13 Equality and non-discrimination All persons are entitled to equal and effective protection against discrimination on grounds of language. This means that language preferences that unreasonably or arbitrarily disadvantage or exclude individuals are a form of prohibited discrimination. This applies to differences of treatment between any language, including official languages,11 or between an official and a minority language.12 In any area of state activity or service, authorities must respect and implement the right to equality and the prohibition of discrimination in language matters, including the language for the delivery of administrative services,13 access to the judiciary,14 the regulation of banking services by authorities,15 public education,16 and even citizenship acquisition.17 The general prohibition of discrimination contained in treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, as well as in guideline documents such as the Principles of Language and Education, and the Recommendations of the UN Forum on Minority Issues on Implementing the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, suggest that the most efficient and effective way to address language preferences reasonably and non-arbitrarily—and therefore in a non-discriminatory fashion—is for states to broadly recognize, integrate and follow the principle of proportionality where practicable in their legislation, policies and practices. The prohibition of discrimination on the ground of language and similar equality-based provisions lead to an obligation for the state to have in place reasonable and non-arbitrary language preferences. This does not affect a state’s ability to determine its own official language(s), but entails that any language policy, preference or prohibition must conform with international human rights obligations. This human rights approach focuses on the differences in treatment between individuals, not languages. It is therefore the potential negative impacts, such as disadvantage or exclusion, on individuals rather than languages that are considered in assessing the reasonableness of any language preference in the policies, support or services provided at all levels by state authorities and actions. A basic approach to determining reasonableness is to use as a starting point the principle of proportionality, as far as is practicable given local circumstances, in all language matters related to public services. Issues of disadvantage, exclusion and reasonableness are central to the basis for a proportional approach to the use of minority languages in a state’s public services and other activities. Using a minority language results in better, more efficient and more inclusive communication and exchange of information by public authorities. Employment and economic opportunities are also increased by making a minority language a language of public service to a fair and proportionate degree, and service delivery including in critical areas such as public health reaches individuals more directly and effectively in their own language. Individuals understand better information provided to them in their own language by public media. In public education the consequences of the use of minority 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Kevin Mgwanga Gunme et al. v. Cameroon, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication 266/2003, 27 May 2009. J.G.A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, UN Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997, 25 July 2000. J.G.A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia (note 12). Bickel and Franz v. Italy, European Court C-275/96, 24 November 1998. Mgwanga Gunme et al. v. Cameroon (note 11). Case relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium v Belgium, European Court of Human Rights, 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64, 23 July 1968 (no.2). Costa Rican Naturalisation Case, American Court of Human Rights, OC-4/84, Advisory Opinion of 19 January 1984.