A/HRC/43/47 State’s official language should itself be avoided. This would seem to be impractical, especially in countries with a large number of minority languages. 45. What has therefore emerged more recently is that differences of treatment between two languages, including where the privileged language is an official language and in the area of public education, may be discriminatory in international human rights law if they are not demonstrated to be reasonable and justified preferences. In Diergaardt v. Namibia (CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997), the majority of the members of the Human Rights Committee concluded that non-discrimination might permit the use of other languages in addition to an official one where it was unreasonable and unjustified for administrative authorities not to use another language in addition to that country’s only official language at the time, namely English. Similarly, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights concluded in 2009 that the almost exclusive use of one official language, French, in banking matters regulated by the Government of Cameroon so disadvantaged English-speaking citizens as to be unjustified, and therefore in violation of a substantive approach to equality and nondiscrimination on the ground of language,8 suggesting therefore that the anglophone minority in that country was entitled to language rights anchored in this general human rights standard. 46. The above human rights conclusions suggest that a State language preference can constitute discrimination if it is unreasonable or unjustified, or not based on what is proportionate, practical and justified. It would seem therefore that public education not provided in a child’s language could be a breach of the right to education if students are imposed with an unrealistic burden through the language choice of authorities, 9 or excluded from the opportunity of learning the national language.10 The implications are that the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of language can lead to situations where State authorities have an obligation to communicate with members of the public in a non-official language, often a minority language, where this is reasonable and justified. In relation to the right to education, there can, for example, be situations of a denial of the substance of the right if the language used as a medium of instruction is not a child’s mother tongue for as long and as extensively as is reasonably practicable. 47. Whereas for language rights in private activities the defining principle would be a laissez-faire approach, the use of minority languages by State authorities would seem to call for the use of a proportionality principle – based on what is reasonable or justified after consideration of all the relevant circumstances in order to comply with the prohibition of discrimination. This is essentially also the principle enshrined in treaties and documents specifically dealing with the human rights of minorities, such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This tends to take the shape of a provision indicating, among others, an obligation for State authorities to use proportionally a minority language where the numbers, demand and geographic concentration of its speakers make it a reasonable or justified use of a minority language. Beyond the legal principle itself at the supranational level, there is a fairly widespread understanding that a proportionate response is highly desirable for a number of very practical reasons: Access to public services, particularly in areas such as health and social services, is most effective when offered in a minority’s language, particularly indigenous or traditional minorities. This includes public education generally. Education in a minority’s own language generally results in better student retention and academic results, including in learning the official language, particularly for vulnerable segments of society such as indigenous peoples and women. 11 8 9 10 11 African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Mgwanga Gunme et al. v. Cameroon, Communication No. 266/2003, 27 May 2009. European Court of Human Rights, Cyprus v. Turkey (application No. 25781/94), judgment of 10 May 2001. European Court of Human Rights, Catan and Others v. Moldova and Russia, Application Nos. 43370/04, 18454/06 and 8252/05, judgment, 19 October 2012. Carol Benson, Girls, Educational Equity and Mother Tongue-Based Teaching (Bangkok, UNESCO Asia and Pacific Regional Bureau for Education, 2005). 9