The main aim of the paper is to refute the statement of Ján Drgonec who claims that the Basic Treaty between the Slovak Republic and the Holy See created the legal basis for the greater influence of the Holy See and the Catholic Church on the Slovak Republic. The paper replies five arguments by Drgonec as it argues, firstly, that the obligation stemming from the treaty are not disproportionate if see in the context as means to protect and fulfil the right to freedom of conscience and religious belief. Moreover, the pace of accumulation of another obligation is in the hands of the Slovak Republic. Secondly, paper shows that the alleged monopoly on interpretation owned by the Holy See is mere quite a common reference to other normative systems used in the laws. Thirdly, it is true that the Basic treaty with the Holy See has different status in the legal system (it has primacy over the laws) in comparison to the status of the, however, Drgonec overestimates implications of this fact. The content of the treaties is almost the same and different legal status is influenced by the existence of the international representation of the Catholic Church. Fourthly, in order to criticize the incompatibility of the Treaty with the Holy See with the human rights obligations, there is a need to do it with focus on the specific obligations in the specific treaties, etc. Drgonec did not do so. Moreover, the paper claims that even Istanbul Convention is compatible with the Basic treaty. Lastly, the Slovak Republic is not in the position of serfdom towards Holy See. It is possible to limit the treaty obligation or legitimately violate them in case of the change of situation (rebus sic standibus argument).