in that place can hear it, or if it is diffused by wireless or any other method. The deed or hint shall 

be considered publicly made if it takes place at a general meeting, on a public road, or at any other 

frequented place, or if it takes place such that whoever is found on that road or at that place can see 

it. Writing, drawings, pictures, photographs, signs, symbols and other representation methods shall 

be considered as publicly displayed, if they are distributed without differentiation to a number of 

people, or if they are displayed such that whoever is found on the public road or at any frequented 

place can see them, or if they are sold or offered for sale at any place.

Note on Law No. 263 of 1960 27

“[P]racticing the Baha’i faith is considered blasphemy. The religion is criminalized under Law 

No. 263of 1960, which bans Baha’i institutions and community activities and strips Baha’is of 

any legal recognition.”

ERITREA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Proclamation No. 90/1996 “The Press Proclamation”28

Part V Article 12

12. Matters not to be disseminated

All those participating in public or private press in general, and heads of press in particular, [illegible] chief editors and journalists, are prohibited from publishing and disseminating 

the following matters. 

(1) any matter which vilifies or belittles humanitarian and religious beliefs; 

(2) any document or secret information on the supreme interest of the nation and people, as well 

as national security and defense secrets; 

(3) any matter which incites religious and sub-national differences, promotes the spirit of division 

and dissension among the people, vilifies the Eritrean peoples tradition of struggle and incites 

violence and terrorism; 

(4) any matter which undermines the territorial integrity and sovereignty and independence 

of the nation; 

27 Freedom House, Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights (2010) at 29, 

available at http://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Policing_Belief_Full.pdf (last visited April 18, 

2013).

28 http://erigazette.org/?p=5419
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

49

(5) any matter which contravenes general morality, encroaches upon the dignity of minors or the 

personal liberties and private lives of the citizens; 

(6) any defamation or blackmail; 

(7) the in-camera meeting of high officials and organs of the state; 

(8) cases which has been suspended from publication or dissemination by courts, prosecutors and investigation organs or cases at the investigation or trial stages which may be 

prejudicial to the process of justice; 

(9) inaccurate information and news intentionally disseminated to influence economic conditions, create commotion and confusion and disturb general peace; and 

(10) shapes, pictures and maps of Eritrean territory without first obtaining permissions from the 

concerned governmental agency. 

ETHIOPIA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code29

Article 816— Blasphemous or Scandalous Utterances or Attitudes.

Whoever, apart from the cases punishable under the Criminal Code (Arts 492 and 493), in a public 

place or in a place open to the public or that can be viewed by the public, by gestures or words scoffs 

at religion or expresses himself in a manner which is blasphemous, scandalous or grossly offensive 

to the feelings or convictions of others or towards the Divine Being or the religious symbols, rites 

or religious personages, is punishable with fine or arrest not exceeding one month.

Article 492— Outrage on Religious Peace and Feeling.

Whoever publicly:

a) prevents the solemnization of, or disturbs or scoffs at, an authorized religious ceremony or 

office; or

b) profanes a place, image or object used for religious ceremonies, is punishable with fine not 

exceeding one thousand Birr, or with simple imprisonment not exceeding two years.

29 Criminal Code of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Proclamation No. 414 of 2004, 

May 9, 2005, available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/49216b572.html (last visited July 8, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

5 0

FINLAND

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal code30

Chapter 17 [Offences against public order (563/1998)]

Section 10 [ Breach of the sanctity of religion (563/1998)]

A person who 

(1) publicly blasphemes against God or, for the purpose of offending, publicly defames or desecrates what is otherwise held to be sacred by a church or religious community, as referred 

to in the Act on the Freedom of Religion (267/1998), or

(2) by making noise, acting threateningly or otherwise, disturbs worship, ecclesiastical proceedings, other similar religious proceedings or a funeral, shall be sentenced for a breach 

of the sanctity of religion to a fine or to imprisonment for at most six months.

GERMANY

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code (1998)31

Section 166 – Insulting of faiths, religious societies and organizations dedicated to a philosophy of life

1. Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 sub-section 3) insults the 

content of others’ religious faith or faith related to a philosophy of life in a manner that is capable 

of disturbing the public peace, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three 

years or a fine.

2. Whoever publicly or through dissemination of writings (Section 11 sub-section 3) insults 

a church, other religious society, or organisation dedicated to a philosophy of life located in 

Germany, or their institutions or customs in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public 

peace, shall be similarly punished.

30 http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/population/trafficking/finland.penal.pdf

31 “Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society” Science and Technique 

of democracy, No. 47. Available online at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD%282010%29047-e 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

51

GREECE

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution32

Article 3, Section 1

1. The prevailing religion in Greece is that of the Eastern Orthodox Church of Christ. The Orthodox Church of Greece, acknowledging our Lord Jesus Christ as its head, is inseparably united 

in doctrine with the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople and with every other Church of 

Christ of the same doctrine, observing unwaveringly, as they do, the holy apostolic and synodal 

canons and sacred traditions. It is autocephalous and is administered by the Holy Synod of serving Bishops and the Permanent Holy Synod originating thereof and assembled as specified by 

the Statutory Charter of the Church in compliance with the provisions of the Patriarchal Tome 

of June 29, 1850 and the Synodal Act of September 4, 1928.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code33

Section 7 

Article 198

1. One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes God shall be punished by 

imprisonment for not more than two years.

 2. Except for cases under paragraph 1, one who by blasphemy publicly manifests a lack of respect 

for the divinity shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than three months.

Article 199 

One who publicly and maliciously and by any means blasphemes the Greek Orthodox Church 

or any other religion tolerable in Greece shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 

two years.

32 https://www.constituteproject.org/ontology/Greece?lang=en 

33 Freedom House, Policing Belief: The Impact of Blasphemy Laws on Human Rights - Greece, 21 

October 2010, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/4d5a700bc.html [accessed 29 August 2015] 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

52

GRENADA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code34

Section 429 -- Publication or Sale of Blasphemous or Obscene Matter.

Whoever publishes, sells, or offers for sale any blasphemous or obscene book, writing or representation, shall be liable to imprisonment for two years.

GUYANA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal code35

Part V Offenses Against Religion, Morality and Public Inconvenience

Title 24: Offenses Against Religion

Article 348

(1) Everyone who publishes any blasphemous libel shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and liable 

to imprisonment for one year.

(2) It shall be a question of fact whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel:

Provided that no person shall be liable to be convicted on any indictment for a blasphemous 

libel only for expressing in good faith and in decent language, or attempting to establish any 

arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever upon 

any religious subject.

34 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=253233

35 http://www.oas.org/juridico/mla/en/guy/en_guy-int-text-cl_act.pdf
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

53

INDIA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code36

Penal Code: Article 295 [Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion 

of any class]

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class 

of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the 

knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement 

as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a 

term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 

Article 295A [Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class 

by insulting its religion or religious beliefs]

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class 

of [citizens of India], [by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representations 

or otherwise] insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall 

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to [three 

years], or with fine, or with both.] 

Article 296 Disturbing religious assembly. 

Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance 

of religious worship, or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 

description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 

Article 297 Trespassing on burial places, etc.

Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion 

of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or 

that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place 

of worship or on any place of sepulture, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites 

or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers anyindignity to any human corpse, or 

causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall 

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, 

or with fine, or with both.

Article 298 [Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings]

Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters 

any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of 

36 Pen. Code, No. 45 of 1860 (India), available at Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs, 

http://mha.nic.in/pdfs/IPC1860.pdf (last visited April 25, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

5 4

that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment 

of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

INDONESIA

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution37

Article 29

1. The State shall be based upon the belief in the One and Only God.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code Provisions38

Article 156(a)

By a maximum imprisonment of five years shall be punished any person who deliberately in 

public gives expression to feelings or commits an act,

a) which principally have the character of being at enmity with, abusing or staining a religion, 

adhered to in Indonesia;

b) with the intention to prevent a person to adhere to any religion based on the belief of the 

almighty God.

37 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Indonesia_2002 

38 Indonesia: Penal Code [Indonesia],  27 February 1982, available at: http://www.refworld.org/

docid/3ffc09ae2.html [accessed 29 August 2015]; Official English translation. The Indonesian Penal 

Code is based on the code published in the State Gazette number 732 of 1915, known as Wetboek van 

Strafrecht voor Indonesia, with subsequent revisions and amendments dating up to 1976. The Code was 

last amended by Law 27 of 19 May 1999. Also referenced in Freedom House Report, pg. 46: https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/PolicingBelief_Indonesia.pdf
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

55

IRAN

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution 39

Article 1 [Form of Government]

The form of government of Iran is that of an Islamic Republic, endorsed by the people of Iran on 

the basis of their longstanding belief in the sovereignty of truth and Koranic justice, in the referendum of 29 and 30 March 1979, through the affirmative vote of a majority of 98.2% of eligible 

voters, held after the victorious Islamic Revolution led by Imam Khumayni.

Article 12 [Official Religion]

The official religion of Iran is Islam and the Twelver Ja’fari school, and this principle will remain 

eternally immutable. Other Islamic schools are to be accorded full respect, and their followers 

are free to act in accordance with their own jurisprudence in performing their religious rites. 

These schools enjoy official status in matters pertaining to religious education, affairs of personal status (marriage, divorce, inheritance, and wills) and related litigation in courts of law. In 

regions of the country where Muslims following any one of these schools constitute the majority, 

local regulations, within the bounds of the jurisdiction of local councils, are to be in accordance 

with the respective school, without infringing upon the rights of the followers of other schools.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code40

Article 513

Anyone who insults the Islamic sanctities or any of the imams or her excellency Sadigheh 

Tahereh should be executed if his insult equals to speaking disparagingly of Prophet Muhammad. Otherwise, should be imprisoned from one to five years.

Press Law 41

Article 6

The print media are permitted to publish news items except in cases when they violate Islamic 

principles and codes and public rights as outlined in this chapter:

39 Qanuni Assassi Jumhutii Islamai Iran [The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran] 1358 

[1980], available at the International Constitutional Law Project, http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/

ir00000_.html (last visited April 26, 2013).

40 Islamic Penal Code, Nov. 28, 1991 (Iran), available at http://www.refworld.org/docid/4d384ae32.

html (last visited April 27, 2013).

41 Press Law, Jan. 31, 1987 (Iran), available at http://www.parstimes.com/law/press_law.html (last 

visited April 29, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

5 6

1. Publishing atheistic articles or issues which are prejudicial to Islamic codes, or, promoting 

subjects which might damage the foundation of the Islamic Republic; 

2. Propagating obscene and religiously forbidden acts and publishing indecent pictures and 

issues which violate public decency; 

3. Propagating luxury and extravagance; 

4. Creating discord between and among social walks of life specially by raising ethnic and 

racial issues; 

5. Encouraging and instigating individuals and groups to act against the security, dignity and 

interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran within or outside the country; 

6. Disclosing and publishing classified documents, orders and issues, or, disclosing the secrets 

of the Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic, military maps and fortifications, publishing 

closed-door deliberations of the Islamic Consultative Assembly or private proceedings of 

courts of justice and investigations conducted by judicial authorities without legal permit;

7. Insulting Islam and its sanctities, or, offending the Leader of the Revolution and recognized 

religious authorities (senior Islamic jurisprudents);

8. Publishing libel against officials, institutions, organizations and individuals in the country 

or insulting legal or real persons who are lawfully respected, even by means of pictures or 

caricatures; and 

9. Committing plagiarism or quoting articles from the deviant press, parties and groups which 

oppose Islam (inside and outside the country) in such a manner as to propagate such ideas 

(the limits of such offenses shall be defined by the executive by-law).

Article 26

Whoever insults Islam and its sanctities through the press and his/her guilt amounts to apostasy, 

shall be sentenced as an apostate and should his/her offense fall short of apostasy he/she shall 

be subject to the Islamic penal code.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

57

IRAQ

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution42

Article 2 [Official State Religion]

First: Islam is the official religion of the State and is a foundation source of legislation:

A. No law may be enacted that contradicts the established provisions of Islam 

B. No law may be enacted that contradicts the principles of democracy.

C. No law may be enacted that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms stipulated in this 

Constitution.

Second: This Constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and 

guarantees the full religious rights to freedom of religious belief and practice of all individuals 

such as Christians, Yazidis, and Mandean Sabeans.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code 43

Chapter 8 Section 2 [Offences that violate religious sensibilities]

Paragraph 372 – 

The following persons are punishable by a period of detention not exceeding 3 years or by a fine 

not exceeding 100 dinars: 

(1) Any person who attacks the creed of a religious minority or pours scorn on its religious practices. 

(4) Any person who prints or publishes a book sacred to a religious minority and deliberately 

misspells the texts so that the meaning of the text is altered or who makes light of its tenets or 

teachings. 

(5) Any person who publicly insults a symbol or a person who constitutes an object of sanctification, worship or reverence to a religious minority. 

(6) Any person who publicly imitates a religious ceremony or celebration with intent to deceive.

42 UN/US/UK agreed Final English Translation of The Constitution of Iraq, Jan. 25, 2004, available at the Global Justice Project: Iraq at S.J. Quinney College of Law, http://gjpi.org/library/primary/

iraqi-constitution/ (last visited July 1, 2013).

43 Iraq Penal-Code with Amendments Third Edition No (111), 1969, available http://law.case.edu/

saddamtrial/documents/Iraqi_Penal_Code_1969.pdf (last visited July 1, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

5 8

IRELAND

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Constitution44

Article 40 [Personal Rights]

6. 1. The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order 

and morality: 

i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common 

good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the 

press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of 

Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority 

of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which 

shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Defamation Act of 200945

Article 36

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall 

be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €25,000.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if—

(a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of 

the adherents of that religion, and

(b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such 

outrage.

(3) It shall be a defence to proceedings for an offence during this section for the defendant to 

prove that a reasonable person would find genuine literary, artistic, political, scientific or 

academic value in the matter to which the offence relates.

(4) In this section “religion” does not include an organization or cult—

(a) the principal object of which is the making of profit, or

44 http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/eng/Publications/Publications_Archive/Publications_2010/

March%202010%20Version%20-%20Constitution%20of%20Ireland.pdf

45 Defamation Act of 2009, Irish Statute Book, published by the Office of the Attorney General. 

Available online at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

59

(b) that employs oppressive psychological manipulation—

 (i) of its followers, or 

 (ii) for the purpose of gaining new followers.

ISRAEL

The religious framework of the state:

Basic Law for Human Dignity and Liberty (1992)46

1a Purpose (Amendment No 1)

The purpose of this Basic Law is to protect human dignity and liberty, in order to establish in a 

Basic Law the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code47

Article 170 Insult to religion 

If a person destroys, damages or desecrates a place of worship or any object which is held sacred 

by a group of persons, with the intention of to reviling their religion, or in the knowledge that they 

are liable to deem that act an insult to their religion, then he is liable to three years imprisonment. 

Article 173 Injury to religious sentiment 

If a person does any of the following, then he is liable to one year imprisonment: 

(1) he publishes a publication that is liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of 

others; 

(2) he voices in a public place and in the hearing of another person any word or sound that is 

liable crudely to offend the religious faith or sentiment of others. 

46 Israel’s Constitution of 1958 with Amendements through 2007, Constitute Project, available 

online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Israel_2007.pdf

47 http://www.oecd.org/investment/anti-bribery/anti-briberyconvention/43289694.pdf
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

6 0

ITALY

Criminal code48

Article 402 – Insulting the State religion49

Anyone who insults the State religion shall be subject to a prison sentence of up to one year.

Article 403 – Insulting the State religion by insulting individuals50

Anyone who insults the State religion in public by offending those who profess it shall be subject 

to a prison sentence of up to two years. Anyone who insults the State religion by insulting a minister of the Catholic Church shall be subject to a prison sentence of one to three years.

Article 404 – Insulting the State religion by offending against property51

Anyone who, in a place of worship, a public place or a place open to the public, insults the State 

religion by offending against religious property, an object of religion or an object clearly associated with religious practice, shall be subject to a prison sentence of one to three years. Anyone 

who commits such an offence during a religious service celebrated in a private place by a minister 

of the Catholic Church shall be subject to the same penalty.

Article 406 – Offences against religions recognized by the State

Anyone who commits one of the offences established under Articles 403, 404 and 405 [not 

included] against a religion recognized by the State shall be punished in accordance with the 

aforementioned articles, but the sentence shall be reduced.

Article 724 – Blasphemy and insulting the dead

Anyone who blasphemes against the Divinity in public, by means of invective or insults, shall 

be subject to an administrative fine of 100 000 to 600 000 lira. The same penalty shall apply to 

anyone who publicly insults the dead.

48 “Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society” Science and Technique 

of democracy, No. 47. Available online at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD%282010%29047-e

49 Declared invalid by the Constitutional Court in its judgment No. 508 of 20 November 2000.

50 Declared invalid by the Constitutional Court in its judgment No. 168 of 18 April 2005, “insofar 

as it provides for a prison sentence of up to two years or of one to three years, respectively, for insulting 

the Catholic religion either by insulting those who profess it or by insulting a minister of religion, rather 

than a lesser sentence in accordance with Article 406 of the same Code.”

51 Declared the first paragraph invalid by the Constitutional Court in its judgment No. 329 of 1997, 

“insofar as it provides for a prison sentence of one to three years, rather than a lesser sentence in accordance with Article 406 of the same Code.”
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

61

JORDAN

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution52

Article 2

Islam is the religion of the State and Arabic is its official language.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code53

Article 273

Anyone proven to have publicly offended any prophet shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a 

period between one to three years.

Article 278

Anyone found guilty of any of the following shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not 

exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding 20 dinars: 

1. Publishing any material that is offensive to other people’s religious feelings or beliefs.

2. Publicly, with another person listening thereto, making a speech or sound that is offensive 

to said other person’s religious feelings or beliefs. 

Should the public prosecutor decide to prosecute journalists under Article 38 of the Press and 

Publications Law rather than the Penal Code, a fine of 10,000-20,000 dinars would be imposed.” 54

Press and Publications Law55

Article 38

Publication of any of the following shall be prohibited:

a) Any material containing slander, libel or defamation directed at, or offensive to, any religion, 

freedom of which is enshrined in the Constitution

b) Any material offensive to or implying vilification of founders of religions or prophets, whether 

by means of writing, drawing, symbols, pictures, or any other means

52 The Constitution of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Jan. 1, 1952, available at: http://www.

refworld.org/docid/3ae6b53310.html (last visited April 28, 2013).

53 http://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/#jordan See also: Douglas Griffin and Libby Morgan, 

Introduction to News Media Law and Policy in Jordan, Jordan Media Strengthening Program, USAID, at 

42-43, available at http://global.asc.upenn.edu/fileLibrary/PDFs/JMSPprimer_english.pdf (last visited 

April 20, 2013).

54 Id.

55 Douglas Griffin, Introduction to News Media Law and Policy in Jordan at 35, available at http://

global.asc.upenn.edu/fileLibrary/PDFs/JMSPprimer_english.pdf (last visited April 22, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

6 2

c) Any material offending religious feelings or beliefs or inciting sectarian or racial hatred

d) Any material undermining the dignity and personal freedoms of individuals, or containing 

false information or rumors about them

Article 46 states that anyone in violation of (a), (b), or (c) above shall be sentenced to a fine of no 

less than 10,000 dinars and not exceeding 20,000 dinars.

KAZAKHSTAN

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal code56

Article 164. Incitement of Social, National, Tribal, Racial, or Religious Enmity

1. Deliberate actions aimed at the incitement of social, national, tribal, racial, or religious enmity 

or antagonism, or at offense to the national honour and dignity, or religious feelings of citizens, as 

well as propaganda of exclusiveness, superiority, or inferiority of citizens based on their attitude 

towards religion, or their genetic or racial belonging, if these acts are committed publicly or with 

the use of the mass information media, -

shall be punished by a fine in an amount up to one thousand monthly assessment indices, or 

in an amount of wages or other income of a given convict for a period up to ten months , or by 

detention under arrest for a period up to six months, or by correctional labour for a period up to 

two years or deprivation of freedom for period up to five years.

2. The same acts committed by a group of persons or committed repeatedly, or combined with 

violence or a threat to apply it, as well as committed by a person with the use of his official 

position, or by the head of a public association, -

shall be punished by a fine in an amount from five hundred to three thousand [monthly assessment indices, or in an amount of wages or other income of a given convict for a period from, five 

months up to one year or by restriction of freedom for a period up to four years, or by imprisonment for a period from two to six years with deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or 

to engage in certain types of activity for a period up to three years, or without it.

3. The acts stipulated by the first and second parts of this Article which entailed serious consequences, shall be punished by imprisonment for a period from three to ten years with deprivation 

of the right to hold certain positions or to engage in certain types of activity for a period up to 

three years, or without it. 

56 http://www.legislationline.org/download/action/download/id/1681/file/ca1cfb8a67f8a1c2ffe8de6554a3.htm/preview 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

6 3

KUWAIT

The religious framework of the state: 

Constitution57

Article 2 [State Religion]:

The religion of the State is Islam, and the Islamic Sharia shall be a main source of legislation.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Law No. 19 of 2012 on the Protection of National Unity (19/2012)58

Paragraph: Text of the law – Text of the law (1-5)

Article 1

It is prohibited to engage in, call for, or incite, by any means of expression specified in Article 

29 of Law No. 31 of 1970 (through the amendment of certain provisions of the Penal Code), 

hatred of or showing contempt for any segment of society, inciting sectarian or tribal strife, 

publishing ideas claiming the superiority of any race, group, color, origin, religious persuasion, 

sex, or descent, or encouraging acts of violence for such purpose, or broadcasting, publishing, 

printing, disseminating, rebroadcasting, producing, or discussing any content or publication 

of visual or audio material, or disseminating false rumors that contain anything that by its 

nature would lead to the foregoing. The provisions of the preceding paragraph apply to anyone 

who commits an act outside the State of Kuwait that makes him a principal or a partner in 

a crime that occurs in whole or in part in the State of Kuwait. Information networks and the 

blogs that are published on them and other modern means of communications are included 

in the means of expression.

Article 2

Without prejudice to any more stringent penalty provided by another law, anyone who commits 

an act that violates the prohibition specified in Article 1 of this law shall be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than seven years and a fine of not less than 10,000 dinars and 

not more than 100,000 dinars, or by either one of these penalties, and a judgment will be made to 

confiscate the facilities, money, devices, newspapers, and publications used in the commission 

of the crime. The punishment will be doubled if the violation is repeated.

Article 3

In cases in which a crime specified in this law is committed by a legal entity, without prejudice 

to the criminal liability of the natural person, the legal entity shall be punished by a fine of not 

57 “The Diwan of His Highness the Prime Minister of the State of Kuwait: Kuwait Constitution.” 

The Diwan of His Highness the Prime Minister of the State of Kuwait: Kuwait Constitution. N.p., n.d. Web. 

http://www.pm.gov.kw/en/state_Of_Kuwait/kuwaitConstitution.jsp .

58 Translation provided by USCIRF and LOC
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

6 4

less than 10,000 dinars and not more than 100,000 dinars if the crime was committed in its name 

or on its behalf. A judgment to revoke the business license can be issued and, at the request of 

the prosecutor’s office, the head of the competent felonies department or the summary matters 

judge can issue a decision to suspend the license temporarily for a period of one month, subject 

to renewal.

Article 4

Any of the perpetrators who reports to the competent authorities the existence of a criminal 

agreement to commit a crime before the start of its implementation shall be exempt from the 

punishment, and the court can also exempt from punishment if the informing was done after 

the completion of the crime but prior to the investigation. It can also do so if the criminal enabled 

the authorities to arrest the remaining criminals.

Article 5

The Prime Minister and the ministers – all those concerned – shall implement this statutory 

decree and act in accordance with it as of the date of its publication in the official gazette and its 

presentation to the National Assembly.

Penal Code59

Article 25

Anyone who publicly or in a public place or in a place in which he can be heard or seen by anyone 

in a public place, by speaking or shouting or writing or with drawings or pictures or any other 

means of expressing an idea, defames the rights and authority of the Amir, or dishonors the Amir, 

or displays arrogant behavior towards the underpinnings of this emirate shall be punished by 

imprisonment for a period of not more than five years.

Article 111

Anyone who disseminates, in one of the public ways stated in Article 10160, views that include 

ridicule or contempt or belittling of a religion or a religious sect, whether by defaming its 

doctrines, its rituals, its ceremonies, or its tenets, shall be punished by imprisonment for a 

period of not more than one year and a fine of not more than 1,000 dinars or by either one of 

these two penalties.

Article 112

There is no crime if research on a religion or a religious sect is disseminated in a lecture, an 

essay, or a scholarly book in a calm and balanced way that is free of statements that incite, 

and the good intentions of the researcher have been proved by his propensity for pure 

scholarly criticism.

59 Translation provided by USCIRF and LOC

60 Article 101 specifies “speech, shouting, writing, drawing, pictures, or any other means of the 

means of expressing an idea.” From https://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/kuwait/kuwait-06.htm 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

6 5

Article 204

Anyone who, in a public place, publicly instigates the practice of immorality or indecency shall 

be punished by imprisonment for a period of not more than three years and a fine of not more 

than 3,000 dinars or by either one of these two penalties. (This paragraph was replaced pursuant to Law No. 106 of 1994 Article 1). The aforementioned penalties shall be imposed on anyone 

who prints or sells or distributes or displays photographs or drawings or models or anything 

else that is indecent. There is no crime if the statements are made or the writing, drawings, or 

photographs are published in a way recognized by science or art as part of the participation in 

scientific or artistic progress.

LEBANON

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution61

Article 9

Freedom of conscience is absolute. In assuming the obligations of glorifying God, the Most High, 

the State respects all religions and creeds and safeguards the freedom of exercising the religious 

rites under its protection, without disturbing the public order. It also guarantees the respect of the 

system of personal status and religious interests of the people, regardless of their different creeds.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal code62

Article 473 Profaning the name of God

Anyone who profanes the name of God publicly shall be punished by imprisonment from one 

month to one year.

Article 474 Disparaging religious ceremonies

The text of Article 474 was abrogated pursuant to Law 1/12/1954 and was replaced by the following text:

61 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Lebanon_2004?lang=en 

62 Official USCIRF and LOC translations
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

6 6

Anyone who, by means of the ways specified in Article 20963, dares to publicly disparage religious 

ceremonies that are practiced or foments disdain for any of those religious ceremonies shall be 

punished by imprisonment from six months to three years.

LIBYA

The Constitutional Declaration64

Article 1

Libya is an independent Democratic State wherein the people are the source of powers. The city of 

Tripoli shall be the capital of the State. Islam is the Religion of the State and the principal source 

of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Shari’a). The State shall guarantee for non-Muslims the 

freedom of practicing religious rituals. Arabic is its official language. The State shall guarantee 

the cultural rights for all components of the Libyan society and its languages shall be deemed 

national ones.

Penal Code

Article 29165

Whoever publically attacks the Mohammedan religion which is the official religion of the State 

in accordance with the Constitution of the United Kingdom of Libya, or who blasphemes against 

God, Mohammed or the prophets shall be punished by a penalty of detention for a period not 

exceeding 1 year or of a fine not exceeding LD 50

63 “Article 209 – The following are considered means of publicity:

1. ...

2. talking or shouting whether made by people or transformed through mechanical machines in 

such a way as to be heard, in both cases, by those who have nothing to do with the act. 

3. Writings, drawings, pictures made by hand, photographs, films, symbols, and all kinds of 

illustrations, if displayed in public places, or open places, or sold, or offered to be sold, or distributed to 

one person or more.” Source: “Law and Population in Lebanon,” by George M. Dib, Law and Population 

Monograph Series Number 29 (1975), Law and Population Programme, The Fletcher School of Law and 

Diplomacy, Administered with the Cooperation of Harvard University. Available online at: http://pdf.

usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNAAF173.pdf

64 The Constitutional Declaration, available at: http://corpus.learningpartnership.org/constitution-of-libya-1-general-provisions (last visited October 9, 2013).

65 The Penal Code, available at: http://ia600704.us.archive.org/25/items/LibyanPenalCodeenglish/LibyanPenalCode.pdf (last visited October 9, 2013).
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

67

LIECHTENSTEIN

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution66

Article 37

(4) The Roman Catholic Church is the State Church and as such enjoys the full protection of 

the State; other confessions shall be entitled to practice their creeds and to hold religious 

services to the extent consistent with morality and public order.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code67

Section 188 – Disparaging of religious precepts

Whoever publicly disparages or mocks a person or a thing, respectively, being an object of worship or a dogma, a legally permitted rite, or a legally permitted institution of a church or religious 

society located on the territory in a manner capable of giving rise to justified annoyance is liable 

to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine of up to 360 days’ pay.

MALAYSIA

The religious framework of the state

Constitution68

Article 3 [Religion of the Federation]

Islam is the religion of the Federation but other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony 

in any part of the Federation.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code69

Chapter XV - Offences Relating to Religion

66 Liechtenstein’s Constitution of 1921 with Amendments through 2003, Constitute Project, available online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Liechtenstein_2003.pdf

67 Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society,” Science and technique of 

democracy No. 47, Venice Commission, available online at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2010)047-e

68 Federal Constitution of Malaysia, Aug. 27, 1957, available at http://www.agc.gov.my/images/

Personalisation/Buss/pdf/Federal%20Consti%20%28BI%20text%29.pdf (last visited April 18, 2013)

69 http://www.agc.gov.my/Akta/Vol.%2012/Act%20574.pdf 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

6 8

295 [Injuring or defiling place of worship, with Intent to insult the religion of any class]

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class 

of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the 

knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction damage or defilement 

as an insult to their religion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 

which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

296 [Disturbing a religious assembly]

Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance 

of religious worship or religious ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term 

which may extend to one year or with a fine or with both.

297 [Trespassing on burial places, etc.]

Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion 

of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or 

that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place 

of worship or on any place of sepulture or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites, 

or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or 

causes disturbance to any person assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be 

punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

298 [Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person]

Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any 

word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that 

person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment 

for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

298A [Causing, etc., disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will, or prejudicing etc., the maintenance of harmony or unity, on grounds of religion]

(1) Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representations, or by 

any act, activity or conduct, or by organising, promoting or arranging, or assisting in organising, 

promoting or arranging, any activity, or otherwise in any other manner-

(a) causes, or attempts to cause, or is likely to cause disharmony, disunity, or feelings of enmity, 

hatred or ill-will; or

(b) prejudices, or attempts to prejudice, or is likely to prejudice, the maintenance of harmony or unity, 

on grounds of religion, between persons or groups of persons professing the same or different 

religions, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than two years and not 

more than five years.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

69

MALTA*

*Note: In July 2016, the Maltese Parliament repealed its blasphemy law. Its Parliament approved, in 

third reading stage, amendments to the Criminal Act that repeal the legislation.70 The researchers kept 

Malta’s law in the report, but it is no longer valid as of July 2016.

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution71

Article 2 

(1) The religion of Malta is the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.

(2) The authorities of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church have the duty and the right to teach 

whichprinciples are right and which are wrong.

(3) Religious teaching of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Faith shall be provided in all State schools 

as part of compulsory education.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code72

Title IV

OF CRIMES AGAINST THE RELIGIOUS SENTIMENT

Vilification of the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion.

163. Whosoever by words, gestures, written matter, whether printed or not, or pictures or by 

some other visible means, publicly vilifies the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion which is the 

religion of Malta, or gives offence to the Roman Catholic Apostolic Religion by vilifying those 

who profess such religion or its ministers, or anything which forms the object of, or is consecrated to, or is necessarily destined for Roman Catholic worship, shall, on conviction, be liable 

to imprisonment for a term from one to six months.

Vilification of other cults tolerated by law.

164. Whosoever commits any of the acts referred to in the last preceding article against any 

cult tolerated by law, shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term from one to 

three months.

70 http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/67475/parliament_approves_bill_decriminalising_porn_and_repealing_religious_vilification#.V8bWcmWO6u4

71 Malta’s Constitution of 1964 with Amendments through 2011, Constitute Project, available 

online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Malta_2011.pdf

72 http://legislationline.org/documents/section/criminal-codes
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

70

Title II of the Punishments for Contraventions

342. In respect of the contravention under article 338(bb), where the act consists in uttering 

blasphemous words or expressions, the minimum punishment to be awarded shall in no case 

be less than a fine (ammenda) of eleven euro and sixty-five cents (11.65) and the maximum 

punishment may be imprisonment for a term of three months – saving always the provisions of 

Title IV of Part II of Book First.

MAURITIUS

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal code73

Article 185

Any person who, by word or gesture, commits an outrage on the objects used for religious worship 

in the place devoted to or actually used for such religious worship, or upon any minister of such 

religion whilst officiating as such, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 10,000 rupees, and 

imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

73 http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/mu/mu008en.pdf 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

71

MONTENEGRO

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal code74

Article 370 

Anyone who causes and spreads national, religious or race hatred, divisions or intolerance 

among people, national minorities or ethnic groups living in Montenegro, shall be punished 

by imprisonment for a term of six months to five years.

If an act under Paragraph 1 is done by coercion, maltreatment, endangering of safety, exposure 

to mockery of national, ethnic, or religious symbols, by damaging another person’s goods, or 

by desecration of monuments, memorial-tablets or tombs, the offender shall be punished by 

imprisonment for a term of one to eight years.

Anyone who commits an act referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article by abusing his/her 

position or authority, or if -- as a result of these acts -- riot or violence occurs, or other severe 

consequences for the communal life of people, national minorities or ethnic groups living in 

Montenegro, shall be punished for an act under paragraph 1 of this article by imprisonment of 

one to eight years, and for an act under paragraph 2 by imprisonment of two to ten years. 

74 “Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society” Science and Technique 

of democracy, No. 47. Available online at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD%282010%29047-e
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

72

MOROCCO

The religious framework of the state: 

Constitution75

Article 3

Islam is the religion of the State, which guarantees to all the free exercise of beliefs [cultes]

Penal Code76

Law 1-02-207, 25th of Rajab 1423 (October 3, 200):

Article 41:77

Any offense committed against His Majesty the King, the royal princes and princesses by one 

of the means specified in Article 38 shall be punishable by imprisonment and a fine of 10,000 to 

100,000 dirhams. The same punishment applies when a newspaper or other publication publishes a story that harms the Islamic religion, the monarchic regime or the country’s territorial 

sovereignty. Should there be a conviction under the present article, the journal or publication 

may be suspended by the same judicial decision for a term not to exceed three months. This 

suspension shall not affect the labor contracts that bind the employer, the latter remaining 

bound by all the resulting contractual or legal obligations. In the same decision, the court may 

pronounce the ban of the journal or publication.

75 Morroco’s Constitution of 2011, Constitute Project, available online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Morocco_2011.pdf

76 Morocco, la loi n° 77-00 modifiant et complétant le Dahir n° 1-58-378 du 3 Joumada I 1378 ( 15 

novembre 1958) formant code de la Presse et de l’Édition -2003- ; promulguée par Dahir n° 1-02-207 

du 25 Rejeb 1423 (3 octobre 2002), World Intellectual Property Organization, available online at http://

www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=191181, with automatic translation tool

77 Official translation from USCIRF and LOC
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

73

NIGERIA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code 78

Chapter 19, Offences relating to Religious Worship

Section 204

Any person who does an act which any class of persons consider as a public insult on their religion, with the intention that they should consider the act such an insult, and any person who 

does an unlawful act with the knowledge that any class of persons will consider it such an insult, 

is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

NEW ZEALAND

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Crimes Act 1961 (As Amended 2011)79

[Part 7: Crimes against religion, morality, and public welfare]

Article 123 [Blasphemous libel]

(1) Everyone is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 1 year who publishes any blasphemous libel.

(2) Whether any particular published matter is or is not a blasphemous libel is a question of 

fact.

(3) It is not an offence against this section to express in good faith and in decent language, or 

to attempt to establish by arguments used in good faith and conveyed in decent language, any opinion whatever on any religious subject.

(4) No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without theleave of the Attorney-General, who before giving leave may make such inquiries as he thinks fit.

78 Criminal Code Act (1990) Cap. (77), available at World Intellectual Property Organization, http://

www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=179687 (last visited April 18, 2013).

79 http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM327382.html
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

74

OMAN

The religious framework of the state: 

Constitution80

Article 1

The Sultanate of Oman is an Arab, Islamic, Independent State with full sovereignty and Muscat 

is its Capital.

Article 2

The religion of the State is Islam and Islamic Sharia is the basis for legislation.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or defamation of religion:

Penal Code81

Article 209 [Crimes relating to religion]

1. Concerning violation of the sanctity of religion

Article 209: Anyone who does the following shall be punished by imprisonment from ten days 

to three years or by a fine of five rials to 500 rials:

1. Blasphemes against the divine glory or against the great prophets

2. Publicly or in a publication insults divine religions and religious beliefs with the intent to 

disparage them 

3. Commits an act that disturbs the peace required by law for a gathering to perform religious 

ceremonies

80 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Oman_2011?lang=en 

81 Official translation from USCIRF and LOC
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

75

PAKISTAN

The religious framework of the state: 

Constitution82

Article 1 [The Republic and its territories]

(1) Pakistan shall be [a] Federal Republic to be known as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, hereinafter referred to as Pakistan.

Article 2 [Islam to be State religion]

Islam shall be the State religion of Pakistan.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code83

Chapter XV – Of Offences Relating to Religion

295 [Injuring or defiling place of worship, with Intent to insult the religion of any class]

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class 

of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the 

knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction damage or defilement 

as an insult to their religion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 

which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 

295-A [Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by 

insulting its religion or religious beliefs]

Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the ‘religious feelings of any class 

of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults 

the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 

description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.

295-B [Defiling, etc., of Holy Qur’an]

Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with 

imprisonment for life. 

82 Pakistan Const., available at National Assembly of Pakistan, http://www.na.gov.pk/publications/constitution.pdf (last visited April 27, 2013).

83 Act XLV of 1860 [Penal Code], Oct. 6, 1860 (Pak.), available at http://www.refworld.org/

docid/485231942.html (last visited April 17, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

76

295-C [Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet]

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation or by any imputation, 

innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet 

Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and 

shall also be liable to fine. 

298 [Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings]

Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters 

any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person or makes any gesture in the sight of 

that person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment 

of either description for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. 

298-A [Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of holy personages]

Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, 

innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of any wife (Ummul 

Mumineen), or members of the family (Ahle-bait), of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), or 

any of the righteous Caliphs (Khulafae-Rashideen) or companions (Sahaaba) of the Holy Prophet 

(peace be upon him) shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which 

may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 

298-B [Misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc., reserved for certain holy personages 

or places]

(1) Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by 

any other name who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation- (a) refers 

to or addresses, any person, other than a Caliph or companion of the Holy Prophet Muhammad 

(peace be upon him), as “Ameer-ulMumineen”, “Khalifatul- Mumineen”, Khalifa-tul-Muslimeen”, “Sahaabi” or “Razi Allah Anho”; 

(b) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a wife of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace 

be upon him), as “Ummul-Mumineen”; 

(c) refers to, or addresses, any person, other than a member of the family “Ahle-bait” of the Holy 

Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), as “Ahle-bait”; or 

(d) refers to, or names, or calls, his place of worship a “Masjid”; 

shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three 

years, and shall also be liable to fine. 

(2) Any person of the Qaudiani group or Lahori group (who call themselves “Ahmadis” or by 

any other name) who by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation refers to 

the mode or form of call to prayers followed by his faith as “Azan”, or recites Azan as used by 

the Muslims, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may 

extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine. 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

77

298-C [Person of Quadiani group, etc., calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating 

his faith]

Any person of the Quadiani group or the Lahori group (who call themselves ‘Ahmadis’ or by 

any other name), who directly or indirectly, poses himself as a Muslim, or calls, or refers to, his 

faith as Islam, or preaches or propagates his faith, or invites others to accept his faith, by words, 

either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or in any manner whatsoever outrages 

the religious feelings of Muslims shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for 

a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

The religious framework of the state: 

Constitution84

Preamble

WE, THE PEOPLE OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA— 

• united in one nation 

• pay homage to the memory of our ancestors—the source of our strength and origin of our 

combined heritage 

• acknowledge the worthy customs and traditional wisdoms of our people—which have come 

down to us from generation to generation 

• pledge ourselves to guard and pass on to those who come after us our 

noble traditions and the Christian principles that are ours now. By authority of our inherent right 

as ancient, free and independent peoples 

WE, THE PEOPLE, do now establish this sovereign nation and declare ourselves, under the 

guiding hand of God, to be the Independent State of Papua New Guinea. 

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Customs Act

Article 9785

Goods (other than films) which, whether of their own nature or having regard to any literary or other 

work or matter that is embodied, recorded or reproduced in, or can be reproduced from, them – 

(a) are blasphemous, indecent or obscene; or

84 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=199188#LinkTarget_1808 

85 faolex.fao.org/docs/texts/png51771.doc 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

78

(b) unduly emphasize matters of sex, horror, violence or crime; or

(c) are likely to encourage depravity,

And advertising matters relating to such goods. Subject to compliance with the provisions of the 

Classification of Publication (Censorship) Act 1989.

Classification of Publication (Censorship) Act 198986

2. INTERPRETATION.

(1) In this Act, unless the contrary intention appears–

“objectionable publication” means a publication that–

(a) describes, depicts, expresses or otherwise deals with matters of sex, drug misuse or addiction, crime, cruelty, blasphemy, immorality, violence or revolting or abhorrent phenomena in 

a manner that is likely to be offensive to a reasonable adult person and is undesirable in the 

interest of the public; or

(b) depicts a child (whether engaged in sexual activity or otherwise) who is, or who is apparently, 

under the age of 18 years, in a manner that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult person 

and is undesirable in the interest of the public; or

(c) promotes, incites or encourages terrorism;

70. PUBLISHING OF OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS.

(1) A person who publishes an objectionable publication, other than a prescribed publication, 

is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K5,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

(2) A person who publishes a prescribed publication is guilty of an offence, punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K10,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

71. POSSESSION OF OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS.

(1) A person who has in his possession an objectionable publication, other than a prescribed 

publication, is guilty of an offence punishable:–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K5,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

86 http://www.paclii.org/pg/legis/consol_act/copa1989393/ 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

79

(2) A person who has in his possession a prescribed publication is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K10,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

72. KEEPING OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS AT PREMISES.

(1) The occupier of premises who keeps or permits to be kept at or in the premises an objectionable 

publication, other than a prescribed publication, is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K5,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

(2) The occupier of premises who keeps or permits to be kept at or in those premises a prescribed 

publication is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K10,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

73. PUBLISHING OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS IN A PUBLIC PLACE.

(1) A person who exhibits or displays an objectionable publication, other than a prescribed 

publication, in a public place or in such a manner that it is visible to persons in or on a public 

place is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K5,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

(2) A person who exhibits or displays a prescribed publication in a public place, or in such a 

manner that it is visible to persons in or on a public place, is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K10,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

74. MAKING OBJECTIONABLE PUBLICATIONS.

(1) A person who involves himself in the printing or otherwise in the making of or producing an 

objectionable publication is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K5,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

8 0

(2) A person who involves himself in the printing or otherwise in the making of or producing a 

prescribed publication is guilty of an offence punishable–

(a) in the case of a body corporate–by a fine not exceeding K10,000.00; and

(b) in the case of an individual–by a fine not exceeding K1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding six months, or both.

Summary Offences Act 197787

25A. Possession, etc., of indecent etc., article.88

(1) A person who–

(a) has in his possession; or

(b) makes; or

(c) produces; or

(d) performs in the making or production of; or

(e) exhibits; or

(f) sells,

an article or articles that–

(g) is or are blasphemous or indecent; or

(h) grossly offends or grossly offend against accepted standards of decency,

is guilty of an offence.

Penalty: A fine not exceeding K2,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, 

or both.

(2) It is a defence to a charge of an offence against Subsection (1)(d) that the person charged was 

not aware that he was performing in the making or production of an article or articles.

(3) For the purposes of this section–

“article” means any description of article containing or embodying matter to be read or looked 

at or both, any sound record and any film or other record or a picture or pictures;

“film” means–

(a) a cinematograph film, and includes a positive or negative of a cinematograph film; or

(b) a video tape or video disc.

87 http://www.paclii.org/pg/legis/consol_act/soa1977189/ 

88 Section 25A was added by the Summary Offences (Amendment) Act 1986 (No. 36 of 1986), s3.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

81

PHILIPPINES

Constitution89

PREAMBLE

We, the sovereign Filipino people, imploring the aid of Almighty God, in order to build a just 

and humane society and establish a Government that shall embody our ideals and aspirations, 

promote the common good, conserve and develop our patrimony, and secure to ourselves and 

our posterity the blessings of independence and democracy under the rule of law and a regime 

of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace, do ordain and promulgate this Constitution.

Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. — 

The penalty of arrest mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum 

period shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the 

celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of 

the faithful. 

POLAND

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code 90

Criminal Code—Offences Against Freedom of Conscience and Religion

Article 196 

Anyone found guilty of offending religious feelings through public calumny of an object or place 

of worship is liable to a fine, restriction of liberty or a maximum two-year prison sentence.

89 http://www.gov.ph/constitutions/1987-constitution/

90 European Commission for Democracy Through Law (Venice Commission), Annexe II: Analysis 

of the Domestic Law Concerning Blasphemy, Religious Insults and Inciting Religious Hatred in Albania, 

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Turkey, United 

Kingdom, on the basis of replies to a questionnaire (October 2008), pp72- 81, available at http://www.strasbourgconsortium.org/common/document.view.php?DocumentID=4493 (last visited April 18, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

8 2

QATAR

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution91

Article 1

Qatar is an independent sovereign Arab State. Its religion is Islam and Shari’a law shall be a 

main source of its legislations. Its political system is democratic. The Arabic Language shall be 

its official language. The people of Qatar are a part of the Arab nation.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code92

Article 1 [Introductory Provisions]

Islamic Sharia provisions concerning the following crimes are applicable if the suspect or the 

victim is a Muslim:

(1) The crimes such as theft, adultery, defamation, drinking alcohol and apostasy.

(2) The crimes of retaliation and the blood money. 

Otherwise, the crimes and the punishments are determined due to this law and any other law.

Article 256 [Crimes related to religions and the violability of the dead]

One is convicted to no more than seven years in prison in case of committing any of the following 

deeds:

(1) Insulting the Supreme Being in letter and spirit, in writing, drawing, gesturing or in any 

other way.

(2) Offending, misinterpreting or violating the Holy Koran.

(3) Offending the Islamic religion or one of its rites.

(4) Cursing any of the divine religions according to the regulations of the Islamic law.

(5) Insulting any of the prophets in letter and spirit, in writing, drawing, gesturing or in any 

other way.

(6) Sabotaging, breaking, damaging or violating places or their contents if they are made to perform religious rites for one of the divine religions according to the regulations of the Islamic law.

91 Constitution of Qatar found at: http://portal.www.gov.qa/wps/wcm/connect/5a5512804665e3afa54fb5fd2b4ab27a/Constitution+of+Qatar+EN.pdf?MOD=AJPERES

92 Law No. (II) of 2004 Penal Code found at: http://www.qfiu.gov.qa/files/Law%2011%20for%20

the%20year2004-E.pdf
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

8 3

Article 263

One is convicted to no more than a year and to a fine of no more than a thousand riyals or to one 

of these two penalties in case of producing, selling, exposing for sale or circulation, or possessing 

products, merchandise, prints or tapes including drawings, slogans, words, symbols, signals or 

anything else that might offend the Islamic religion or other divine religions according to the 

regulations of the Islamic law.

The same penalty is imposed on everyone who uses disks, computer programs or magnetized 

tapes to offend Islam or other divine religions according to the regulations of the Islamic law

RWANDA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code93

Article 278: Publicly humiliating a religious worship

Any person who, by acts, speeches, gestures, writing or threats, publicly humiliates rites, symbols or 

objects of religion, either in place intended for or generally used for practice of religion shall be liable 

to a term of imprisonment of at least fifteen (15) days but less than six (6) months and a fine of fifty 

thousand (50,000) to five hundred thousand (500,000) Rwandan francs or one of these penalties.

Article 279: Insults, battery or injury upon a religious leader

Any person who, by acts, speeches, gestures or threats, humiliates a religious leader shall be 

liable to a term of imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years.

If that religious leader is beaten in the exercise of his/her ministry, the offender will be liable 

to a term of imprisonment of two (2) years to five (5) years and a fine of one hundred thousand 

(100,000) to five hundred thousand (500,000) Rwandan francs.

If the battery results in bleeding, bodily injuries or illness, the offender shall be liable to a term 

of imprisonment of two (2) years to five (5) years and fine of one hundred thousand (100,000) to 

one million (1,000,000) Rwandan francs. 

93 http://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/rwa/1999/penal-code-of-rwanda_html/Penal_Code_

of_Rwanda.pdf 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

8 4

RUSSIA

Federal Law on freedom of conscience and religious associations

26 September 1997, as amended in 200294

Article 3

6. Prevention of exercise of rights to freedom of conscience and faith, including that associated 

with violence against the person, the intentional hurting of feelings of citizens in connection 

with their attitude to religion, propaganda of religious supremacy, the destruction of or damage 

to property or a threat of committing such actions shall be prohibited and prosecuted in accordance with the Federal Law. Conducting public events or putting up texts and images that may 

hurt the religious feelings of citizens close to projects of religious worship shall be prohibited.

Article 148

Illegal obstruction of the activity of religious organisations or of the performance of religious rites –

Shall be punishable with a fine in an amount of up to 80 thousand [AMOUNT], or in the amount 

of the wage or salary, or any other income of the convicted person for the period of up to six 

months, or by compulsory works for a term of up to 360 hours, compulsory works for a term of 

up to one year, or arrest for a term of up to three months.

Federal Law No. 136-FZ dated 29 June 2013 of the Russian Federation Moscow95

“On amendments to article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation and some legislative instruments of the Russian Federation to counter offence against the religious beliefs 

and feelings of citizens”

Adopted by the State Duma on June 11, 2013

Approved by the Council of the Federation on June 26, 2013

Article 1

Article 148 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (Collected Legislation of the Russian 

Federation, 1996, No. 25, art. 2954; 2003, No. 50, art. 4848; 2010, No. 19, art. 2289; 2011, No. 50, 

art. 7362) shall be hereby revised to read as follows:

“Article 148. Infringement of the right to freedom of conscience and religion

1. Public actions expressing overt disrespect for society and committed for the purpose of 

offending the religious feelings of believers, -

shall be punishable by a fine of up to three hundred thousand rubles or the amount of the earned 

or other income of the convicted offender for a period of up to two years, or mandatory community 

94 “Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society,” Science and technique 

of democracy, No. 47, Venice Commission (Council of Europe Publishing, March 2010): pp. 206-208. 

Available online at: http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2010)047-e

95 Official translation by USCIRF and LOC
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

8 5

service of up to two hundred and forty hours, or compulsory labor for up to one year, or incarceration for the same period of time.

2. Criminal acts covered by part one hereof which are committed in places specially designated 

for worship and other religious observances and ceremonies, -

shall be punishable by a fine of up to five hundred thousand rubles or the amount of the earned 

or other income of the convicted offender for a period of up to three years, or mandatory community service of up to four hundred and eighty hours, or compulsory labor for up to three years, or 

incarceration for the same period of time with or without restriction of freedom for up to one year.

3. Unlawful obstruction of the activity of religious organizations or the conduct of worship or 

other religious observances and ceremonies -

shall be punishable by a fine of up to three hundred thousand rubles or the amount of earned 

or other income of the convicted offender for a period of up to two years, or mandatory community service of up to three hundred and sixty hours, or remedial labor for up to one year, or 

confinement for up to three months.

4. Criminal acts covered by part three hereof committed:

a) by a person using their official position;

b) with the use or threat of force, -

shall be punishable by a fine of up to two hundred thousand rubles or the amount of the earned 

or other income of the convicted offender for a period of up to one year, or mandatory community 

service for up to four hundred and eighty hours, or remedial labor for up to two years, or compulsory labor for up to one year, or incarceration for the same period of time with disqualification 

from holding certain positions or engaging in certain activities for up to two years.”.

Article 2

Make the following amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation 

(Collected Legislation of the Russian Federation, 2002, No. 1, art. 1; No. 44, art. 4295; 2003, No. 46, 

art. 4434; N 50, art. 4847; 2004, No. 34, art. 3533; No. 44, art. 4266; 2005, No. 1, art. 13,40; No. 30, art. 

3131; No. 52, art. 5574; 2006, No. 1, art. 4; No. 2, art. 172; No. 6, art. 636; No. 19, art. 2066; No. 45, art. 

4641; No. 50, art. 5281; No. 52, art. 5498; 2007, No. 16, art. 1825; No. 26, art. 3089; 2008, No. 20, art. 

2259; No. 52, art. 6235, 6236; 2009, No. 29, art. 3597; 2010, No. 19, art. 2291; No. 31, art. 4193; 2011, 

No. 1, art. 23; No. 19, art. 2714; No. 47, art. 6602; No. 50, art. 7362; 2012, No. 24, art. 3082; No. 31, art. 

4320; No. 47, art. 6403, 6404, 6405; No. 53, art. 7602; 2013, .No. 14, art. 1666; No. 19, art. 2323):

1) in paragraph one of part 1 of article 3.5, replace the words “article 14.12” with the words “articles 5.26 and 14.12”; replace the words “covered by part 2 of article 6.21” with the words “covered 

by article 5 .26 and part 2 of article 6.21”;

2) revise article 5.26 to read as follows:
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

8 6

“Article 5.26. Violation of the law on freedom of conscience and freedom of religion and on 

religious associations

1. Obstruction of the exercise of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, 

including acceptance or rejection of religious or other convictions, or of entry into or withdrawal 

from a religious association, -

shall incur an administrative fine on citizens of ten thousand to thirty thousand rubles; and on 

officials from fifteen thousand to one hundred thousand rubles.

2. Intentional public desecration, damage or destruction of religious or liturgical literature, items 

of religious worship, signs or emblems of belief symbolism and attributesshall incur an administrative fine on citizens of thirty thousand to fifty thousand rubles or 

mandatory community service of up to one hundred and twenty hours; and on officials from 

one hundred thousand to two hundred thousand rubles.”.

Article 3

In paragraph two of item 1 of article 1 of Federal Law No. 96-FZ dated 7 May 2013 “On Amendments to the Code of Administrative Offences of the Russian Federation” (Collected Legislation 

of the Russian Federation, 2013, No. 19, art. 2323), replace the words “article 14.12” with the words 

“articles 5.26 and 14.12”, and replace the words “covered by part 2 of article 6.21” with the words 

“covered by article 5.26 and part 2 of article 6.21”.

Article 4

This Federal Law shall enter into force on 1 July 2013.

President of the Russian Federation V. Putin

SAN MARINO

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code96

Article 260 – Religious insult

Whoever desecrates the symbols or the objects of cult or worship of a religion which is not contrary to morals or publicly mocks the acts of a cult is liable to first-degree imprisonment. 

The same penalty is applicable to attacks on the honour or prestige of a priest in or due to the 

exercise of his functions. Whoever desecrates the sacred relics of San Marino is liable to second 

term imprisonment.

96 Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society,” Science and technique of 

democracy No. 47, Venice Commission, available online at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2010)047-e
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

87

SAUDI ARABIA

“Saudi Arabia does not have a written penal code, but relies on judges’ interpretations of the Sharia 

for determination of which actions constitute crimes and what the attendant punishment should 

be. The definitions of crimes and nature and severity of punishments may vary from case to case.”97

“Saudi law divides punishments for criminal acts into three broad categories: (1) offenses against 

God carrying inalterable punishments prescribed by the Quran (hadd); (2) private rights to 

retribution connected with a criminal act (qisas); and (3) discretionary punishments (ta’zir) for 

all other criminal offenses.”98

Apostasy (riddah) is a hadd crime and is punishable by death. Blasphemy against Salafism or 

the Saudi monarchy is also punishable by death, but the more common penalties are prison 

sentences, fines, and lashing.99 “There have been no confirmed reports of executions for either 

apostasy or blasphemy in recent years.”100

The Commission to Promote Virtue and Prevent Vice (CPVPV), or Mutaween, is the Saudi government’s religious police, tasked with enforcing public morality based on the Saudi government’s 

interpretation of Islamic law. The CPVPV consists of approximately 5,000 field officers, approximately 2,000 administrative workers and more than 3,500 offices throughout the country. In 

more recent years, the Saudi government have curtailed the powers of the CPVPV; for example, 

they are no longer allowed to engage in surveillance, detain individuals for more than 24 hours, 

arrest individuals without police accompaniment, and carry out any kind of punishment.101

Basic Law of Government

Chapter 1 General Principles

Article 1 [Official state religion]

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a sovereign Arab Islamic state with Islam as its religion; God’s 

Book and the Sunnah of His Prophet, God’s prayers and peace be upon him, are its constitution, 

Arabic is its language and Riyadh is its capital.

Article 11

Saudi society will be based on the principle of adherence to God’s command, on mutual cooperation in good deeds and piety and mutual support and inseparability.

97 http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/saudijustice0308_1.pdf

98 Id.

99 http://berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/resources/essays/national-laws-on-blasphemy-saudi-arabia

100 2011 Report on International Religious Freedom, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2011/

nea/192905.htm

101 USCIRF 2013 Report on Saudi Arabia, pp. 141-142. Accessed September 25, 2013. Available 

online at http://www.uscirf.gov/images/2013%20USCIRF%20Annual%20Report%20(2).pdf
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

8 8

Article 48

The courts will apply the rules of the Islamic Shari’ah in the cases that are brought before them, 

in accordance with what is indicated in the Book and the Sunnah, and statutes decreed by the 

Ruler which do not contradict the Book or the Sunnah.

External Printed Matters

Article 18

External printed matters shall be approved if free from anything insulting to Islam or the system 

of Government or injurious to high interests of the state or scarify public morality and conflict 

with ethical standards.

SINGAPORE

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code [Offences Relating to Religion or Race]102

Article 298 [Uttering words, et c., with deliberate intent to wound the religious or racial feelings of any person]

Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, 

utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the 

sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however 

represented to be seen or heard by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term 

which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

102 http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=3864d97d-2a0c-4e90-9edc2d0760121cfb;page=0;query=CompId%3Ae40d5913-c2dc-4284-bf68-eb315c55c8fa;rec=0#P4XV_295-.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

89

SOMALIA

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution103

Article 2 State and Religion

(1)Islam is the religion of the State.

(2)No religion other than Islam can be propagated in the country.

(3)No law which is not compliant with the general principles of Shari’ah can be enacted

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code104

Part IV, Chapter 1 

Article 313 [Bringing the Religion of the State into contempt]

1. Whoever publicly brings the religion of Islam [1 Const.] into contempt shall be punished 

with imprisonment [96 P.C.] up to two years.

2. Whoever publicly insults the religion of Islam [1 Const.] by bringing into contempt persons 

professing it or places or objects dedicated to worship, shall be liable to the same punishment.

103 Somalia’s Constitution of 2012, Constitute Project, available online at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Somalia_2012.pdf

104 http://www.refworld.org/docid/4bc5906e2.html
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

9 0

SOUTH SUDAN

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution105

Preamble

We, the People of South Sudan,

Grateful to the Almighty God for giving the people of South Sudan the wisdom and courage 

to determine their destiny and future through a free, transparent and peaceful referendum in 

accordance with the provisions of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement, 2005;

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code106

CHAPTER XV—OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

201. [Insulting or Inciting Contempt of Religious Creed.]

Whoever by any means publicly insults or seeks to incite contempt of any religion in such a 

manner as to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace, commits an offence, and upon conviction, 

shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term exceeding three years or with a fine or with both.

203. [Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship with Intent to Insult the Religion of any Class.]

Whoever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship or any object held sacred by any 

class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons is 

likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, commits 

an offence, and upon conviction, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 

three years or with a fine or with both.

105 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/South_Sudan_2013?lang=en 

106 Penal Code of South Sudan. 2008, available at http://www.goss-online.org/magnoliaPublic/en/

Laws--Legislation--Policies/mainColumnParagraphs/0/content_files/file12/15.pdf (last visited April 

28, 2013).
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

91

SPAIN

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution107

No religion shall have a state character. The public authorities shall take into account the 

religious beliefs of Spanish society and shall consequently maintain appropriate cooperation 

relations with the Catholic Church and other confessions.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code108

Article 525

1. Whoever, in order to offend the feelings of the members of a religious confession, publicly 

disparages their dogmas, beliefs, rites or ceremonies in public, verbally or in writing, or insult, 

also publicly, those who profess or practice these, shall incur the punishment of a fine from eight 

to twelve months. 

2. The same penalties shall be incurred by those who publicly disparage, verbally or in writing, 

those who do not profess any religion or belief whatsoever.

SRI LANKA

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution109

9. [Buddhism]

The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly it shall be 

the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana, while assuring to all religions the 

rights granted by Article 10 and 14(1)(e).

107 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Spain_2011.pdf 

108 Spanish Criminal Code, official government translation by Ministerio de Justicia – Secretaria General Técnica, published 2013. Text available for download as PDF file: http://www.

mjusticia.gob.es/cs/Satellite/MJusticia/1292417756327?blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=attachment%3B+filename%3DCriminal_

Code_(C%C3%B3digo_Penal).PDF

109 Commonwealth Legal Information Institute, Sri Lankan Constitution, available at http://www.

commonlii.org/lk/legis/const/2000/3.html (last visited September 30, 2013).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

9 2

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code110

Chapter XV [Offences Relating to Religion]

Article 290 

Whoever destroys, damages, or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any 

class of persons, with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or 

with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or 

defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Article 290A

Whoever does any act, in or upon, or in the vicinity of, any place of worship or any object which 

is held sacred or in veneration by any class of persons, with the intention of wounding the religious feelings of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to 

consider such an act an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either 

description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Article 291A 

Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters 

any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of 

that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment 

of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Article 291B 

Whoever, with the deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any 

class of persons, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults or 

attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

110 An Ordinance to Provide a General Penal Code for Ceylon [Penal Code], available at http://

www.commonlii.org/lk/legis/consol_act/pc25130.pdf (last visited April 29, 2013).
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

93

ST. LUCIA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal code111 

Article 318 [Conditional privilege on publication in good faith]

A publication of defamatory matter is privileged, on condition that it is published in good 

faith, and in any of the following cases —

(g) if the matter published is in fact a fair report of anything said, done, or shown in a civil 

or criminal inquiry or proceeding before any Court, unless the Court prohibits the publication of anything said or shown before it, on the ground that it is seditious, immoral, 

or blasphemous;

Article 326 Plea of justification of libel

(1) Where a person accused of publishing defamatory matter pleads that the defamatory 

matter published by him or her was true, and that it was for the public benefit that the 

matter should be published in the manner in which and at the time when it was published, 

such plea may justify the defamatory matter in the sense specified, if any, in the count, or 

in the sense which the defamatory matter bears without any such specific justification, or 

separate pleas justifying the defamatory matter in each sense may be pleaded separately, 

as if two libels had been charged in separate counts.

(6) No plea of justification shall be pleaded to any indictment or count of a charge of seditious, 

blasphemous or obscene libel.

111 http://www.rslpf.com/site/criminal%20code%202004.pdf
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

94

ST. VINCENT AND GRENADINES

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution112

Preamble

WHEREAS the Peoples of the Island of Saint Vincent, who are known as Vincentiansa. have affirmed that the Nation is founded on the belief in the supremacy of God and the 

freedom and dignity of man; 

b. desire that their society be so ordered as to express their recognition of the principles of 

democracy, free institutions, social justice and equality before the law; 

c. realize that the maintenance of human dignity presupposes safeguarding the rights of 

privacy of family life, of property and the fostering of the pursuit of just economic rewards 

for labor; 

4. desire that their Constitution should enshrine the above mentioned freedoms, principles 

and ideals; 

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal code113

Article 117

Any person who destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object which is held 

sacred by any group or class of persons, with the intention thereby of insulting the religion of 

those persons, or with the knowledge that any group or class of person is likely to consider such 

destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, is guilty of an offence and liable 

to imprisonment for five years.

Article 119

Any person who with the intention of wounding the religious feeling of any other person, writes 

any word, or utters any word or makes any gesture or sound in the sight or hearing of any other 

person, or places any object in the sight of any other person, is guilty of an offence and liable to 

imprisonment for two years. 

112 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/St_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines_1979

113 http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/mesicic3_svg_criminal.pdf 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

95

SUDAN

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution114

Article 5. Sources of Legislation

1. Nationally enacted legislation having effect only in respect of the Northern states of the Sudan 

shall have as its sources of legislation Islamic Sharia and the consensus of the people.

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code115

The Criminal Act of 1991

PART XIII [Offenses Relating to Religions]

Article 125 [Insulting Religious Creeds]

Whoever by any means publicly abuses or insults any religion, their rights or beliefs or sanctifications or seeks to excite feelings of contempt and disrespect against the believers thereof, 

shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or with a fine or with 

whipping which may not exceed 40 lashes. 

SURINAME

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal code116

Article 196 

A prison sentence not exceeding one year and a fine of the third category, or either one of these 

punishments, shall apply to: 

1. the person who publicly in speech or in writing or through image or data from automated 

works utters mocking blasphemy that is offensive to one’s religious feelings; 

2. the person who mocks a religious minister in the lawful performance of his service; 

3. the person who taunts objects devoted to a worship service, where and when the practice of 

that service is lawful. 

114 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Sudan_2005?lang=en

115 Sudan: The Criminal Act 1991, Arab Law Quarterly, Vol 9, No. 1 (1994), pp. 32-80, http://www.

jstor.org/stable/3381514 (last visited April 18, 2013).

116 https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/Suriname/SUR_Bill_Crim_CodeII_EN.pdf 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

96

Article 197 

1. The person who distributes, openly exhibits or affixes writings or images or data from automated works containing expressions that, as mocking blasphemy, may be offensive to one’s 

religious feelings, or has these in his possession for the distribution, open exhibition or initiation 

thereof, if he knows or has serious reason to suspect that these writings or images contain such 

an expression, he shall be punished with a prison sentence not exceeding six months and a fine 

of the third category, or either one of these punishments. 

2. The same punishment shall apply to the person who, with equal knowledge or equal reason 

to suspect, publicly renders the content of such writings or data from automated works. 

3. In passing sentence on one of the crimes described in this Article, the deprivation of the rights 

mentioned in Article 46 paragraph 1 sections 1° and 2° may be pronounced. 

SYRIA

Constitution117

Article 3

The religion of the President of the Republic is Islam; Islamic jurisprudence shall be a major 

source of legislation; The State shall respect all religions, and ensure the freedom to perform all 

the rituals that do not prejudice public order; The personal status of religious communities shall 

be protected and respected.

Penal Code118

Article 208

Public venues are considered: 

(1) Activities and movements if they occur in a public place or in an area available to the public 

or an exhibition for viewing or which are seen because a person who had nothing to do with 

them saw them by mistake.

(2) Talking or shouting, whether publicly or transmitted mechanically, so that in both cases 

they are actually heard by those who have nothing to do with them. 

(3) Writing, drawings, paintings, photographs, films, symbols, and illustrations of various kinds 

if they are exhibited in a public place or in an area available to the public or an exhibit for 

viewing, or if they are sold or displayed for sale or are distributed to one or more people.

117 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Syria_2012 

118 USCIRF and LOC translations
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

9 7

Article 462

Anyone who engages in one of the ways specified in Article 208 to disparage the religious rituals 

that are practiced publicly or who incites to showing contempt for these rituals shall be punished 

by imprisonment from two months to two years.

Article 463

The following shall be punished by imprisonment of one month to one year:

A. Anyone who causes a disturbance during the performance of a religious ritual, celebration, 

or ceremony, or who obstructs them by violence or threats.

B. Anyone who destroys, smashes, defaces, desecrates, or defiles a building dedicated to worship, a slogan, or anything else that is venerated by the members of a religion or a group of 

people.

C. Violation of the sanctity of the dead or crimes that violate the orderliness of their burial.

Article 464

Anyone who creates a disturbance at funeral ceremonies or celebrations of the dead or who 

obstructs them with violence or threats shall be punished by imprisonment of two months to 

one year.

SWITZERLAND

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code119

Title Twelve [Felonies and Misdemeanours against Public Order]

Article 261

Any person who publically and maliciously insults or mocks the religious conventions of others, 

and in particularly their belief in God, or maliciously desecrates objects of religious veneration, 

is liable to a monetary penalty not exceeding 180 daily penalty units.

119 http://www.admin.ch/ch/e/rs/3/311.0.en.pdf
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

9 8

TANZANIA

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Penal Code120

CHAPTER XIV: OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION

Penal Code [CHAPTER XIV: OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION]121

125. Any person who destroys, damages or defiles any place of insult to worship or any object 

which is held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of 

any class of any class persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider 

such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

127. Every person who with the intention of wounding the Trespassing feelings of any person or 

of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the-feelings of any person are 

likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits 

any trespass in any place of worship or. in any place of sepulture or in any place set apart for the 

performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity 

to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the purpose of funeral 

ceremonies, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

129. Any person who, with the deliberate intention of wound- uttering the religious feelings of 

any person, utters any word, or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any 

gesture in the i0 wound right of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, is 

guilty of a misdemeanor, and is liable to imprisonment for one year.

120 “Tanzania Penal Code.” Http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TZA_penal_code.pdf . N.p., n.d. Web. 

121 “Tanzania Penal Code.” Http://www.un.org/depts/los/LEGISLATIONANDTREATIES/PDFFILES/TZA_penal_code.pdf . N.p., n.d. Web.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

9 9

THAILAND

Constitution122

Section 79

The State shall patronize and protect Buddhism, which is the religion the majority of

Thai people have practiced for long time, and other religions, promote good

understanding and harmony among followers of all religions, as well as encourage

the application of religious principles to create virtue and develop the quality of life.

Criminal code123

Section 206 

Whoever, to do, by any means whatever, to the object or place of religious worship of any group 

of persons in the manner likely to insult such religion, shall be imprisoned as from two years to 

seven years or fined as from two thousand Baht to fourteen thousand Baht, or both.

THE SANGHA ACT124

B.E. 2505 [1962]

BHUMIBOL ADULYADEJ REX.;

Given on the 25th Day of December B.E. 2505;

Being the 17th Year of the Present Reign.

His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej is graciously pleased to proclaim that:

Whereas it is expedient to amend the Sangha Act;

Be it, therefore, enacted by the King, by and with the advice and consent of the Constituent 

Assembly, acting in the capacity of the Parliament, as follows:

Section 1.This Act shall be called the “Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 [1962]”.

Section 2i. This Act shall come into force on and from the day following the date of its publication 

in the Government Gazette.

Section 3. The Sangha Act, B.E. 2484 [1941] shall be repealed.

Section 4. Within one year from the date in which this Act comes into force; Ministerial Regulations, Ecclesiastical Commands, Ecclesiastical Decrees, organizational regulations, the 

commands of the Supreme Patriarch, and Sangha regulations and procedures that are enforced 

as of the date of this Act’s publication in the Government Gazette shall continue to be enforced as 

122 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Thailand_2007.pdf 

123 https://www.unodc.org/tldb/pdf/Thailand/THA_Pena_CodeEN.pdf 

124 Official translation from USCIRF and LOC
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

100

long as they are not contradictory to or inconsistent with this Act until they are repealed, stated 

the same or contradictorily, or otherwise, by any Ministerial Regulations, rules of the Sangha 

Supreme Council, the commands of the Supreme Patriarch, and the Sangha Supreme Council 

regulations and procedures.

Section 5. For the purpose of Section 4, the authorities prescribed in Ecclesiastical Commands, 

Ecclesiastical Decrees, organizational regulations, the commands of the Supreme Patriarch, 

and Sangha regulations and procedures shall belong to a Buddhist monk of any rank or any 

Sangha committees that are not stated in this Act. The Sangha Supreme Council shall have the 

power through its decree to designate authorities to a Buddhist monk of any rank, whether one 

or several monks as a group, according to the Sangha Supreme Council’s discretion.

Section 5 bisii. In this Act:

“Sangha” means a community of Buddhist monks who have been ordained by Preceptors in 

accordance with this Act or the Laws that were in effect prior to this Act, and carry out religious 

activities in or outside of the Kingdom.

“other Sangha” means a community of Chinese Nikaya or Anam Nikaya monks.

“Phra Rajagana” means a monk who has been appointed and established through the lines of 

ecclesiastical honorific rank, from higher ecclesiastical Rajagana title in ordinary to Somdet 

Phra Rajagana.

“Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the highest seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific rank” 

means Somdet Phra Rajagana who has been bestowed before other Somdet Phra Rajaganas. If 

several appointments are made on the same day, it shall mean Somdet Phra Rajagana who is 

bestowed in a prior order.

Section 5 teriii. His Majesty the King has the absolute right to appoint or dismiss the ecclesiastical 

honorific rank of monks in the Sangha.

Section 6. The Prime Minister* shall be in charge of this Act and shall be authorized to issue the 

Ministerial Regulations so as to implement this Act.

The Ministerial Regulations which have been proclaimed in the Government Gazette shall be 

enforceable.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

101

CHAPTER 1

THE SUPREME PATRIARCH

Section 7iv. His Majesty the King shall appoint one Supreme Patriarch.

In the event that the position of Supreme Patriarch is vacant, the Prime minister, with the 

approval of the Sangha Supreme Council, shall nominate Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the 

highest seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific rank as the Supreme Patriarch’s successor 

to His Majesty the King. 

In the event that Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the highest seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific rank is unable to fulfill such duties, the Prime minister, with the approval of the 

Sangha Supreme Council, shall nominate other Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the next highest 

seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific rank, and is able to fulfill such duties, as the Supreme 

Patriarch’s successor to His Majesty the King.

Section 8. The Supreme Patriarch shall take the position of Sakonlamahasangkhaparinayok 

[Head of all members of the Sangha], command the Sangha, and issue the Supreme Patriarch’s 

commands that are not contradictory to or inconsistent with the law, the Doctrine and Discipline, and rules of the Sangha Supreme Council.

Section 9v. In the event of the Supreme Patriarch’s resignation, or His Majesty the King officially 

endorses the Supreme Patriarch’s termination, His Majesty may appoint him advisor to the 

Supreme Patriarch or any other position at His Majesty’s royal command.

Section 10vi. When there is no Supreme Patriarch, Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the highest 

seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific rank shall act as the Supreme Patriarch.

If Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the highest seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific rank 

is unable to fulfill such duties, the remaining Sangha Supreme Council committee shall select 

Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the next highest seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific 

rank, and is able to fulfill such duties, to act as the Supreme Patriarch.

When the Supreme Patriarch is not in the Kingdom or is unable to fulfill his duties, the Supreme 

Patriarch shall appoint any Somdet Phra Rajagana to act on his behalf.

In the event that the Supreme Patriarch does not appoint anyone to act on his behalf according to 

the third paragraph, or if Somdet Phra Rajagana who is appointed to act on behalf of the Supreme 

Patriarch is unable to fulfill the Supreme Patriarch’s duties, the first and second paragraphs shall 

be enforced mutatus mutandis.

In regard to the appointment of the person acting as Supreme Patriarch pursuant to this Section: 

If the Supreme Patriarch deems it appropriate when the event in the third paragraph occurs, 

or if the remaining Sangha Supreme Council committee deems it appropriate when the events 

in the first, second or fourth paragraph occur, several Somdet Phra Rajaganas who are able 

to fulfill such duties may be chosen as the committee for the Supreme Patriarch in lieu of the 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

102

acting person in the first paragraph, or in lieu of the actions under the second, third or fourth 

paragraphs, as the case may be. An assistant or advisor for the performance of said duties are 

allowed. The course of action of the committee for the Supreme Patriarch shall be determined 

by the committee for the Supreme Patriarch.vii 

After a person or a committee for the Supreme Patriarch has been appointed or chosen according 

to this Section, the Prime Minister shall respectfully inform His Majesty the King.viii

Section 11. The Supreme Patriarch shall be relieved from the position for the following reasons:

Death;

Dismissed from monkhood;

Resignation; and

Terminated by His Majesty the King. 

CHAPTER 2

THE SANGHA SUPREME COUNCIL

Section 12ix. The Sangha Supreme Council consists of the Supreme Patriarch who serves as head 

ex officio of the Sangha Supreme Council, all Somdet Phra Rajaganas who serve as the committee 

ex officio of the Sangha Supreme Council, and up to twelve Phra Rajaganas who are appointed 

committee by the Supreme Patriarch. 

Section 13. Director of the National Office of Buddhism* shall serve as secretary ex officio of the 

Sangha Supreme Council, and the National Office of Buddhism* shall serve as the Office of the 

Secretary of the Sangha Supreme Council.

Section 14. The committee of the Sangha Supreme Council who is appointed by the Supreme 

Patriarch shall have a two-year term, and can be reappointed.

Section 15. Along with staying through the end of his term according to Section 14, a committee 

member of the Sangha Supreme Council who is appointed by the Supreme Patriarch shall be 

relieved from the position for the following reasons:

Death;

Dismissed from monkhood;

Resignation; and

Terminated by the Supreme Patriarch.

In the event that a committee member of the Sangha Supreme Council is relieved from the 

position before the end of his term, the Supreme Patriarch may appoint any Phra Rajaganas as 

a committee member replacement.

The committee member who is appointed in accordance with the previous paragraph shall 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

103

assume the tenure of the person being replaced.

Section 15 bisx. The Prime Minister* shall endorse the command of the Supreme Patriarch 

regarding the appointment of the committee of the Sangha Supreme Council pursuant to Section 

12, and the dismissal of the committee of the Sangha Supreme Council pursuant to Section 15.

Section 15 terxi. The Sangha Supreme Council has the following authorities and duties:

(1) To orderly govern the Sangha;

(2) To govern and set up novice ordination;

(3) To control and encourage religious education, welfare education, propagation, public assistance and public welfare for the Sangha;

(4) To conduct the principle of the Doctrine and Discipline of Buddhism; and

(5) To perform other duties as prescribed in this Act or other laws.

For this purpose, the Sangha Supreme Council shall have the authorities to enact rules of the 

Sangha Supreme Council, issue regulations, set procedures, issue orders, come to resolutions or 

issue notifications that are not contradictory to or inconsistent with the law or the Doctrine and 

Discipline for enforcement, or may allow any monks or committees or sub-committees in accordance with Section 19 to exercise the authorities and duties as prescribed in the first paragraph.

Section 15 quarterxii. In order to maintain the principle of the Doctrine and Discipline as well 

as the order of the Sangha, the Sangha Supreme Council may enact the rule of the Sangha 

Supreme Council in order to stipulate the penalty or the way of administrative punishment for 

monks and novices whose behavior causes the detriment to Buddhism and the monastic order 

administration.

Monks and novices who have been punished in accordance with Section 1 to leave their monkhood must leave the monkhood within three days from the date they have acknowledged their 

punishment.

Section 16xiii. In the event that the head of the Sangha Supreme Council is unable to attend or is 

absent at a Sangha Supreme Council meeting and has not appointed any Somdet Phra Rajaganas 

to act on his behalf, Somdet Phra Rajagana who has the highest seniority within the ecclesiastical honorific rank who is present at the meeting shall act on behalf of the head of the Sangha 

Supreme Council. 

Section 17. A quorum in a Sangha Supreme Council meeting must comprise of no less than half 

of both ex officio and appointed committee members.

The Sangha Supreme Council meeting agenda shall be in accordance with the Sangha Supreme 

Council’s rules.

Section 18xiv. In the event that a committee member of the Sangha Supreme Council has not 

been appointed to fill the vacancy as a result of Section 15, second paragraph, the remaining 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

104

committee members are deemed to be the total amount of Sangha Supreme Council committee 

members at the time.

Section 19xv. The Supreme Patriarch shall appoint committees or sub-committees for different 

affairs according to resolutions of the Sangha Supreme Council, which consists of monks or 

a group of people, whose duty is to filter issues that will be presented to the Sangha Supreme 

Council, and to perform other duties as assigned by the Sangha Supreme Council. They are to 

report directly to the Sangha Supreme Council.

The arrangement of committees or sub-committees for different affairs, the appointments of 

committee or sub-committee members, the dismissal of committee or sub-committee members, 

and meeting agendas shall be in accordance with the Sangha Supreme Council procedures.

CHAPTER 3

THE SANGHA ADMINISTRATION

Section 20xvi. The Sangha must be under the administration of the Sangha Supreme Council.

The Sangha administrative organization shall be as specified in the Sangha Supreme Council’s 

rules.

Section 20 bisxvii. For the benefits of the central and regional administration of the Sangha, a 

Chief Superintendent of the Ecclesiastries shall be appointed to be in charge of a Sangha ecclesiastical jurisdiction. 

The appointment and designation of authorities of Chief Superintendents of the Ecclesiastries 

shall be in accordance with principles and methods prescribed in the Sangha Supreme Council’s rules.

Section 21. The regional administration of the Sangha shall be divided into the following ecclesiastical jurisdictions:

Region;

Province;

District; and 

Sub-district.

Said ecclesiastical jurisdictions and the total number of jurisdictions shall be set by the Sangha 

Supreme Council’s rules.

Section 22. The regional administration of the Sangha shall be governed by monks in the following hierarchy:

The Ecclesiastical Regional Governor;

The Ecclesiastical Provincial Governor;
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

105

The Ecclesiastical District Officer; and

The Ecclesiastical Sub-district Officer.

The Sangha Supreme Council may deem it appropriate to provide the Ecclesiastical Regional 

Deputy Governor, the Ecclesiastical Provincial Deputy Governor, the Ecclesiastical District 

Deputy Officer and the Ecclesiastical Sub-district Deputy to assist the corresponding officials.

Section 23. The appointment or dismissal of preceptors, abbots, deputy abbots, assistant abbots, 

monks who engage in other Sangha administrative positions, and layperson temple affairs managers shall be in accordance with principles and methods prescribed in the Sangha Supreme 

Council’s rules.

CHAPTER 4

PUNISHMENT AND RETIREMENT FROM THE MONKHOOD

Section 24. A monk must be punished if he violates the Doctrine and Discipline, and the punishment that will be inflicted to a monk shall be punishments in accordance with the Doctrine 

and Discipline.

Section 25. Under Section 24, the Sangha Supreme Council has the right to issue the Sangha 

Supreme Council’s rules to prescribe principles and methods of actions in order for the punishment to be accurate, convenient, timely and fair. It is also deemed lawful for the Sangha Supreme 

Council to specify in the Sangha Supreme Council’s rules that the Sangha Supreme Council or 

a chief monk of any ranks shall have the power to inflict punishments on perverse monks who 

violate the Doctrine and Discipline, and to stipulate that any judgments regarding punishments 

shall be final at that particular level.

Section 26. Any perverse monks who violate the Doctrine and Discipline and receive a final 

judgment to be punished by unfrocking, must leave the monkhood within twenty-four hours 

from the time he receives said judgment. 

Section 27xviii. When a monk falls into any one of the following categories:

Receiving judgment according to Section 25 with the punishment of lesser than unfrocking, but 

not accepting said punishment;

Regularly violating the Doctrine and Discipline;

Not belonging to any monastery; and 

Having no monastery as a dwelling,

said monk must leave his monkhood according to principles and methods prescribed in the 

Sangha Supreme Council’s rules.

The monk who receives judgment to leave his monkhood as in the second paragraph, must leave 

his monkhood within three days from the day he receives said judgment.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

106

Section 28. A monk who is declared bankruptcy by a final court order must leave his monkhood 

within three days from the day the case becomes final.

Section 29. For a monk who has been arrested for committing a crime; if an inquiry official 

deems it inappropriate for a temporarily release and the abbot of the monastery to which said 

monk belongs does not take him in custody, or if an inquiry official deems it inappropriate for 

the abbot to take said monk in custody, or if said monk does not belong to any monastery, the 

inquiry official shall have the power to unfrock said monk.

Section 30. If a monk is to be imprisoned, detained or confined according to a judgment or a court 

order, the official who has the authorities to carry out the judgment or court order shall have the 

power to unfrock said monk, and shall report the unfrocking to the court.

CHAPTER 5

MONASTERIES

Section 31xix. There are two types of monasteries as follows:

Monasteries that have received royal consecrated boundaries; and

Monastic residence.

A monastery shall have a status of a juristic person.

An abbot is a monastery’s representative for general affairs.

Section 32. The construction, establishment, merger, move or dissolution of monasteries, and a 

request for royal consecrated boundaries, shall be in accordance with the methods prescribed 

in Ministerial Regulations.

In the event of the dissolution of a monastery, properties of the dissolved monastery shall become 

Buddhist ecclesiastical properties.

Section 32 bisxx. During the time when a deserted monastery without any monk residing has 

not been dissolved, the National Office of Buddhism* shall be in charge of the administration 

and maintenance of said monastery, including monastery compounds, monastery estates, and 

properties of said monastery.

The process of bringing a deserted monastery to a monastery where monks reside and stay in 

during the three months of the rainy season shall be in accordance with principles and methods 

prescribed in Ministerial Regulations.

Section 33. The definitions of the monastery compound and properties that belongs to the monastery are as follows:

(1) “monastery compound” means the land where the monastery is located, including its 

boundaries; 

(2) “monastery estate” means the estate that is the property of the monastery.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

107

(3) “monastic revenue estate” means the estate given by a donor who dedicates it for the benefit 

of a monastery or the Buddhist religion.

Section 34xxi. The transfer of ownership of monastery compounds, monastery estates or Buddhist 

ecclesiastical properties can only be done by an Act, unless the second paragraph applies.

The transfer of ownership of a monastery compound, monastery estate or Buddhist ecclesiastical 

property to a government agency, government enterprise or other government entity, if the Sangha 

Supreme Council does not object and receives payment for expropriation from said government 

agency, government enterprise or government entity, shall be done according to the Royal Decree.

No person shall bring a Statute of Limitations as an argument against a monastery or the National 

Office of Buddhism*, as the case may be, in regard to properties that are monastery compounds, 

monastery estates or Buddhist ecclesiastical properties. 

Section 35xxii. Monastery compounds, monastery estates or Buddhist ecclesiastical properties 

are exempt from the enforcement of judgment.

Section 36. A monastery shall have one abbot. If appropriate, a deputy abbot or an assistant 

abbot is allowed.

Section 37. An abbot shall have the following duties:

(1) Maintain the monastery and manage monastery affairs and ecclesiastical properties to be 

in good order;

(2) Govern and supervise the ordained and layman who are present or reside at the monastery 

to follow the Doctrine and Discipline, the Sangha Supreme Council’s rules, including regulations, procedures and orders of the Sangha Supreme Council;

(3) Take charge of the learning and teaching of the Doctrine and Discipline to the ordained 

and layman; and

(4) Provide proper facilitation for the making of merits.

Section 38. An abbot shall have the following authorities:

(1) Prohibit unauthorized ordained and layman by the abbot to reside at the monastery;

(2) Order the ordained and layman who are disobedient to the abbot to leave the monastery; and

(3) Order the ordained and layman who are present or reside at the monastery to work around 

the monastery. Place the ordained and layman in the monastery on probation or make them 

apologize when they violate the abbot’s orders, provided the orders are issued according 

to the Doctrine and Discipline, the Sangha Supreme Council, regulations, procedures and 

orders of the Sangha Supreme Council.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

108

Section 39. In the event that there is no abbot or the abbot is unable to fulfill his duties, an acting 

abbot shall be appointed. The acting abbot shall have the same authorities and duties as the abbot.

The appointment of the acting abbot shall be according to principles and methods prescribed 

in the Sangha Supreme Council’s rules.

CHAPTER 6

ECCLESIASTICAL PROPERTIES

Section 40. There are two types of ecclesiastical properties:

(1) Buddhist ecclesiastical properties mean properties that belong to the Buddhist religion and 

not any particular monastery.

(2) Monastic ecclesiastical properties mean properties that belong to a particular monastery.

The maintenance and management of Buddhist ecclesiastical properties shall be under the 

authorities of the National Office of Buddhism*. For this purpose, it is deemed that the National 

Office of Buddhism* owns such Buddhist ecclesiastical properties.

The maintenance and management of Monastic ecclesiastical properties shall be according to 

the methods prescribed in Ministerial Regulations.

Section 41. The National Office of Buddhism* shall prepare an annual budget for Buddhist ecclesiastical properties with the approval of the Sangha Supreme Council. The annual budget shall 

be executed once it is published in the Government Gazette.

CHAPTER 7

PENAL PROVISIONS

Section 42xxiii. Any person who has not been appointed as a preceptor, or has been relieved of 

duty as a preceptor pursuant to Section 23, performs ordination of other people, shall be liable 

for imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

Section 43xxiv. Any person who contravenes the second paragraph of Section 15 quarter, Section 

26, the third paragraph of Section 27, or Section 28 shall be liable for imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding one year.

Section 44xxv. Any person who has been relieved from monkhood because he has committed a 

grave offence which resulted in expulsion from monkhood, regardless of a judgment pursuant 

to Section 25, and comes back to be ordained by giving a false statement or conceals facts from 

the preceptor shall be liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year. 

Section 44 bisxxvi. Any person who defames, insults or threatens the Supreme Patriarch shall be 

liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or fine not exceeding twenty thousand 

baht, or both.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

109

Section 44 terxxvii. Any person who imputes the Sangha or other Sangha, which may be injurious 

to the reputation or create disharmony shall be liable for imprisonment for a term not exceeding 

one year, or fine not exceeding twenty thousand baht, or both.

CHAPTER 8

MISCELLANEOUS

Section 45. Monks who have been appointed positions in the Sangha administration and layperson temple affairs managers shall be public officers as defined under the Thai Penal Code.

Section 46xxviii. The administration of other Sangha shall be according to principles and methods 

prescribed in Ministerial Regulations. 

Countersigned.

Field Marshal Sarit Thanarat

Prime Minister

Note :- The reasons for promulgation of this Act are as follows: Whereas the Sangha administration 

is not an activity that divides the administration authorities for the purpose of balancing of power as 

it exists in the present law, and whereas said system undermines the efficiency of the operation, it is 

therefore appropriate to amend said law so that Somdet Phra Sangkharat Sakonlamahasangkhaparinayok [the Supreme Patriarch, Head of all members of the Sangha] can command the Sangha through 

the Sangha Supreme Council according to the legal authority and the Doctrine and Discipline for the 

prosperity of the Buddhist religion.

The Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992]xxix:

Section 18: Ministerial Regulations, the Sangha Supreme Counci’s rules, regulations, procedures 

or orders of the Sangha Supreme Council that are issued according to the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 

[1962] shall continue to be in effect as long as they are not contradictory to or inconsistent with 

this Act.

Section 19. A monastery that has a status of a juristic person according to the Civil and Commercial Code shall have the status of a juristic person according to the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 [1962], 

which has been amended by this Act.

Section 20. Any Monk who has been appointed and established an ecclesiastical honorific rank prior 

to the date this Act comes into force shall continue to maintain said ecclesiastical honorific rank.

Any person who has been appointed a Sangha Supreme Council committee member, a Chief 

Superintendent of the Ecclesiastries, a member of any committee or sub-committee according 

to the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 [1962], Ministerial Regulations, the Sangha Supreme Counci’s rules, 

regulations, procedures or orders of the Sangha Supreme Council that are issued according to 

the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 [1962] shall continue to keep the position or fulfill his duties through 

the end of his term or until the Sangha Supreme Council issues a resolution otherwise.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

110

Section 21. The Prime Minister* shall be in charge of this Act.

Note :- The reasons for promulgation of this Act are as follows: Whereas the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 [1962] 

has been in effect for a long time, it is therefore appropriate to amend provisions regarding the appointment of the Supreme Patriarch and the appointment of the acting Supreme Patriarch, the appointment 

and dismissal of an ecclesiastical honorific rank of a monk, the authorities and the operation of the 

Sangha Supreme Council, the administration, the retirement from monkhood of the Sangha and other 

Sangha, monasteries, the maintenance of a monastery, properties of a monastery, and Buddhist ecclesiastical properties; together with the amendment of the penal provisions to correspond with situations 

in the present day. This Act so be enacted.

Section 42. In the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 [1962], the “Ministry of Education” and “Department of 

Religious Affairs” shall be changed to the “National Office of Buddhism”. The “Minister of Education” shall be changed to “Prime Minister,” and the “Director-General of the Department of 

Religious Affairs” shall be changed to the “Director-General of the National Office of Buddhism”.

Note :- The reasons for promulgation of this Royal Decree are as follows: Whereas the Reorganization of 

Ministry, Bureau and Department Act, B.E. 2545 [2002] has a provision to establish a new government 

agency which its new missions, with an enactment of a Royal Decree that transfers the administration 

and authorities of said government agency to be in accordance with the Reorganization of Ministry, 

Bureau and Department Act; and whereas said Act has a provision to transfer the authorities of the 

government agency, the minister who is in the office and workers who work in the old government 

agency to the new government agency, with amended provisions to correspond with the transferred 

authorities; therefore, in order to implement the principles that appear in said Act and Royal Decree, 

it is appropriate to amend the provisions of the law to correspond with the transfer of the government 

agency so people who are involved have a clear understanding when implementing the law and do not 

have to research the meaning in the law regarding the transfer of authorities to find out which law states 

the transfer of missions of which government agency or the person who is in charge of that law to which 

department or anyone. The provisions in the law have been amended to change the name of the government agency, the minister who is in the office and workers who work in the government agency to correspond with the transfer of authorities; add the government agency’s representatives in the committee 

to correspond with missions that have been cut or transferred from the old government agency to the 

new government agency; and cut the old government agency that has already been dissolved, which are 

amendments that correspond with said Act and Royal Decree. This Royal Decree so be enacted.

The Emergency Decree for Amendment of the Sangha Act, B.E. 2505 [1962], B.E. 2547 [2004] xxxi.

Note :- The reasons for promulgation of this Emergency Decree are as follows: Regarding the appointment 

of the acting Supreme Patriarch in the event that there is no Supreme Patriarch, or when the Supreme 

Patriarch is not in the Kingdom or is unable to fulfill his duties, that Sangha law prescribes that only one 

Somdet Phra Rajagana shall be appointed or chosen, which has created difficulties that resulted in disorder in the Sangha administration and the Buddhist laymen circle that may jeopardize the public safety 

as a result of the dissension among the monks. It is therefore appropriate to appoint the committee for the 

Supreme Patriarch, which consists of several Somdet Phra Rajaganas to exercise the power together in 

the administration of the Sangha, as another way which is more peaceful and harmonized. Additionally, 

whereas the current Supreme Patriarch is of a very old age and is nurturing his health, his team of doctors 

agrees that he should take care of his health and be under the care of the doctors; it is therefore necessary 

to urgently appoint an acting Supreme Patriarch or the committee for the Supreme Patriarch. The difficulties, therefore, should be urgently resolved to return peace to the country. This is an emergency and an 

urgent matter that is unavoidable. This Emergency Decree so be enacted. 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

111

Panotpon / Preparer

5th March 2013

Kulachart / Reviewer

5th March 2013

*The Royal Decree that amends provisions to correspond with the transfer of authorities of government 

agencies shall be in accordance with the Reorganization of Ministry, Bureau and Department Act, B.E. 

2545 [2002], B.E. 2545 [2002]xxx.

THAILAND ENDNOTES i

 The Government Gazette, Volume 79 / Part 115 / Special Edition Page 29 / 31st December B.E. 

2505 [1962].

ii Section 5 bis is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

iii Section 5 ter is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

iv Section 7 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

v

 Section 9 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

vi Section 10 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

vii Section 10, fifth paragraph, is amended by the Emergency Decree for Amendment of the Sangha 

Act, B.E. 2505 [1962], B.E. 2547 [2004].

viii Section 10, sixth paragraph, is added by the Emergency Decree for Amendment of the Sangha 

Act, B.E. 2505 [1962], B.E. 2547 [2004].

ix Section 12 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

x

 Section 15 bis is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xi Section 15 ter is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xii Section 15 is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xiii Section 16 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xiv Section 18 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xv Section 19 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xvi Section 20 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xvii Section 20 bis is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xviii Section 27 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xix Section 31 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xx Section 32 bis is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxi Section 34 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxii Section 35 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxiii Section 42 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxiv Section 43 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xv Section 44 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxvi Section 44 bis is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxvii Section 44 ter is added by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxviii Section 46 is amended by the Sangha Act (No. 2), B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxix The Government Gazette, Volume 109 / Part 16 / Page 5 / 5th March B.E. 2535 [1992].

xxx The Government Gazette, Volume 119 / Part 102 G / Page 66 / 8th October B.E. 2545 [2002].

xxxi The Government Gazette, Volume 121 / Special Part 34 G / Page 1 / 17th July B.E. 2547 [2004].
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

112

TUNISIA

Constitution125

Article 1: Sovereignty, Religion, Language, Government system

Tunisia is a free, independent, sovereign state; its religion is Islam, its language Arabic, and its 

system is republican.

This article might not be amended.

Penal Code126

Article 121a.

Any person provoking rebellion, either by speeches in public meetings or public spaces or by advertisement or poster or printed publication shall be punished as having taken part in the rebellion.

Should the rebellion not take place, the agitator shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Article 121b.

This article has been moved from the press code in virtue of Article 2 of the law No. 2001-43 of 

May 3, 2001 - Ex. Article 61 - When performed deliberately, the sale, distribution, or reproduction 

of banned works, or the publication or the defamation under a different title of a banned work, 

shall be punishable by imprisonment for sixteen days to one year and a fine of 60 to 600 dinars. 

The Ministry of the Interior shall proceed with an attachment order for the copies and reproductions of the banned works.

Article 121c.

This article has been moved from the press code in virtue of Article 2 of the law No. 2001-43 of 

May 3, 2001 - Ex Article 62 - Distribution, sale, public exhibition and possession with the intent 

to distribute, sell, exhibit in the form of propaganda, leaflets, bulletins or flyers, whether or not 

of foreign origin and having the effect of a breach of the peace or public morals are prohibited. 

Any violation of the prohibition decreed in the previous paragraph may lead to imprisonment 

from 6 months to 5 years and a fine of 120 to 1,200 dinars in addition to immediate seizure.

Article 226a.

Any act of public indecency committed by any person shall be subject to six months of imprisonment and a fine forty eight dinars.

125 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Tunisia_2014.pdf

126 Official translation from USCIRF and LOC
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

113

Article 226b.

Any act or speech considered lewd or injurious to public morals or an intentional assault on the 

decency of another person or which causes another person’s embarrassment shall be punishable 

by six months imprisonment and a fine of one thousand dinars.

The same punishment as set forth in the preceding paragraph shall apply to any person who 

draws public attention to a commission of debauchery through publications, recordings, or 

audio, visual, electronic or optical means.

Article 226c.

Any person committing an act of sexual harassment shall be subject to one year of imprisonment 

and a fine of three thousand dinars.

Sexual harassment includes persistent embarrassment of another person by a repetition of acts 

or speech or gestures which may harm that person’s dignity or decency with the intent of causing 

the person to submit to his or her own sexual desires or to those of another person or to exercise 

pressure on that person to weaken their wish to resist such desires.

The punishment is doubled when the violation is committed with a minor or other person particularly susceptible to the harasser due to mental or physical disability.

Article 226d.

The punishments provided in the preceding two articles do not prejudice the application of more 

severe punishments provided for other violations.

Legal proceedings may only take place upon request by the public prosecutor in reaction to a 

complaint filed by the victim.

Should the case be dismissed or the accused be acquitted in a court of law, the accused may 

request, as appropriate, compensation for damages suffered without prejudice to legal action 

against the accuser for making false allegations.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

114

TURKEY

Laws that pay a specific reference to sanctioning insult, blasphemy or 

defamation of religion:

Criminal Code127

Article 216 (3) A person who openly denigrates the religious values of a section of the population 

shall be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six months to one year in case the act is likely to 

distort public peace.

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES

The religious framework of the state:

Constitution128

Part One [The Union, its Fundamental Constituents and Aims]

Article 7

Islam is the official religion of the Union. The Islamic Shari’ah shall be a main source of legislation 

in the Union. The official language of the Union is Arabic. 

Penal Code [Fed. Law 3 of 1987 as Amended]129

Book Two [Crimes and their Punishments]

Article 312 [Crimes against Religious Faith and Rights]

Shall be punishable by confinement and by fine or by one of these two penalties any individual 

who commits any of the following offences:

1. Offence against any of the Islamic sacred things or rites

2. To insult and revile any of the recognized divine religions

Where any of the above offences is committed in public, the punishment shall be either confinement for a minimum period of one year or a fine

127 Law Nr. 5237 [Criminal Code], available at http://www.legislationline.org/documents/action/

popup/id/6872/preview (last visited April 28, 2013); See also European Commission for Democracy 

Through Law (Venice Commission), Annexe II: Analysis of the Domestic Law Concerning Blasphemy, 

Religious Insults and Inciting Religious Hatred in Albania, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, 

Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Turkey, United Kingdom, on the basis of replies to a questionnaire (October 2008), pp 82-84.

128 http://www.refworld.org/docid/48eca8132.html

129 http://www.scribd.com/doc/122309224/312/Article-312#page=124
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

115

VANUATU

Constitution130

Preamble 

WE the people of Vanuatu,

PROUD of our struggle for freedom,

DETERMINED to safeguard the achievements of this struggle,

CHERISHING our ethnic, linguistic and cultural diversity,

MINDFUL at the same time of our common destiny,

HEREBY proclaim the establishment of the united and free Republic of Vanuatu founded on traditional 

Melanesian values, faith in God, and Christian principles,

AND for this purpose give ourselves this Constitution.

Penal Code131

Article 88. Insult to religion of any class 

No person shall destroy, damage or defile any place of worship or any object which is held sacred by any 

class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the 

knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an 

insult to their religion. 

Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years. 

YEMEN

Constitution [Chapter I: The Political Foundations]132

Article 1

The Republic of Yemen is an Arab, Islamic and independent sovereign state whose integrity is inviolable, 

and no part of which may be ceded. The people of Yemen are part of the Arab and Islamic nation.

Article 2

Islam is the religion of the state, and Arabic is its official language.

Article 3

Islamic Shari’ah is the source of all legislation.

130 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Vanuatu_1983 

131 http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=198052#LinkTarget_408 

132 http://www.al-bab.com/yemen/gov/con94.htm
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

116

Penal code133

Article 194 [Ridiculing Religion and Instigation that Disturbs Public Peace]

To be sentenced to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three years or to a fine: 

First: Whoever disseminates in public ideas containing ridicule or contempt of religion in its beliefs or 

rituals or teachings. 

Second: Whoever instigates in public or ridicules a faction of people or empowers a faction to dominate 

for the purpose of disturbing public peace. 

Article 195 [Ridicule of the Islamic Religion or any of its Sects]

The sentence shall be imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or a fine if the religion or the 

sect which is affected by ridicule or contempt or inferiority is the Islamic religion. 

Chapter Three 

Apostasy

Article 259 [Crimes Related Religion and the Sanctity Of The Dead]

Anyone who turns back from or denounces the religion of Islam, is punished by the death penalty after 

being questioned for repentance three times and after giving him a respite of thirty days. The Apostasy in 

public by speech or acts is considered contradictory to the principles of Islam and its pillars in intention 

and determination. If the intention or determination is not established and the guilty shows repentance, 

there will be no punishment. 

Desecration

Article 260 [Distortion Of The Holy Koran]

Punishment with imprisonment for a period not exceeding five years or a fine is to anyone who distorts 

willfully the Holy Quran in a manner which changes its meaning with the purpose of harming the 

natural Religion. 

Article 261 [Assault on the Sanctity Of The Faith]

Punishment with imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year or a fine not more than two thousand 

Ryals will be imposed on: 

(1) Whoever destroys or misrepresents or profanes a mosque or any other place set up by a license from 

the State to perform religious rituals or a symbol or other objects having religious sanctity. 

(2) Whoever distorts deliberately the establishment of recognized rituals of a sect or a celebration or 

religious meeting or disrupts something out of that or forbids it by force or threat.

133 http://www.refworld.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/rwmain?page=country&category=LEGAL&publisher=&-

type=LEGISLATION&coi=YEM&rid=4562d8cf2&docid=3fec62f17&skip=0
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

117

ZAMBIA

Constitution134

Preamble

WE, THE PEOPLE OF ZAMBIA by our representatives, assembled in our Parliament, having 

solemnly resolved to maintain Zambia as a Sovereign Democratic Republic;

DECLARE the Republic a Christian nation while upholding the right of every person to enjoy 

that person’s freedom of conscience or religion;

Penal code135

128. Insult to religion of any class

Any person who destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship or any object which is held 

sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of 

persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, 

damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, is guilty of a misdemeanour.

130. Trespassing on burial places

Every person who, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person or of insulting 

the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be 

wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass 

in any place of worship or in any place of sepulture or in any place set apart for the performance 

of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human 

corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the purpose of funeral ceremonies, 

is guilty of a misdemeanour.

131. Uttering words with the intent to wound religious feelings

Any person who, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, 

utters any word, or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the 

sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, is guilty of a misdemeanour 

and is liable to imprisonment for one year

134 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Zambia_2009 

135 http://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/zmb/1931/the_penal_code_act_html/Zambia_

Penal_Code_Act_1930_as_amended_2005.pdf 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

118

ZIMBABWE

Constitution136

Preamble

Acknowledging the supremacy of Almighty God, in whose hands our future lies,

And, imploring the guidance and support of Almighty God, hereby make this Constitution and 

commit ourselves to it as the fundamental law of our beloved land.

Penal code137

Section 42 Causing offence to persons of a particular race, religion, etc.

(1) In this section –

“creed or religion” means any system of belief associated with practices of worship that is adhered 

to by any significant body of persons in Zimbabwe or any other country;

“film”, “picture”, “publication”, “record” and “statue” have the meanings assigned to those terms 

by section 2 of the Censorship and Entertainments Control Act....

“publicly”, in relation to making a statement, means –

(a) making the statement in a public space or any place to which the public or any section of the 

public have access;

(b) publishing it in any printed or electronic medium for reception by the public;

“statement” includes any act, gesture or form of expression, whether verbal, written or visual, 

but does not include any film, picture, publication, statue or record that is of a bona fide literary 

or artistic character. 

(2) Any person who publicly makes any insulting or otherwise grossly provocative statement 

that causes offence to persons of a particular race, tribe, place of origin, colour, creed or religion, 

intending to cause such offence or realizing there is a real risk or possibility of doing so, shall 

be guilty of causing offence to persons of a particular race, tribe, place of origin, colour, creed 

or religion, as the case may be, and liable to a fine not exceeding level six or imprisonment for a 

period not exceeding one year or both. 

136 https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Zimbabwe_2013

137 http://www.unodc.org/res/cld/document/zwe/2006/criminal_law_codification_and_reform_

act_html/criminal_law_codification_and_reform_act.pdf
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

119

B. Codebook

BLASPHEMY LAWS:

MEASURING IMPACT & ASSESSING RISKS FOR

TARGETED LAW REFORM ADVOCACY

BENJAMIN N. CARDOZO SCHOOL OF LAW

Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic

JACOB BURNS INSTITUTE FOR ADVANCED LEGAL STUDIES

BROOKDALE CENTER • 55 FIFTH AVENUE • ROOM 935 • NEW YORK, NY 10003-4391 • 

(212) 790-0455
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

120

TABLE OF CONTENTS

General Notes ................................................................................................................... 123

Indicator 1 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 123

Indicator 2 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 124

Indicator 3 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 125

Indicator 4 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 125

Indicator 5 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 126

Indicator 6 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 126

Indicator 7 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 127

Indicator 8 Risk Factors Table............................................................................................ 127
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

121

GENERAL NOTES 

The total composite score for each country will range between zero (0) and eighty (80) possible 

points. The scores of each indicator will vary from zero (0) to ten (10) points. A score of zero (0) 

signifies that the laws do not run counter to the particular international law principle evaluated 

and a score of ten (10) indicates that the particular language of the laws run completely counter 

to the international law principle measured. 

For each indicator, there is a list of sub-questions for each coder to score. These questions 

represent the various aspects of each international law principle measured to provide guidance 

to coders regarding what issues to consider in evaluating each indicator. Each question is derived 

from interpretations of these principles (i.e. case law, treaty body general comments, special 

rapporteur reports, etc.).

Where necessary, notes provide guidance to coders to assist in the evaluation of legal texts

INDICATOR 1: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

Is the law in compliance with the principles of Freedom of Expression under International Law, as specified under Art. 19 of both the UDHR and the ICCPR? (0-10) 

Questions to Consider

1.1 Does the language of the law specify its purpose to be:

A lower score is attributed when purpose (as allowed under international law) is written in the law:

To respect of the rights or reputations of others (defamation)? 0 - 2.5

For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public)?

For the protection of public health or morals?

For the general welfare in a democratic society?

1.2 Is the law criminalizing the expression of opinions that may be counter to a religion or 

belief? 

Y: 2.5

N: 0

1.3 Is the law providing for a blanket prohibition on the seeking, receiving, and imparting 

of information and ideas?

Y: 2.5

N: 0

1.4 Could the law impede on expression over religious discourse? Y: 2.5

N: 0

Guidance Notes:

• For the first set of questions on purpose of the law, if ANY purpose is explicitly mentioned (i.e. you 

answer “yes” to one or more of the sub-questions), then it is in compliance with Article 19 and 

receives a score of 0. The title of the law, or the title of the section where the law is found, should 

be taken into consideration. 
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

122

• If you answer “no” to all of the first set of questions regarding purpose of the law, then there 

is no explicit purpose and the law receives a score of 2.5.

• For Question 1.4, blaspheming is discourse that is contesting religious thoughts, feelings, 

or belief systems by definition.

INDICATOR 2: FREEDOM OF RELIGION OR BELIEF

Is the law in compliance with the principles of Freedom of Religion under International Law, 

as specified under Art. 18 of both the UDHR and the ICCPR? (0-10)

Questions to Consider

2.1 Does the language of the law infringe upon the freedom to have or to adopt a religion or 

belief of one’s choice?

Y: 1

N: 0

2.2 Does the language of the law specify its purpose to be necessary in order to respect the 

freedom of another person to practice a religion? 

Y: 0

N: 1

2.3 Does the language of the law actually impose the respect of one religion or belief? Y: 1

N: 0

2.4 Does the law subject one to coercion that would impair one’s freedom to have or adopt a 

religion or belief of one’s choice? 

Y: 1

N: 0

2.5 Does the language of the law infringe upon the freedom, either individually or in community 

with others, in public or private, to manifest one’s religion or belief in worship, observance, 

practice and teaching?

Y: 1

N: 0

2.6 Does the language of the law infringe upon the freedom to worship or assemble in connection with a religion or belief, and to establish and maintain places of worship for these 

purposes? 

Y: 1

N: 0

2.7 Does the language of the law infringe upon the right to display religious symbols? Y: 1

N: 0

2.8 Does the law infringe upon the freedom to write, issue and disseminate religious publications to express one’s religious beliefs?Y: 1

N: 0

2.9 Does the law infringe upon the freedom to establish and maintain communications with 

individuals and communities in matters of religion and belief at the national and international levels?

Y: 1

N: 0

2.10 Does the law infringe upon the freedom of religion in time of public emergency? 

Note: Public Emergency is not valid derogation of the Freedom of Religion 

Y: 1

N: 0

Guidance Notes:

• Please note that “language of the law” refers to the actual written laws, not what could be or 

what would be possible under the law. 

• For Question 2.8, there must be some mention of writing or publication in the law itself.

• For Question 2.9, this idea is related to communications such as radio, social media, etc.
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

123

INDICATOR 3: PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY

Is the law impermissibly vague under principles of International Law? (0-10) 

Questions to Consider

3.1 Is the prohibited conduct clearly and narrowly defined? Y: 0

N: 2

3.2 Are there any limitations on authorities to decide for themselves what constitutes blasphemy? Y: 0

N: 2

3.3 Does the law demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat 

to “public order, public health, safety, morals, reputation of others”?

Y: 0

N: 1

3.4 Does the law specify the intent, or mens rea, of the accused to commit the crime? Y: 0

N: 3

3.5 Does the law distinguish expression that constitutes a criminal offense and expression that 

justifies a civil suit of administrative sanctions?

Y: 0

N: 2

Guidance Notes: 

• For Question 3.1, you must consider both “clearly” and “narrowly.” Also, please note that 

“insulting,” “mocking,” or “humiliating” are subjective acts. 

• For Question 3.2, “intent” is not enough of a limitation on the authorities. 

• For Question 3.5, is it clear where the blasphemy laws are located (i.e., is it in the criminal or 

penal code or in a press law)? It should be clear whether criminal or civil penalties apply. 

INDICATOR 4: SEVERITY OF THE PENALTY

Is the penalty permissible under principles of international law? (0-10) 

Questions to Consider

4.1 Is the measure the death penalty? Y: 10

N: 0

4.2 Is the measure torture or other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment? 

(i.e. lashings)

Y: 10

N: 0

4.3 Is the measure penal or forced labor? Y: 10

N: 0

4.4 Is the measure detention or incarceration? Y: 5

N: 0

4.5 Is the measure depriving a person of his property? (i.e. fine, taking of goods, etc.) Y: 1

N: 0

Guidance Notes:

• If the legal text includes both a fine and incarceration, for example, as possible punishment, 

in that instance, use the higher available penalty, and score accordingly.

• For this particular indicator, the total scores should be either 1 or 5 or 10, signifying low, 

medium, and high.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

124

INDICATOR 5: DISCRIMINATION AGAINST GROUPS

Does the law discriminate between different religious or belief groups or values? (0-10) 

Questions to Consider

5 Does the law express preference for specific religious or belief groups? 

Does the law exclude certain religious or belief groups?

Does the law restrict the activities of some religious or belief groups but not others?

Note: “Or belief” group qualification is intended to account for non-religious beliefs (i.e. atheism, agnosticism, etc.). 

Y: 10

N: 0

Guidance Notes: 

• Please read the Constitution or the Preamble to the Constitution in conjunction with the 

laws.

• Recognizing some religion or belief systems means not recognizing others. If you answer 

“yes” to any of these questions, the score will be 10.

• Keep in mind non-religious believers (i.e., atheists, agnostics, etc.).

• If the law is general and it does not preference a specific religious or belief group, please 

answer “no.”

INDICATOR 6: STATE RELIGION PROTECTIONS

Are the protections afforded to State Religion consistent with principles of International 

Law? (0-10) 

Questions to Consider

6.1 Does the law recognize certain religions or groups of believers and not others, or institute a 

different status among certain categories of religions?

Y: 5

N: 0 

6.2 Does the law protect the official State Religion through sanctions/punishment? Y: 5

N: 0

Guidance Note: 

• There has to be a state religion mentioned in the Preamble of the Constitution or the Constitution of the country in order to assess this indicator. 
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

125

INDICATOR 7: FORUM LIMITATIONS

Does the blasphemy law refer to the forum (public place; spoken v. written words)? (0-10) 

Questions to Consider

7.1 Are the forum limitations clearly and narrowly defined? 

-Broad terminology would be unacceptable.

Y: 0

N: 4

7.2 Does the law seek to punish individuals who disseminate the idea/speech with both spoken and written words? Y: 2

N: 0

7.3 Does the law distinguish speech that’s spoken in the public versus the private sphere? Y: 0

N: 2

7.4 Does the law seek to punish individuals who disseminate the idea/speech in public? In 

private? Both? 

Note: “Public sphere” = idea/speech disseminated while you are on government property 

or in a community space/forum (i.e. includes public squares, commercial businesses, public internet forums, public mode of transportation); “Private sphere” = personal property 

(i.e. includes personal residence, home of a friend, personal mode of transportation)

Public: 

1.5

Private: 2

Both: 2

Guidance Notes:

• For Question 7.1, “publicly” or “openly” without additional language is not clear or narrow 

enough. 

• For Question 7.2, if the law does not mention speech or written words, but can encompass 

both, then please answer “Yes.”

INDICATOR 8: HIERARCHY OF THE LAW

Where does the blasphemy law fall in the hierarchy of the laws of that country? (0-10) 

Questions to Consider

8

Considering the following general hierarchy as an indication, where does the blasphemy law fall? A high 

score of 10 should be attributed where the law is written in the Constitution, and lower scores should be 

given based on where they fall in the hierarchy below:

Country Constitution

Country Statutory Laws (i.e. national civil and criminal codes)

All other laws

10

5

1

Guidance Note: 

• Do not include official state religion laws within this indicator. Only include blasphemy 

laws in this assessment.

RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

127

ENDNOTES

1 This research was a team effort over several years with more than a dozen participants. Three of the 

researchers were trained to code and analyze the compendium of blasphemy and related laws. 

2 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Policy Brief, Prisoners of Belief: 

Individuals Jailed under Blasphemy Laws (2014) [hereinafter USCIRF Prisoners of Belief].

3 Press Release, Human Rights First, Compendium Details Blasphemy Laws Challenging Human 

Rights Worldwide (May 22, 2014), http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/resource/compendium-blasphemy-laws [hereinafter HRF Press Release].

4 For the purposes of this study, researchers examined laws in addition to the blasphemy law in a particular country in order to understand the blasphemy laws’ meaning with regard to specific indicators. 

For example, with regard to state religion protections, researchers needed to look at constitutions or 

other laws declaring an official state religion to know whether or not a country protected an official state 

religion.

5 Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 34, Article 19: Freedoms of opinion and expression, 

U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, ¶ 48 (Sept. 12, 2011) [hereinafter HRC General Comment No. 34].

6 Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Heiner 

Bielefeldt, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/25/58, ¶ 59 (Dec. 26, 2013). Additionally, in his report presented to the UN 

General Assembly (2012), the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection to the right to 

freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, states: “Anti-blasphemy laws, for example, which are 

inherently vague and leave the entire concept open to abuse, are often used as a means of quashing the 

right to freedom of expression,” calling upon states to repeal anti-blasphemy laws and to initiate legislative and other reforms that protect the rights of individuals in accordance with international human 

rights standards. 

7 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, USCIRF Welcomes Move Away from 

“Defamation of Religions” Concept (2011).

8 USCIRF Prisoners of Belief, supra note 2, at 3. 

9 Id.

10 Joelle Fiss, Anti-blasphemy offensives in the digital age: When hardliners take over, 25, The Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World, 6 (Sept. 2016), https://www.brookings.edu/

wp-content/uploads/2016/09/brookings-analysis-paper_joelle-fiss_web.pdf [hereinafter Brookings 

Report].

11 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report: Pakistan (2015), 

http://www.uscirf.gov/sites/default/files/Pakistan%202015.pdf.

12 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 38, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 

331.

13 Hurst Hannum, The Status of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in National and International Law, 25 Ga. J. Int’l & Comp. L. 287, 291 (1995).

14 Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declares that:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to 

hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas 

through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 19, G.A. Res. 217A (III), U.N. Doc. A/810, (1948) [hereinafter 

UDHR].
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

128

15 Article 29(2) of the UDHR outlines the restrictions as: 

. . . subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just 

requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Id., at art. 29(2).

16 Article 19(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that: 

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special 

duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall 

only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: 

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b)For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, art 19(3), Dec. 16, 1966, S. Exec. Rep. 102–23, 999 

U.N.T.S. 171, [hereinafter ICCPR].

17 Human Rights Committee, General comment no. 22, Article 18: Freedoms of Thought, Conscience or Religion, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4, ¶ 2 (Sept. 27, 1993) [hereinafter HRC General Comment No. 22].

18 HRC General Comment No. 34, supra note 5, at ¶ 25. 

19 HRC General Comment No. 22, supra note 17, at ¶ 8.

20 Id.

21 HRC General Comment No. 34, supra note 5, at ¶ 32.

22 UDHR, supra note 14, at art. 18.

23 Article 18 of the UDHR stipulates the following:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others 

and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and 

observance.

UDHR, supra note 14, at art. 18.

24 The UDHR’s Article 29(2) on the other hand stipulates the conditions whereupon a restriction on the 

enumerated rights can be imposed:

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as 

are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the 

rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order 

and the general welfare in a democratic society.

UDHR, supra note 14, at art. 29(2).

25 Elizabeth K. Cassidy, Restricting Rights? The Public Order and Public Morality Limitations on Free 

Speech and Religious Liberty in UN Human Rights Institutions, 13 Rev. Faith & Int’l Aff. 5 (2015) 

(explaining that, unlike for freedom of expression, there is no derogation allowed for freedom of religion 

under the ICCPR); see ICCPR, supra note 16, at art. 4; see also Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/31/18, ¶ 59 (Dec. 23, 2015).

26 Many of these questions were adapted from the UN Special Rapporteur’s Digest on Freedom of 

Religion or Belief. Human Rights Council, Rapporteur’s Digest on Freedom of Religion or Belief

(2011), available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Religion/RapporteursDigestFreedomReligionBelief.pdf [hereinafter HRC Rapporteur’s Digest].
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

129

27 See, e.g., ICCPR, supra note 16, at art. 15(1); Convention on the Rights of the Child, art. 40(2), Nov. 

20, 1989, 1577 U.N.T.S. 3, 28 I.L.M. 1448, entered into force Sept. 2, 1990; European Convention for the 

Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 9, Nov. 4, 1950, 312 E.T.S. 5, as amended 

by Protocol No. 3, E.T.S. 45, Protocol No. 5, E.T.S. 55, Protocol No. 8, E.T.S. 118, and Protocol No. 11, E.T.S. 

155, entered into force Sept. 3, 1953 (Protocol No. 3 on Sept. 21, 1970, Protocol No. 5 on Dec. 20, 1971, Protocol No. 8 on Jan. 1, 1990, Protocol 11 on Jan. 11, 1998); American Convention on Human Rights, art. 9, 

Nov. 22, 1969, 9 I.L.M. 673 (1970), entered into force July 18, 1978; African Charter on Human and Peoples’ 

Rights [Banjul Charter], art. 7(2), June 27, 1981, 21 I.L.M. 59, entered into force Oct. 21, 1986; UDHR, supra

note 14, at art. 11(2).

28 In order for individuals to be able to adhere to a law, the law’s proscriptions must be clearly and narrowly defined. A law that meets the standard of “clearly and narrowly defined” uses precise language 

without room for interpretation. See HRC Rapporteur’s Digest, supra note 26, at 58, 101. For this purpose, 

the research team concluded that subjective terms in a blasphemy law, such as “insulting,” “mocking,” 

or “humiliating,” were not sufficient to meet the clearly and narrowly defined standard. The terms in the 

law had to be concrete and unambiguous in order to be compliant with Indicator 3 and the principle of 

legality.

29 Kokkinakis v. Greece, Judgment of May 25, 1993, Eur. Ct. H.R., (ser. A), No. 260-A, ¶ 52 (1993).

30 Castillo Petruzzi et al. v. Peru, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Inter-Am. Ct. H.R. (ser. C) 

No. 52, ¶ 121 (May 30, 1999).

31 See Connally v. General Construction Company, 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926); Champlin Ref. Co. v. Corporation Comm’n, 286 U.S. 210 (1932); United States v. Evans, 333 U.S. 483 (1948).

32 HRC General Comment No. 34, supra note 5, at ¶ 25. Each of the treaty bodies publishes its interpretation of the provisions of its respective human rights treaty in the form of “general comments” 

or “general recommendations.” U.N. Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, Human Rights 

Treaty Bodies—General Comments, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/Pages/TBGeneralComments.aspx.

33 A valid penal law with adequate precision is one that specifies the intent, or mens rea, in the statute. 

See Mohamed Elewa Badar, Iryna Marchuk, & Sara Porro, Mes Rea, International Crimes, Oxford Bibliographies in International Law (2015), http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/

obo-9780199796953/obo-9780199796953-0122.xml. 

34 Eric Engle, The History of the General Principle of Proportionality: An Overview, 10 Dartmouth L.J. 1, 6 

(2012). 

35 Jeroen Schokkenbroek, The Basis, Nature and Application of the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine 

in the Case-Law of the European Court of Human Rights, 19 Hum. Rts. L. J. 30, 31 (1998); Paul Craig & 

Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law 526 (5th ed. OUP 2011); Eric Engle, The History of the General Principle of 

Proportionality: An Overview, 10 Dartmouth L. J. 1, 8 (2012).

36 Schokkenbroek, supra note 35, at 31.

37 Eric Engle, The History of the General Principle of Proportionality: An Overview, 10 Dartmouth L. J. 

1, 8 (2012); Ralph G. Steinhardt, Book Review, European Administrative Law, 28 Geo. Wash. J. Int’l L. & 

Econ. 225, 231–32 (1994).

38 UDHR, supra note 14, at art. 4; ICCPR, supra note 16, at art. 8.

39 UDHR, supra note 14, at art. 5; ICCPR, supra note 16, at art. 7. These rights are jus cogens norms and, 

therefore, nonderogable. See, e.g., Erika de Wet, The Prohibition of Torture as an International Norm of 

jus cogens and Its Implications for National and Customary Law, 15 Eur. J. Int’l L. 97, 98 (2004).
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

130

40 ICCPR, supra note 16, at art. 6. Article 6(1) states that:

Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be 

arbitrarily deprived of his life.

Article 6(2) mandates that:

In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed 

only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law in force at the time of the commission of the crime and not contrary to the provisions of the present Covenant and to the 

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This penalty can 

only be carried out pursuant to a final judgment rendered by a competent court.

Since the ICCPR’s adoption, steps have been taken to develop a legally binding instrument that 

requires the abolition of the death penalty. Accordingly, the U.N. has adopted the Second Optional 

Protocol to the ICCPR, which abolishes the death penalty during peacetime. See Second Optional 

Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Aiming at the Abolition of 

the Death Penalty, adopted Dec. 15, 1989, G.A. Res. 44/128, U.N. GAOR Supp. No. 49, U.N. Doc. A/

RES/44/128 (1989).

41 ICCPR, supra note 16, at 2(1), which reads:

Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals 

within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or 

other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 

42 ICCPR, supra note 16, at art. 26, which declares that:

All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal 

protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee 

to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as 

race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

43 Id. at art. 18(3).

44 Id. at art. 19.

45 See Human Rights Committee, Waldman v. Canada, Communication No. 694/1996, U.N. Doc. 

CCPR/C/67/D/694/1996 (Nov. 5, 1999).

46 See, e.g., Commission on Human Rights, Implementation of the Declaration on the Elimination of 

All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1996/95/

ADD.1, ¶ 81 (Feb. 9, 1996); Commission on Human Rights, Implementation of the Declaration on the 

Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, UN Doc. E/

CN.4/1996/95/ADD.2, ¶ 88 (Feb. 9, 1996); General Assembly, Implementation of the Declaration on the 

Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, Note by the 

Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/51/542/ADD.1, ¶ 132 (Nov. 7, 1996).

47 ICCPR, supra note 16, at art. 27.

48 Id. at art. 17. Article 17 reads as follows:

1.No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, 

home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

49 Id. at art. 19(2).
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

131

50 Id. at art. 19(3). Article 19(3) reads as follows:

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special 

duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall 

only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: 

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; 

(b)For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or 

morals. 

51 See, e.g., Dinah Shelton, Normative Hierarchy in International Law, 100 Am. J. Int’l L. 291, 291 (2006) 

(“Systems of law usually establish a hierarchy of norms based on the particular source from which the 

norms derive. In national legal systems, it is commonplace for the fundamental values of society to be 

given constitutional status and afforded precedence in the event of a conflict with norms enacted by 

legislation or adopted by administrative regulation; administrative rules themselves must conform to 

legislative mandates, while written law usually takes precedence over unwritten law and legal norms 

prevail over nonlegal (political or moral) rules.”).

52 Our study may have an inbuilt bias as laws enshrined in national constitutions and national codes 

are more likely to be found online and in English, even where English is not the primary language of the 

particular state. This limitation is discussed further in Section VI, infra.

53 Human Rights First, Compendium of Blasphemy Laws (May 20, 2014), http://www.humanrightsfirst.

org/sites/default/files/Compendium-Blasphemy-Laws.pdf [hereinafter HRF Compendium].

54 See definition of “blasphemy,” supra note 2.

55 International Humanist and Ethical Union, Freedom of Thought 2014: A Global Report on 

the Rights, Legal Status, and Discrimination Against Humanists, Atheists and the Non-Religious (2014), available at http://freethoughtreport.com/download-the-report/. 

56 The Law Library of Congress, Laws Criminalizing Apostasy in Selected Jurisdictions (2014), 

available at https://www.loc.gov/law/help/apostasy/apostasy.pdf.

57 Venice Commission, Blasphemy, insult and hatred: finding answers in a democratic society, 

Science and technique of democracy, No. 47 (2010), available at http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-STD(2010)047-e.

58 HRF Press Release, supra note 3.

59 See, e.g., Jamaica, End Blasphemy Laws, http://end-blasphemy-laws.org/countries/americas/

jamaica/.

60 This report does not map out the existing apostasy laws. “Apostasy laws” criminalize the act of 

abandoning one’s religion and changing to another. The freedom to change one’s religion or belief 

is enshrined in international law. See, e.g., UDHR, supra note 14, at art. 18. Although different laws 

sanction apostasy and blasphemy, a conflation of human rights abuses can sometimes occur. For 

example, insulting a religion or committing “blasphemy” may be considered in some contexts as 

abandoning one’s faith. Prosecutions of apostasy often appear in very similar contexts to those of 

blasphemy. However, for purposes of this study, apostasy laws were not systematically compiled. 

Research and examination of apostasy laws and their interactions with blasphemy laws merit additional study.

61 Blasphemy laws, at times, sanction hate speech or hate crimes in the same legislation. Hate speech 

laws were not included in the blasphemy laws compendium. HRF Compendium, supra note 53.

62 These international and human rights principles are explained in detail in Section II, supra.

63 This study does not purport to analyze state compliance with these international law principles in its 

enforcement or implementation practices.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

132

64 Indicators 5 (Discrimination against Groups) and 6 (State Religion Protections) are both measuring different aspects of the adherence to principles of nondiscrimination and equality. See Section II, 

supra.

65 Given that each indicator had different numbers of questions that determined adherence to the norm, 

the authors weighed each question as equal to other questions within that particular indicator. Where indicators and questions overlapped, these questions naturally weighed more heavily in the results.

66 The researchers removed any information that could reasonably be used to identify a country and 

replaced such information with generic terms.

67 See Donald T. Campbell & Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs 

for Research (1963) (describing the importance of internal validity, or how well a study is designed 

and conducted, and the need to avoid biases in selection).

68 See Kathleen M. MacQueen et al., Codebook Development for Team-Based Qualitative Analysis, 10(2) 

Cultural Anthropology Methods 31, 35 (1998) [hereinafter MacQueen et al.] (explaining intercoder reliability. “[T]wo or more coders are then given the task of independently coding the same sample of text. The results of their coding are then compared for consistency of text segmentation and code 

application. If the results are acceptable and consistent, the coding continues with periodic checks for 

continued inter-coder agreement. If the results are unacceptable and inconsistent, the inconsistencies 

are reviewed by the coders and team leader(s).”).

69 Correlation between data sets is a measure of how well they are related. The most common measure 

of correlation in statistics is the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient, which shows the linear relationship 

between two sets of data. The Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient r can be calculated using the following 

formulae:

Where: x=  one dataset {x1,...,xn} containing n values Y and another dataset {y1,...,yn} containing n  values x  ̄ : the sample mean; and analogously for y  ̄. The strength of the correlation using the following 

guide that Evans (1996) suggest for the absolute value of r can be verbally described as follows:

James D. Evans, Straightforward Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (1996).

70 See Benjamin Mason Meier & Yuna Kim, Human Rights Accountability through Treaty Bodies: 

Examining Human Rights Treaty Monitoring for Water and Sanitation 26 Duke J. of Comp. & Int’l L. 

141 (2015) (examining the content of state human rights law reporting to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights with regard to water and sanitation rights). Consistency 

refers to each coder identifying and applying the same code to a given law or provision of a law. In other 

words, consistency “examines the extent to which different interviewers, observers, or coders using 

the same instrument or measure get equivalent results.” Royce A. Singleton, Jr. & Bruce C. Straits, 

Approaches to Social Research 136 (5th ed. 2010). In applying “consistency” to the coding process, 

the “[i]ntercoder reliability assesses the degree to which codings of text by multiple coders are similar.” 

Daniel J. Hruschka et al., Reliability in Coding Open-Ended Data: Lessons Learned from HIV Behavioral 

Research, 16 Field Methods 307, 310 (2004).

.00–.19 “very weak”

.20–.39 “weak”

.40–.59 “moderate”

.60–.79 “strong”

.80–1.0 “very strong”
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

133

71 See MacQueen et al., supra note 68, at 35 (explaining that problems identified in the codebook may be 

revised and, as a result, all previously coded text is reviewed and recoded to ensure consistency with the 

revisions). 

72 Number is based on the fact that there are 193 member states of the United Nations.

73 These world regional groupings are derived from the regional groupings used in Pew Research 

Center’s Trends in Global Restrictions on Religion, available at http://www.pewforum.org/2016/06/23/

trends-in-global-restrictions-on-religion/. 

74 See MacQueen et al., supra note 68.

75 Repealing blasphemy law a victory for freedom of speech, says Humanist Association, Times of Malta

(July 14, 2016), http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20160714/local/repealing-blasphemy-lawa-victory-for-freedom-of-speech-says-humanist.618859; Paul Cocks, Religious vilification removed from 

Maltese law, Archbishop: ‘Lord forgive them . . .’, Times of Malta (July 12, 2016), http://www.maltatoday.

com.mt/news/national/67475/parliament_approves_bill_decriminalising_porn_and_repealing_religious_vilification#.V9awiDuO7q0. 

76 Som. Const. Art. 2, 2012, available at https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Somalia_2012.

pdf.

77 Kevin Rawlinson, Iceland repeals blasphemy ban after Pirate party campaign, the Guardian (July 3, 

2015), https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/03/iceland-repeals-blasphemy-law-pirate-party-campaign.

78 Constitución Espanola, Boletín Oficial del Estado, Dec. 29, 1978. 

79 Const. (1987), preamble (Phil.).

80 This percentage reflects 67 states out of the 71 states evaluated.

81 HRC Rapporteur’s Digest, supra note 26.

82 Brookings Report, supra note 10, at 8.

83 Id. at 7.

84 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report, 91, 113 (2016) [hereinafter USCIRF 2016 Report].

85 Id. at 167, 209.

86 Canada Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 (emphasis added).

87 A total of 23 out of 67 criminal blasphemy laws examined included mens rea.

88 Ta’azirat [Islamic Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran], art. 513 (1996); Pak. Penal Code, 

Ch. XV, art. 295-C (1860).

89 Sudan, Crim. Act, art. 125 (1991).

90 [Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious 

Associations] art. 148 (1997).

91 Kazakhstan, Penal Code, art. 164 (2014). Correctional labor is a form of forced labor in prison, 

either used as a form of punishment or as a secured labor force.

92 Strictly speaking, Italy’s blasphemy law (Article 724) triggers an administrative fine, but insulting 

the state religion (Article 402) is subject to a prison sentence. Committee on Culture, Science and 

Education, Blasphemy, religious insults and hate speech against persons on grounds of their religion, 

Doc. 11296 (June 8, 2007), http://www.assembly.coe.int/nw/xml/XRef/X2H-Xref-ViewHTML.asp?FileID=11521&Lang=EN.

93 USCIRF 2016 Report, supra note 83, at 57–61.
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

134

94 Raif Badawi, Appeal Denied, Will Soon Face Brutal Punishment for Blasphemy, Center for Inquiry

(Sept. 4, 2014, updated Sept. 17, 2014), http://www.centerforinquiry.net/blogs/entry/saudi_court_

denies_raif_badawis_appeal/.

95 Const. of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (2004).

96 Constitution of the Arab Republic of Egypt (Dustur Juinhuriyat Misr al-Arabiyah) [Egypt const.] of 

September 11, 1971; Law 58 of 1937 (Criminal Code of 1937), art. 98(f), available at http://www.mohamoon-montada.com/Default. aspx?action=ArabicLaw&ID=20 (in Arabic).

97 Penal Code (Italy), arts. 402–06 [hereinafter Italy Penal Code].

98 Qatar Penal Code 11/2004, part 1, art. 1. 

99 USCIRF 2016 Report, supra note 83, at 167.

100 Const. of the Rep. of Indonesia, art. 29 (1945).

101 HRF Compendium, supra note 53, at 48–9.

102 Id. 

103 Yemen Penal Code art. 12 (1994), as amended by Law 24 (2006).

104 Italy Penal Code, supra note 96, at art. 402.

105 Id. at art. 403.

106 Id. at art. 404.

107 Id. at art. 405.

108 Id. at art. 724.

109 Id. at art. 309.

110 Ar. 199 PK. 

111 Radthathammanoon (B.E. 2534) – 1997; Crim. Code, 206 (Thailand), available at http://library.

siam-legal.com/thai-law/criminal-code-religion-sections-206-208/.

112 Proclamation No. 90/1996 The Press Proclamation Gazette of Eritrean Laws Published by the 

Government of Eritrea PART I, Erigazette, http://erigazette.org/?p=5419.

113 Defamation Act, No. 31 Office of the Attorney General (2009), http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

pdf/2009/en.act.2009.0031.pdf.

114 Customs (Prohibited Imports) Regulation, Independent State of Papua New Guinea (1974), faolex.

fao.org/docs/texts/png51771.doc.

115 Afghanistan’s law is a Mass Media Law; however, it criminalizes “works and materials contrary to 

the Constitution” and references the Penal Code. Law on Mass Media, 2009, art. 45(5) (Afghanistan), 

available at http://gfmd.info/images/uploads/English-Media_Law_2009.pdf (last visited April 18, 2013).

116 Const. (1987), art. 133 (Phil.).

117 See, e.g., Iran, Jordan.

118 See Limitations, Section VI, infra.

119 Lautsi and Others v. Italy, App. no. 30814/06 Eur.Ct.H.R. (2011).

120 Hazel Haddon, In Sisi’s Egypt, Blasphemy Is Still a Crime, Foreign Policy (Apr. 21, 2015), http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/04/21/in-sisis-egypt-blasphemy-is-still-a-crime/.

121 Kristen Chick, Egypt: Why blasphemy cases are rising under President Sisi, The Christian Science 

Monitor (Feb. 18, 2016), http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2016/0218/Egypt-Why-blasphemy-cases-are-rising-under-President-Sisi. 

122 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Annual Report: Egypt, 94 (2016). 

123 Joana Diane Caytas, Note, Disposing of Relics: Overt and Covert Blasphemy Statutes in Europe, Col. J. 

Euro. L. (2016), http://cjel.law.columbia.edu/preliminary-reference/2016/disposing-of-relics-overt-and-
RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

135

covert-blasphemy-statutes-in-europe/ [hereinafter Caytas].

124 U.S. Dept. of State, Italy: International Religious Freedom Report (2008), http://www.state.

gov/j/drl/rls/irf/2008/108453.htm.

125 Id.

126 U.S. Dept. of State, Executive Summary: International Religious Freedom Report (2015), 

http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/irf/religiousfreedom/index.htm#wrapper.

127 HRF Compendium, supra note 53, at 7. 

128 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Bangladesh, http://www.uscirf.

gov/sites/default/files/USCIRF_Monitored_Bangladesh.pdf.

129 Id.

130 Maajid Nawaz, In Bangladesh, Serial Killing in the Name of God, The Daily Beast (Apr. 26, 2016), 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/26/in-bangladesh-serial-killing-in-the-name-of-god.

html.

131 Julfijar Ali Manik & Geeta Anand, Bangladesh Arrests Over 3,000 to Halt Attacks, The N.Y. Times 

(June 11, 2016), http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/world/asia/bangladesh-arrests-over-3000-tohalt-attacks.html?mwrsm=Email&_r=0.

132 Brookings Report, supra note 10, at 12, 14.

133 Id. 

134 The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, Saudi Arabia (2015); National Laws 

on Blasphemy: Iran, Berkley Center for Religion, Peace & World Affairs, Georgetown University, https://

berkleycenter.georgetown.edu/essays/national-laws-on-blasphemy-iran (last visited Oct. 14, 2016). 

135 Dawood Ahmed, Rise of blasphemy charges: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia in perspective, Dawn 

(updated Jan. 1, 2015), http://www.dawn.com/news/1154251.

136 Caytas, supra note 122.

RESPECTING RIGHTS? MEASURING THE WORLD’S BLASPHEMY LAWS

137

This Report was sponsored by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom 

(USCIRF) and directed and co-authored by Joelle Fiss and Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum. 

Research assistance and coding analysis was provided by students and staff of the Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic at Cardozo Law. 

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Joelle Fiss is a researcher and independent consultant based in Geneva, Switzerland. She is 

currently a member of the OSCE/ODIHR Panel of Experts on Freedom of Religion or Belief. Her 

recent studies have included: free speech on social media and how the use of technology raises 

policy stakes between the U.S. and Islamic states; the impact of the attacks in France (2015) 

and the international controversies surrounding Charlie Hebdo. Previously, Ms. Fiss worked 

at Human Rights First. She also worked in the European Parliament’s Alliance of Liberals and 

Democrats for Europe on the parliamentary committee Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. 

She has participated in lectures and debates linked to freedom of expression worldwide and 

violence committed in the name of religion. 

Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum is the Telford Taylor Visiting Clinical Professor of Law at the 

Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law where she manages the Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights 

and Atrocity Prevention Clinic at Cardozo Law. Professor Getgen Kestenbaum works on accountability for atrocity crimes and the human rights abuses that can lead to atrocities. She holds a JD 

from Cornell Law School and MPH from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Clinic Contributors:

Susan Braden

Sophie Duffy 

Afrodite Fountas

Phyllis Kaufman

Ryan Lavigne 

Sharon Montazeri 

Amit Noor

Anna Shwedel

Séhzad Sooklall

Angel Sutjipto
U.S. COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

138

ABOUT THE BENJAMIN B. FERENCZ HUMAN RIGHTS AND 

ATROCITY PREVENTION CLINIC

The Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic at Cardozo Law provides 

students the opportunity to engage in human rights litigation and advocacy toward preventing 

atrocity crimes—including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—protecting populations and rebuilding societies in the aftermath of atrocity. For more information, please contact 

Carolyn Patty Blum, pblum@yu.edu, or Jocelyn Getgen Kestenbaum, jocelyn.getgen@yu.edu.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors would like to thank Elizabeth Cassidy, Director of International Law and Policy, 

U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), for her guidance, insights, 

practical assistance and multiple document reviews. The authors warmly thank Kim Ng for all 

of his statistical data analysis and interpretation, and for creating visual representations of the 

findings. Finally, the authors thank Carolyn Patty Blum, Interim Director of the Cardozo Law 

Institute in Holocaust and Human Rights and Benjamin B. Ferencz Human Rights and Atrocity Prevention Clinic, for her detailed review and edits and Benjamin Mason Meier, Associate 

Professor of Global Health Policy, Department of Public Policy, University of North Carolina at 

Chapel Hill, for his guidance on methodology and detailed edits.

DEDICATION

This Project originated under the leadership and vision of Professor Sheri P. Rosenberg, and this 

Report is dedicated to her. A leader in the field of atrocity prevention and human rights, Sheri 

dedicated her life’s work to genocide prevention, including through addressing issues of discrimination, citizenship and statelessness.  Her commitment and compassion live on through 

the lives of all of those she touched. 

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

732 North Capitol Street, NW, Suite A714

Washington, D.C. 20401

www.uscirf.gov

Telephone: (202) 523–3240, Fax: (202) 523–5020

email: media@uscirf.gov