Ever-Increasing Synergy towards a Stronger Level of Minority Protection between Minority-Specific and Non-Minority-Specific Instruments

In: European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online
View More View Less
  • 1 Associate Professor, University of Groningen, the Netherlands.

Login via Institution

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€25.00$30.00

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1 Kristin Henrard, Devising an Adequate System of Minority Protection: Individual Human Rights, Minority Rights and the Right to Self-determination (The Hague, 2000), 31-2.

  • 2 Interalia Gudmundur Alfredsson,"Discussion Paper of Workshop I of Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy: Human Rights, Fundamental Freedoms and the Rights of Minorities, Essential Components of Democracy" (SXB. Conf (III) 8,1991), 3,12 ; Florence Benoit-Rohmer, The Minority Question in Europe: Towards a Coherent System of Protection of National Minorities (Strasbourg, 1996), 16. 3 Daniel Thurer, "Protection of Minorities in General International Law and in International Humanitarian Law", in Karel Wellens (ed.), International Law: 1heory and Practice (The Hague, 1998), 533-47, at 535. See also Gaetano Pentassuglia, Minorities in International Law (Strasbourg, 2002), 91-3. 4 For solid arguments concerning the importance of these rights, see Marianne van den Bosch and Willem van Genugten, "International Legal Protection of Migrant Workers, National Minorities and Indigenous Peoples: Comparing Underlying Concepts", 9 IJMGR (2002),195-233, at 208-11. 5 The doctrine of legitimate limitations to human rights tends to include a proportionality require- ment between the legitimate aim of the restriction and that restriction. Obviously this propor- tionality requirement entails a balancing act of the respective interests at stake. See also J.G. Merrills and A. H. Robertson, Human Rights in Europe: A Study of the European Convention on Human Rights (Glasgow,1993), 217-28. 6 Examples par excellence in the jurisprudence of the ECHR concern (in addition to the ones dis- cussed in II.C.1) homosexual activities and the registration of changes of gender of transsexuals. 7 See inter alia Gudmundur Alfredsson, "A Frame with an Incomplete Painting: Comparison of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities with International

  • Standards and Monitoring Procedures", 7 IJMGR (2000), 291-304, at 291-3 and 296-7; Alan Philips, "The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Policy Analysis" MRG Policy Paper (2002), 5; Gaetano Pentassuglia, "Monitoring Minority Rights in Europe: The Implementation Machinery of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - With Special Reference to the Role of the Advisory Committee", 6 IJMGR (1999), 417-61, at 431 and 452. 8 The theme outlined in this article will be further developed in an edited volume, edited by Robert Dunbar and Kristin Henrard. 9 Nevertheless, a UN Working Group on Minorities has been operative since 1995, which is meant to clarify and promote the provisions of the UN Declaration. Its work has resulted in interesting working papers and reports. 10 In both cases the ultimate responsibility lies with the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, a political organ par excellence. Inter alia Snezana Trifunovska, "Factors Affecting the Applicability and Efficiency of International Norms Protecting Linguistic Rights of Minorities", 9 IJMGR (2002), 235-63, at 250. 11 Milan Predan, Parallel Endeavours: Framework Convention for the Protection ofnational Minorities and the CEI instrument for the Protection of Minority Rights (Trieste, 2003), 2. See also Snezana Trifunovska, Activities of the Central European Initiative in the Field of Minorities", in Snezana Trifunovska (ed.), Minority Rights in Europe: European Minorities and Languages (The Hague, 2000),329-32. 12 It deserves to be highlighted that Article 1 of the CEI instrument contains a definition of the concept °minority"which is conspicuously absent in all other minority instruments. Furthermore, the CEI instrument explicitly demands that states promote the knowledge of minority languages among the local administrative officers, which is one of the elements of synergy identified below.

  • 13 While Article 1(5)(c) of the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education is also very important, it has been impossible to obtain information on the supervision system. 14 Alfredsson, A Frame with an Incomplete Painting ..., 293; Rob Dunbar, "Minority Language Rights in International Law", 50 ICLQ (2001),107-19; id,"Implications of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages for British Linguistic Minorities", 25 European Law Review (2000), 46-69, at 50-5; Philips, "The Framework Convention ... °, 3; Stefan Troebst, "The Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities Revisited", 15 Speaking about Rights (1999),1-5, at 2. 15 The monitoring mechanism for the Framework Convention is set out in Articles 24-6, which is complemented by Resolution (97)10 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. See also Pentassuglia, "Monitoring Minority Rights in Europe ... ", 431. 16 Advisory Committee to the Framework Convention, First Activity Report covering the period from 1 June 1998 to 31 May 1999, 4; and Third Activity Report covering the period from 1 November 2000 to 31 May 2002, 5-6. All materials pertaining to the monitoring mechanism of the Framework Convention can be found at http://www.humanrights.coe.int/Minorities/Eng. See also Rainer Hofmann, 1he Framework Convention at the end of the first cycle of monitoring (Strasbourg, 2003), 3; Frank Steketee, "The Framework Convention: A Piece of Art or a Tool of Action?", 8 IJMGR (2002),1-15, at 11. For the Language Charter, see II.A.2.

  • 17 Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention, Second Activity Report covering the period from 1 June 1999 to 31 October 2000, 5. 18 For example, Advisory Committee, opinion on Malta, Liechtenstein and San Marino, all three adopted on 30 November 2000. 19 Advisory Committee, opinion on Ukraine, 1 March 2002, para. 16. The generous recognition of 130 nationalities does not prevent the Committee from questioning critically the limited recog- nition of the separate identity of so-called 'sub-ethnic groups' of the Ukrainian people. 20 In its opinion on Austria, the Committee underlined that even for very small groups a consider- able number of determined measures on the part of the competent authorities is required to help them preserve their identity (Advisory Committee, opinion on Austria, 16 May 2002, para. 82). 21 Advisory Committee, opinion on Estonia, 14 September 2001, para. 40. 22 Inter alia Advisory Committee, opinion on Estonia, 14 September 2001, para. 37; opinion on Finland, 22 September 2000, para. 31; opinion on Hungary, 22 September 2000, para. 27. 23 Advisory Committee, opinion on Croatia, 6 April 2001, para. 29.

  • 24 Inter alia, Advisory Committee, opinion on UK, 30 November 2001, para. 44. See for a thorough discussion as regards the practice under the Framework Convention concerning education Duncan Wilson, "Educational Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities: A Critical Evaluation of the First Results of the Monitoring of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities 1998-2003", Conference to mark the 5`^ Anniversary of the entry into force of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg, 30-31 October 2003. 25 Inter alia Advisory Committee, opinion on Romania, 6 April 2001, para. 64. 26 For an in-depth discussion of the views of the Advisory Committee in terms of Article 15 FC, see Annelies Verstichel, "Elaborating a Catalogue of Best Practices of Effective Participation of National Minorities: Review of the Opinions of The Advisory Committee Regarding Article 15 of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities", 2 EYMI (2002/3),165-95. 27 Inter alia Advisory Committee, opinion on UK, 30 November 2001, paras. 96-9. 28 Advisory Committee, opinion on Estonia, 14 September 2001, para. 55. 29 In 1995, the Council of Europe established a Specialist Group on Roma/Gypsies, which has been rather active since. Reference can also be made to the Committee of Ministers Guidelines on the Education of Roma/Gypsy Children of 4 February 2000. The OSCE's High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) has formulated several recommendations concerning Roma, and special reference should be made to his 1999 Report on Roma/Sinti. The special attention for the predicament of the Roma is not only noticeable in the review activities of the European Commission but also in the Guiding Principles for Improving the Situation of Roma, developed by the COCEN working group at the Tampere Summit of 1999. 30 See also Maria Amor Estebanez, "Linguistic Diversity and the Council of Europe: The European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and Council of Europe Policies", to be published in Bruno de Witte (ed.), Europe and Linguistic Diversity (Antwerp, 2004),11-31.

  • 31 See inter alia Committee of Experts, opinion on Finland, ECRML (2001)3, 20 September 2001. 32 Language Charter, Article 2. See also Florence Benoit-Rohmer, "Le Conseil de 1'Europe et les Minorites Nationales", in Katlijn Malfliet and Ria Laenen (eds.), Minority Policy in Central and Eastern Europe (Leuven, 1998), 128-48, at 146. 33 It should be highlighted that the Committee of Experts also stresses the need for positive action towards endangered languages (e.g. Finland ECRML (2001)3, 2001, para. 191); for mother tongue education (Sweden, ECRML (2003)1, 2003, paras. 46-51); for accompanying measures concerning teacher training etc. (Croatia, ECRML (2001)2, 2001, para. 61); for practice to be in line with the theory and legal principles (Croatia, ECRML (2001)2, 2001, para. 80, Germany, ECRML (2002)1, 2002, inter alia paras. 91,148, 215, 47). Also here special attention is given to the Roma language(s) (opinion on Hungary, ECRML (2001)4, 2001, para. 21). Even when the overall assessment of a country's implementation practice is good, the Committee always identi- fies issues that can be done better (Norway, ECRML (2003)2, 2003, inter alia paras. 94-6,120; Finland, ECRML (2001) 3, 2001 para. 58). 34 For a recent and broad discussion of the status of so-called `new minorities', see Edwin Bakkers and Jeroen Bomers (eds.), New Minorities Inclusion and Equality (The Hague Committee, 2003). 35 Committee of Experts, Croatia, 20 September 2001, para. 17. 36 Committee of Experts, Norway- second monitoring cycle, 3 September 2003, inter alia para. 98 and Chapter 4: Findings of the Committee, A and B.

  • 37 A traditional sentence in this regard is "Recommends that the ... authorities take account of all the observations of the Committee of Experts ..."(e.g. Recommendation RecChL (2002)1 of the Committee of Ministers on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Germany; Recommendation RecChL (2003)1 of the Committee of Ministers on the application of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages by Sweden). 38 Rob Zaagman, "The CSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities: An Analysis of the Mandate and the Institutional Context", in Arie Bloed (ed.), The Challenge ofChange: 1he Helsinki Summit of the CSCE and its Aftermath (Dordrecht, 1994),113-75, at 126. 39 Inter alia Benoit-Rohmer, 7he Minority Question in Europe ..., 40. 40 Rolf Ekeus, "The Role of the Framework Convention in Promoting Stability and Democratic Security in Europe", Conference to mark the 5'h Anniversary of the entry into force of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg, 30-31 October 2003,5.

  • 41 Ibid., 7. Contra Boris Cilevics, "The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities within the context of the Council of Europe", Conference to mark the 5'" Anniversary of the entry into force of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg, 30-31 October 2003, 8, highlighting the complicated coordination because of the different priorities in minority protection. 42 Inter alia Pentassuglia, Minorities in International Law ... 151-8. 43 European Commission, "Comprehensive Monitoring Report", at http://europa.eu.indcomm/ enlargementlreport_2003/pdf/ summary _paper2003 _full_en. pdf, 6. 44 De Witte and von Toggenburg seem to point to the latter by underlining that Article 49 TEU is in fact the constitutional codification of an existing practice", in Bruno de Witte and Gabriel N. von Toggenburg, "Human Rights and Membership of the European Union", in Steve Peers and Angela Ward (eds.), 1he EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: Law Context and Policy (Oxford, 2004), 59-82, at 60. 45 European Commission, Strategy Paper 2003: Continuing Enlargement, http://europa.eu.int, 6. 46 Ibid., 7.

  • 47 See also de Witte and von Toggenburg, "Human Rights and Membership ... 66-7. 48 Material related to the monitoring mechanism under the CCPR can be found at the treaty body data base of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc. nsf.

  • 49 For an overview of previous case law, see Henrard, Devising an Adequate System of Minority Protection ..., 174-85. Regarding more recent case law, the decision in Mahuika et al. v. New Zealand of 20 October 2000 (Communication No. 574/1993), in which it was held that "the State Party has, by engaging itself in the process of broad consultation before proceeding to legislate, and by paying specific attention to the sustainability of Maori fishing activities, had taken the necessary steps to ensure that the Fisheries Settlement and its enactment through legislation, including the Quota Management System" (para. 9.8), seems justified. However, in Aerlea and Nakknlajarvi v. Finland of 24 October 2001 (Communication No. 779/1997) the HRC could have given the benefit of the doubt to the minority instead of the state (para. 7.6), while in ,Jonassen et al. v. Norway of 25 October 2002 (Communication No. 942/2000), the inadmissibil- ity decision in the latter was justly criticized in the dissenting opinions by Henkin, Scheinin and Yrigoyen. 50 HRC, Communication No. 884/1999, Ignatane u Latvia, views of 25 July 2001. 51 See injra at C.l.e. 52 Reference can be made not only to Article 15 Framework Convention and Paragraph 35 of the Copenhagen document but also to several reports to the UN Working Group on Minorities, including Fernand de Varennes, "Towards Effective Political Participation and Representation of Minorities", Working Paper for the LTN Working Group of Minorities, UN Doc. E/CN.4/ Sub.2/AC.5/1998/WP.4, May 1998; as well as the Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public Life, September 1999 (see ILA.3).

  • 53 HRC, Communication No. 760/1997, JGA. Diergaardt (late Captain of the Rehoboth Baster Community) et al. v. Namibia, views of 25 July 2000. Regarding the complaint concerning the expropriation of their lands after Namibia's independence the HRC decided that this did not involve Article 27 rights because the relationship between the authors' way of life and the land was not such that a distinctive culture was at stake (para. 10.6). The Committee in any event did not rule that the Afrikaners are not a minority in terms of Article 27. 54 See dissenting opinions of Amor and Nisuke Ando. See also Alexander Morawa, "Minority Language and Public Administration: A Comment on Issues Raised in Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, ECMI Working Paper No. 16, 2002, 9, at http:l/www.ecmi.deldodpublic_papers. html. 55 HRC, Communication No. 694/1996, Waldman v. Canada, views of 3 November 1999. 56 Material related to the monitoring mechanism under the CRC can be found at the treaty body data base of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc. nsf.

  • 57 CRC/C, Concluding Observation: Bangladesh, 2003, para. 79; Concluding Observations: Israel, 2002, para. 55. 58 Inter alia CRC/C, Concluding Observations: Estonia, 2003, para. 23. 59 CRC/C, Concluding Observations: Georgia, 2003, para. 71; Concluding Observations: Eritrea, 2003, para. 51; Concluding Observations: Estonia, 2003, paras. 43,52; Concluding Observations: Ukraine, 2002, paras. 60-1. 60 CRC/C, Concluding Observations: New Zealand, 2003, para. 43; Concluding Observations: Latvia, 2001, para. 51. 61 CRC/C, Concluding Observations: Romania, 2003, para. 65; Concluding Observations: Canada, 2003, para. 45; Concluding Observations: Czech Republic, 2003, paras. 54, 68; Concluding Observations: Estonia, 2003, para. 53. 62 CRC/C, Concluding Observations: Greece, 2002, para. 35. 63 CRC/C, Concluding Observations: Lebanon, 2002, para. 40. 64 CRC/C, Concluding Observations: Italy, 2003, para. 54; Concluding Observations: Romania, 2003, paras. 25, 64; Concluding Observations: Czech Republic, 2003, para. 67. 65 CRC/C, Concluding Observations: Estonia, 2003, para. 23.

  • 66 Interalia Olivier de Schutter, "Observations: Le Droit au Mode de la VieTsigane devant la Court Europeenne des Droits de l'Homme: Droits Culturels, Droits des Minorites, Discrimination Positive", 8 Revue Trimestrielle de Droits de I Flomme (1997), 64-93; Henrard, Devising an Adequate System ofMinority Protection ..., 69-146; Christian Hillgruber and Mark Jestaedt, 1he European Convention on Human Rights and the Protection ofNational Minorities (Koln,1994). 67 See also Florence Benoit-Rohmer, "La Convention Europeenne des Droits de l'Homme et la defense des droits des minorites nationals", 13 Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de 1'Homme (2002), 563-86; Geoff Gilbert, "The Burgeoning Minority Rights Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights", 11 HRQ (2002), 736-80. 68 A more complete review has been done by Kristin Henrard in an article for the Netherlands Human Rights Quarterly to be published in 2004. In that article a full discussion is also presented of cases (e.g. the Grand Chamber decisions in Refah Partisi v. Turkey, Cha'are Shalom VE Tsedek v. France, and Gorxelik et al. v. Poland), that seem rather negative from a minority protection angle by giving a lot of leeway to the states. An overview of the most recent jurisprudence of the ECtHR regarding minorities is given in this volume by Roberta Medda-Windischer, "The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights"; for previous years see id., "The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights", 1 EYNII (2001/2), 487-534; id., "'Ihe Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights", 2 EYMI (2002/3), 445-69. 69 See ILC.1 (a). ECtHR, Nachova v. Bulgaria, judgment of 26 February 2004.

  • 70 Insofar as no other official source is given, judgments of the ECtHR and the ECommHR can be found at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/hudoc. 71 The restrictive approach as regards the non-discrimination principle was also reflected in the reluctance of the Court to accept even the notion of indirect discrimination (e.g. ECtHR, Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v. UK, judgment of 28 May 1985, para. 85). A paradigmatic case of this restrictive attitude as regards claims by Gypsies was ECtHR, Buckley v. UK, judg- ment of 25 September 1996. Recently, the Court seems more open towards the idea of indirect discrimination, as was demonstrated inter alia in ECtHR, Kelly v. UK, judgment of 4 May 2001, para 148. However, the standard of proof still seems extremely high, limiting the actual protection in this regard. 72 ECtHR, 2hlimmenos v. Greece, judgment of 6 April 2000, para. 44, emphasis added.

  • 73 While normally the European Court of Human Rights requests a reasonable, objective justifica- tion for a difference in treatment (so that it would not violate the prohibition of discrimination), differentiations on certain suspected grounds (sexual orientation, race, gender ...) require 'very weighty reasons'. See also Aalt-Willem Heringa, "Standards of Review for Discrimination: The Scope of Review by the Courts", in Titial Loenen and Peter Rodriguez (eds.), Non-Discrimination Law: Comparative Perspectives (The Hague, 1999), 25-38, at 29-31; Pieter van Dijk and Gerhard J.H. van Hoof, Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (The Hague, 1998), 727-9. 74 It could be argued that the jurisprudential developments further discussed below, revealing increased attention for minority protection concerns, might very well lead to the recognition by the Court that the prohibited ground of discrimination "belonging to a national minority" also engenders heightened scrutiny. Regarding the link between race and minority protection see II.C.3 on the discussion of the CERD. 75 For example, ECtHR,Jersildv. Denmark, judgment of 23 September 1994, para 30. 76 ECtHR, L. and V. v. flustria, judgment of 9 January 2003, paras. 52-3. 77 Nachova v. Bulgaria, para. 157. 78 Ibid., para. 158. 79 Ibid., paras.166-71.

  • 80 Ibid., para. 168. 81 ECtHR, Chapman v. UK, judgment of 18 January 2001. For an extensive discussion of the implications of Chapman, see Florence Benoit-Rohmer, "Observations: A Propos de l'Autorite d'un Precedent en Matiere de la Protection des Minorit6s", 12 Revue Trimestrielle des Droits de I Flomme (2001), 905-15. 82 Chapman v. UK, para. 73. See also Gilbert, "The Burgeoning Minority Rights Jurisprudence ...", 779. 83 Chapman v. UK, para. 96.

  • 84 Ibid., para. 93. 85 Ibid., para. 94. 86 Ibid., para. 98. 87 See especially ECtHR, flnguelova v. Bulgaria, judgment of 13 June 2003, paras. 120-2 and Nachova v. Bulgaria, paras.157-62 and 170-5. 88 Reference should also be made to ECtHR, Conka v. Belgium, judgment of 5 February 2002, paras. 60-3, in which the ECHR established for the first time a violation of Article 4 of the sev- enth additional protocol because of an alleged collective expulsion of a group of Roma. The Court here seemed to give enhanced protection to the Roma in view of their extra vulnerable position in society. 89 Nachova v. Bulgaria, para. 158.

  • 90 ECtHR, Cyprus v. Turkey, judgment of 10 May 2001. 91 Case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of language in education in Belgium", judgment of 23 July 1968. For a critical analysis of the Belgian Linguistics case see inter alia Henrard, Devising an Adequate System of Minority Protection ... 119-21; Hillgruber and Jestaedt, The European Convention on Human Rights ..., 25-31. 92 Belgian Linguistic case, para. 277. 93 Ibid. 94 Ibid., para. 278. 95 Ibid.

  • 96 See also Fernand de Varennes, Language, Minorities and Human Rights (Maastricht, 1995), 73. The Commission emphasized in X. v. Austria that the Convention does not include a right for linguistic minorities and that consequently the protection of their members is limited to non- discrimination on the ground of association with a national minority (ECommHR, Application No. 8142/78, X. v. Austria, decision of 10 October 1979, D.R.18, 88). 97 ECtHR, Podkalzina v. Latvia, judgment of 9 April 2002. 98 Ibid., para. 34. 99 Ibid., para. 36.

  • 100 HRC, Ignatane v. Latvia, see ILB.1. 101 Material related to the monitoring mechanism under the CESCR can be found at the treaty body data base of the UN High Commissioner on Human Rights, at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/ doc.nsf. 102 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Israel, 2003, para. 5. 103 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Japan, 2001, para. 40. The Committee similarly expresses the need to work towards equality of opportunities in its Concluding Observations on the UK (2001, para. 31) and on Brazil (2003, para. 44). 104 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: France, 2001, para. 15. 105 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Syria, 2001, para. 45. It should also be noted that in its General Comment No. 13 on the Right to Education the Committee states that maintain- ing separate educational institutions for linguistic and religious groups is not in violation of the prohibition of discrimination (para. 33). The Committee expressly refers to the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education which makes this explicit in Article 2(2). Once again there seems to be a synergy as regards formulations/interpretations of fundamental rights that are favourable to minorities.

  • 106 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, 2003, para. 27; Concluding Observations: Estonia, 2002, para. 57; Concluding Observations: Bolivia, 2001, para. 24. 107 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, 2003, para. 27; Concluding Observations: Estonia, 2002, para. 57; Concluding Observations: Sweden, 2002, para. 38; Concluding Observations: Syria, 2001, para. 45. 108 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Japan, 2001, para. 60. 109 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Guatemala, 2003, para. 45. See also Concluding Observations: Croatia, 2001, para. 19 with a call to adapt the textbooks accordingly. 110 CESCR/C, General Comment No. 13 on the Right to Education (Article 13), E/C.12/1999/10, para. 6. 111 CESCR/C, Concluding Observations: Slovakia, 2002, para. 2; Concluding Observations: Moldava, 2003, paras. 36-7, Concluding Observations: Poland, 2002, paras. 30, 36, Concluding Observations: Czech Republic, 2002, paras. 12,44. 112 Material related to the monitoring mechanism under the CERD can be found at the treaty body data base of the LTN High Commissioner on Human Rights, at http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc. nsf.

  • 113 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Albania, 2003, para. 14. 114 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Ecuador, 2003, para. 11. See also CERD/C Concluding Observations: Russian Federation 2003, para. 27. 115 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Fiji, 2003, paras.15-6. 116 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Ecuador, 2003, para. 6. 117 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Albania, 2003, para. 16; Concluding Observations: Iran, 2003, para. 13. 118 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Ecuador, 2003, para. 14. 119 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Fiji, 2003, para. 27; Concluding Observations: Ghana, 2003, para. 20. See also website of the International Service for Human Rights, review on the 2002 Session of CERD/C regarding the evaluation of Moldova in 2002, at www.ishr.ch. 120 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Latvia, 2003, para. 9.

  • 121 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Morocco, 2003, para. 14. 122 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Tunisia, 2003, para. 8. 123 CERD/C, Concluding Observations, Fiji, 2003, para. 18. See also the report by the International Service on Human Rights regarding the 2002 session of CERD/C on Jamaica, at www.ishr.ch. 124 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Slovenia, 2003, para. 9. 125 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Ghana, 2003, para. 21. 126 CERD/C, Concluding Observations: Poland, 2003, para. 12, Concluding Observations: Slovenia, 2003, para. 10; Concluding Observations: Albania, 2003, para. 21; Concluding Observations: Finland, 2003, para. 16.

  • 127 CERD/C, General Recommendation No. 21 on the Right to Self Determination, para. 5. 128 CERD/C, General Recommendation 23 on Indigenous Peoples, paras. 4(a)-(e); General Recommendation 27 on Discrimination against Roma, paras. 15, 18, 26, 28-9, 41; General Recommendation 29 on Descent, paras. 6, 24, 27-8, 36, 48. 129 It is indeed possible to also identify synergies concerning the important role of the media more generally. Similarly, in most frameworks one notices an emphasis on the need for national insti- tutions to promote respect for human rights (broadly), in which population diversity issues also play a prominent role (both as regards functions and composition). However, I have chosen to focus this article on the strongest, most obvious cases of synergy.

  • 130 See also Bruno de Witte, "Conclusion: A Legal Perspective", in Sergi Vilfan (ed.), Ethnic Groups and Language Rights: Comparative Studies on Governments and Non-Dominant Ethnic Groups in Europe,1850-1940 (New York,1993), 303-14, at 304.

  • 131 Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin, Article 8. See also Lisa Waddington and Mark Bell, "More Equal than Others: Distinguishing European Union Equality Directives", 38 Common Market Law Review (2001), 587-611, at 606; Gabriel N. von Toggenburg, "The Race Directive: A New Dimension in the Fight Against Ethnic Discrimination in Europe", in 1 EYMI (2001/2), 205-34, at 238-9. 132 Inter alia Bruno De Witte, "Politics versus Law in the EU's Approach to Ethnic Minorities", EUI Working Papers, RSC No. 2000/4; Gabriel N. von Toggenburg, A Rough Orientation through a Delicate Relationship: the European Union's Endeavours for its Minorities", in Snezana Trifunovska (ed.), Minority Rights in Europe: European Minorities and Languages (The Hague, 2000), 205-34. 133 Gabriel N. von Toggenburg, "The Race Directive ... °, 243-4.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 64 32 1
Full Text Views 115 3 0
PDF Downloads 7 5 0