discriminates against a group’.52 One way of determining indirectly discriminatory effects of neutral rules is through assessment of relevant statistics. In this respect, the Grand Chamber followed the practice of the ECJ, which consistently relied on statistics in finding indirect discrimination in long-standing case law on gender 53 and nationality 54 discrimination. Consequently, the Grand Chamber found that because the relevant legislation had a disproportionately prejudicial effect on the Roma community, ‘the applicants as members of that community necessarily suffered the same discriminatory treatment’.55 Therefore, by 13 votes to 4 the Grand Chamber found a violation of the Convention rights. The ECtHR’s interpretation of the self-standing provision on non-discrimination in Protocol 12 is likely to strengthen these guarantees further. The case of Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina56 concerning the exclusion of persons belonging to minorities in Bosnia and Herzegovina from standing for elections (discussed below) supplies some clarification on the application of the principle of non-discrimination under Protocol 12 ECHR, though not in the context of indirect discrimination. The ECtHR is yet to explore the breadth of Protocol 12’s applications. Grounds of discrimination: race and religion Having established general trends in the assessment of claims of discrimination we will now turn to the cases where specific grounds of discrimination comprised religion; religion and gender; and race or ethnic origin. Religion The HRC’s leading communication on discrimination based on religion remains Waldman v Canada.57 The author of the communication, a member of the Jewish faith, complained that in the province of Ontario, Canada provided full and direct public funding to Roman Catholic schools only. In the HRC’s view, the authorities’ decision not to fund other religious schools violated Article 26 ICCPR, because if a state decides to provide public funding to religious schools, ‘it should make this funding available without discrimination’.58 Canada failed to justify differential treatment of religious schools in the light of its historic protection of the Protestant minority in the province of Ontario. Even the fact that such guarantee had been enshrined in the Canadian Constitution since 1867 did not persuade the HRC that there was a need to maintain such differential treatment between religious minorities: 8 ‘[t]he material before the Committee does not show that members of the Roman Catholic community or any identifiable section of that community are now in a disadvantaged position compared to those members of the Jewish community that wish to secure the education of their children in religious schools.’ 59 Accordingly, such differential treatment was not justified, and, hence, Article 26 ICCPR was breached. Although the ECtHR’s case law on prohibition of discrimination against persons belonging to a minority based on religion60 is not particularly strong (mainly because of selective assessment of Article 14 ECHR claims), the Court can be commended for expanding the scope of the principle of non-discrimination in the case of Thlimmenos v Greece.61 The applicant, a Jehovah’s Witness, was convicted for insubordination as a result of his refusal to wear the military uniform during a general mobilization. Subsequently, he was refused a post as a chartered accountant because the national law excluded convicted persons from such appointments. The applicant relied on Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 9 ECHR and complained that in the ‘application of the relevant law no distinction is made between persons convicted of offences committed exclusively because of their religious beliefs and persons convicted of other offences’.62 The ECtHR noted that its past case law focused on differential treatment of persons in analogous situations without any objective and reasonable justification. However, the Court considered that: ‘this is not the only facet of the prohibition of discrimination in Article 14. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of the rights guaranteed under the Convention is also violated when states without an objective and reasonable justification fail to treat differently persons whose situations are significantly different.’ 63 Therefore, the failure of Greece to ensure such differentiated treatment amounted to a violation of Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Article 9 ECHR. Intersectionality: religion and gender The notion of ‘intersectionality’ refers to a situation of double or multiple discrimination, such as discrimination on grounds of religion and gender.64 To date, one of the most prominent cases where the applicant claimed that she was discriminated against based on her religion and gender remains Şahin v Turkey.65 The case concerns a Turkish university student excluded from attending classes and taking exams for wearing a headscarf. In deciding this MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE