ICCPR. Article 2(2) of the UNDM affirms the right of minorities to effective participation in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life. Furthermore, Article 2(3) notes that persons belonging to minorities have the right to effective participation in decisions affecting their interests on the national and, where relevant, the regional level, in a manner compatible with domestic laws.235 Finally, ILO Conventions No. 107 236 and No. 169 237 – two legally binding instruments – and the UNDRIP, which, by contrast, does not produce legal obligations, specifically recognize the right of indigenous peoples to participate in decisions which may affect them. The UNDRIP not only recognizes this right but also introduces the concept of ‘free, prior and informed consent’. Article 19 establishes that states shall consult and cooperate in good faith with indigenous peoples ‘in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopting and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them’. Article 32 specifically recognizes this right in the context of indigenous peoples’ land rights. As we shall see below (in the section on Land rights, p. 30), the content of this provision was recently upheld by the IACtHR. However, whether such a right can be interpreted as including a right to veto remains to be seen. Participation in government, with special reference to the right to vote In its General Comment on Article 25 ICCPR, the HRC emphasized that a democratic government, based on the consent of the people and in conformity with the principles of the ICCPR, comprises the core of Article 25.238 States must report to the HRC on the conditions for access to public service positions, including dismissal or removal from office, so that the HRC could detect any irregularities in a timely way.239 Where voting rights are concerned, states must respect and implement the results of genuine elections.240 Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR stipulates that states must ensure ‘the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature’. This provision may prove useful to minorities in the exercise of their political rights, particularly where the choice of their representatives and the legislature are concerned, as highlighted in the above section. These lines of argument can be followed in the jurisprudence of regional courts and quasi-judicial bodies. Thus, in Walter Humberto Vasques Vejarano v Peru 241 the IACtHR established that by removing the applicant from the post of justice of Peru’s Supreme Court of Justice, the President of the Republic of Peru, violated, inter alia, his right to participate in government under Article 23 of the ACHR. Although the right to political participation does not prescribe a form of government or separation of powers within government, ‘a democratic structure is an essential element for the establishment of a political society where human rights can be fully realized’.242 The IACtHR emphasized that the right to govern rests with the people, ‘who alone are empowered to decide their own and immediate destiny and to designate their legitimate representatives’.243 Likewise, in Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria,244 the ACHPR emphasized the relevance of democracy and respect for the voters’ choice in the exercise of political rights. The ACHPR ruled that Nigeria violated Article 13 of the AfrCH by annulling the results of elections from several districts during the 1993 presidential elections. The ACHPR emphasized that under international human rights law certain standards must be applied uniformly across national borders. Governments must be liable to these standards. Taking the context of the case into account, the ACHPR ruled that it is the duty of international observers to ascertain whether elections were free and fair; otherwise it would be contrary to ‘the logic of international law if a national government with a vested interest in the outcome of an election, were the final arbiter of whether the election took place in accordance with international standards’.245 Furthermore, the right to participate freely in government entails voting for a representative of one’s choice; accordingly, government must respect the results of free expression of the will of the voters.246 Moreover, states are obliged to adopt legislative and other measures 247 to ensure that minorities enjoy political rights and are not excluded from the electoral process. Thus, in Aziz v Cyprus 248 the ECtHR established that Cyprus violated Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR: by failing to introduce any legislative changes to its Constitution ensuing from the occupation of Northern Cyprus by Turkey, Cyprus did not ensure the right of Turkish Cypriots to political participation.249 This failure to introduce necessary legislative provisions completely deprived the applicant of any opportunity to express his opinion in the choice of the legislature of the country of his nationality and permanent residence,250 thus impairing the very essence of the applicant’s right to vote. However, not every differential treatment in the electoral system of a state may amount to discrimination. Indeed, states may choose to introduce a regime which through differential treatment would ensure respect for minorities’ rights. Thus, in Lindsay and Others v the United Kingdom,251 the ECmHR decided that the application of a proportional representation system in the Northern Ireland as opposed to a ‘first past the post’ system in the rest of the United Kingdom was compatible with Article 3 MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 25