to limit their scope’. This statement has been reinforced by the UNESCO Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Diversity of Cultural Expressions of 2005, Article 2 of which stipulates that ‘no one may invoke the provisions of this Convention in order to infringe human rights and fundamental freedoms as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or guaranteed by international law’. Such a basic principle clearly emerges from the Vienna Declaration of 1993 as well, which affirms that: ‘[a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis. While the significance of national and regional particularities and various historical, cultural and religious backgrounds must be borne in mind, it is the duty of States, regardless of their political, economic and cultural systems, to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms.’ 438 In the specific context of the recognition of minority and indigenous peoples’ rights, it is interesting to note that the UNDM calls upon states to take the necessary measures to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, ‘except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards’.439 As has been indicated above, this does not mean, however, that states are free to adopt whatever prohibitions against minorities’ cultural practices that they want. In this regard, the Commentary on the Declaration by the Working Group on Minorities spells out that: ‘If that were the case, the Declaration, and article 4.2 in particular, would be nearly empty of content. What is intended, however, is to respect the margin of appreciation which any State must have regarding which practices it wants to prohibit, taking into account the particular conditions prevailing in that country. As long as the prohibitions are based on reasonable and objective grounds, they must be respected.’ 440 Similarly, with regard to Article 5 of the FCNM – providing that states have ‘to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage’ – the Explanatory Report clarifies that ‘[t]he reference to “traditions” is not an endorsement or acceptance of practices which are contrary to national law or international standards’.441 In the same vein, the UNDRIP makes the recognition of indigenous peoples’ right ‘to promote, develop and maintain their institutional structures and their distinctive customs, spirituality, traditions, procedures, practices and, in the cases where they exist, juridical systems or customs’ conditional upon the fact that these customs, traditions and practices are ‘in accordance with international human rights standards’.442 Likewise, ILO Convention No. 169 lays down that ‘[t]hese peoples shall have the right to retain their own customs and institutions, where these are not incompatible with fundamental rights defined by the national legal system and with internationally recognised human rights’.443 The issue of the respect of women’s fundamental rights is basically addressed in line with the approach just described. The UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women, Radhika Coomaraswamy, has emphasized that many traditional practices challenge the very concept of universal human rights444 as ‘[m]any of them involve “severe pain and suffering” and may be considered “torture like” in their manifestation. Others such as property and marital rights are inherently unequal and blatantly challenge the international imperatives towards equality.’445 The GA Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women of 1993 has thus stated, for instance, that states should ‘condemn violence against women and should not invoke any custom, tradition or religious consideration to avoid their obligation with respect to its elimination’.446 An identical recommendation was included in the Beijing Platform for Action of 1995.447 It is also worth mentioning the prohibition of ‘harmful practices’ enshrined in the Protocol to the AfrCH on the Rights of Women in Africa which considers as harmful practices ‘all behaviour, attitudes and/or practices which negatively affect the fundamental rights of women and girls, such as their right to life, health, dignity, education and physical integrity’.448 The UN Treaty bodies and the protection of minority and indigenous women’s rights In its General Comment No. 28, the HRC has explicitly dealt with the question of the respect of women’s rights vis-à-vis the protection for cultural integrity when exploring the relationship existing between, on the one hand, the principle of equality of rights between men and women incorporated in Article 3 of the ICCPR and, on the other hand, the right of persons belonging to minorities to enjoy their culture provided in Article 27. MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 45