discrimination under Protocol 12, considering the expectation that the Court would ‘use this case, as the very first of its kind, to lay down specific first principles, standards or tests that might be considered universal and applicable to future cases concerning general discrimination’.127 Nonetheless, by finding a violation of Protocol 12 in the first case where the ECtHR has issued a judgment regarding Protocol 12, the Court confirmed that this instrument may further enhance the protection of minorities under the ECHR. Furthermore, as this case demonstrates, the added value of Protocol 12 is in its application to any ‘right set forth by law’. Some developments in the area of non-discrimination based on racial or ethnic origin took place in the African and Inter-American contexts as well. Thus, the ACHPR found a violation of Article 2 on non-discrimination of the African Charter based on the ground of ethnic origin in the cases such as Amnesty International v Zambia 128 and the Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture and Others v Rwanda.129 Thus, in Amnesty International v Zambia,130 Zambia deported two prominent political figures, which in the view of the applicants constituted discrimination and violated inter alia Article 2 of the African Charter. The ACHPR noted that Article 2 imposes an obligation on Zambia to guarantee the rights protected under this instrument to all persons within its jurisdiction irrespective of their political or any other opinion.131 Without any elaboration on the application of the principle of non-discrimination, the ACHPR concluded that the arbitrary removal of one’s citizenship cannot be justified and hence there was a violation of Article 2. Similarly, in Organisation Mondiale Contre la Torture and Others v Rwanda,132 the African Commission did not specify any particular test in applying the principle of nondiscrimination. The case concerned the expulsion from Rwanda of Burundi nationals (who had been refugees in Rwanda for many years), and arbitrary arrests and detentions made on the basis of ethnic origin, including the Tutsi ethnic group, in various parts of the country by the Rwandan security forces. The African Commission simply held that ‘[t]here is considerable evidence, undisputed by the government, that the violations of the rights of individuals have occurred on the basis of their being Burundian nationals or members of the Tutsi ethnic group. The denial of numerous rights to individuals on account of their nationality or membership of a particular ethnic group clearly violates Article 2.’ 133 Such a brief reasoning may be explained by the fact that, despite the numerous notifications of the communications 14 sent by the ACHPR, the government of Rwanda did not supply any substantive response. Thus, because the applicants’ claims remained uncontested by the government, the ACHPR had to decide based on the facts provided.134 Nevertheless, a lack of dialogue between the ACHPR and the government did not prevent the ACHPR from clarifying a review mechanism in the application of the principle of non-discrimination. The ACHPR has slightly expanded on its interpretation of the principle of non-discrimination in Malawi African Association and Others v Mauritania,135 concerning discriminatory treatment of many Black Mauritanians, who, because of the colour of their skin, were forced to flee, or were detained, tortured or killed. The African Commission interpreted Article 2 AfrCH as essential to the spirit of the instrument, which inter alia pursues the goal of the elimination of all forms of discrimination and aims to ensure equality among all human beings. The ACHPR then relied on Article 1(1) of the UN Declaration of the Rights of People Belonging to National, Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities (UNDM) and maintained that international human rights law and the international community accord significance to the eradication of discrimination in all its forms. Therefore, a state’s discriminatory treatment of its own indigenes based on the colour of their skin is an unacceptable discriminatory attitude in violation of Article 2.136 As in the above-discussed cases, the ACHPR accorded a heightened scrutiny to the case of discrimination based on ethnic origin or race. In all three cases, discriminatory treatment of minority groups was blatantly obvious. Nevertheless, in future, it is desirable for the ACHPR to specify a review mechanism, as in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and HRC, to clearly indicate which state acts may contravene Article 2. Case study: The Yean and Bosico Children v Dominican Republic In this regard, the IACtHR decision in The Yean and Bosico Children v Dominican Republic case,137 in which MRG intervened, is highly commendable for its thorough assessment of a discriminatory denial of birth certificates to children of Haitian origin. The Yean and Bosico children of Haitian origin were born in the Dominican Republic. Article 11 of the Constitution of the Dominican Republic stipulated that all those born on its territory are Dominicans (ius soli),138 except for the children of foreign diplomats resident in the country or the children of those in transit. Around 500,000 undocumented Haitian workers live in the Dominican Republic; many of them have been born MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE