Zambia’s exclusion of 35 per cent of the population from standing for the office of the president by imposing the requirement of Zambian descent. The ACHPR found a violation of Article 13 of the AfrCH, because not only did the government violate the right of individuals to stand for elections, it also breached the right of citizens to freely choose their political representatives.292 With regard to indigenous peoples, special mention should be made of the Yatama v Nicaragua case decided in 2005 by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR).293 The case dealt with the alleged violation by the government of Nicaragua of Article 23 of the IACHR.294 More precisely, it focused on a claim of the indigenous organization Yatama that a new electoral law passed by Nicaragua in 2000 unduly restricted its right to take part in the conduct of public affairs. This law obliged indigenous political organizations willing to participate in the upcoming elections to take the form of a mainstream political party, and had the negative effect of forcing them to present candidates even in areas of the country where no indigenous people lived. In its decision, the IACtHR importantly elaborated on the right to political participation in the context of indigenous rights. As a premise, the IACtHR aptly emphasized the general rule whereby states ‘should generate the optimum conditions and mechanisms to ensure that … political rights can be exercised effectively, respecting the principles of equality and nondiscrimination’.295 It went on to specify how this general provision should be interpreted with regard to indigenous peoples. Hence, the IACtHR stressed that states’ obligation to guarantee the effective enjoyment of political rights ‘is not fulfilled merely by issuing laws and regulations that formally recognize these rights’ but, instead, ‘requires the State to adopt the necessary measures to guarantee their full exercise’. At this point, the IACtHR further noted that, in considering such ‘necessary measures’, states should pay special attention ‘to the weakness or helplessness of the members of certain social groups or sectors’,296 such as, in this case, indigenous peoples. In other words, the IACtHR confirmed that special measures should be taken with a view to guaranteeing the equal, and effective, participation of indigenous peoples to public life. Moreover, the IACtHR stressed that measures that have the effect of impairing – without any objective justification or purpose – citizens’ right to political participation, inevitably violate Article 23 of the IACHR. The IACtHR underlined two elements in relation to this specific point. First, electoral boundaries should take into account the special situation of political organizations representing minority groups. Second, states should take into account the different culture as well as traditional forms of organization and institutions that characterize indigenous peoples. Accordingly, to impose a specific form of organization such as, for example, that of a political party, may amount to a violation of their right to full and equal access to public life.297 Conclusions The right to vote is essential for political participation of minorities. Strategic litigation to guarantee this right may target legislative lacunae depriving minorities of opportunities (or not sufficiently allowing them) to express their opinion in the choice of a legislature or to have an effective say in matters of particular concern to the group. The jurisprudence of international courts and quasijudicial bodies suggests that cases challenging procedural irregularities, such as the number of representatives per district or additional verification of language skills without sufficient procedural safeguards, proved to be successful in protecting minority groups in standing for elections. Bringing claims in cases involving procedural obstacles – including the number of representatives per district, registration for elections, etc. – to the enjoyment of political participation by such groups may further enhance their protection. As established by the IACtHR, electoral boundaries should take into account the special situation of political organizations representing minority groups. In addition, imposing a specific form of organization, such as, for example, that of a political party, may amount to a violation of indigenous peoples’ right to full and equal access to public life. The principle of non-discrimination in political participation should be used more effectively, particularly in the European context, where Protocol 12 ECHR may prove a useful tool in ensuring equal treatment of minorities in the exercise of political rights. In this respect, the low level of ratification of Protocol 12 to the ECHR by western European countries is regrettable. Wider ratification would be a welcome step towards improving the application of non-discrimination in Europe. Article 27 ICCPR requires states to secure effective participation of minorities in decisions that affect them. With regard to indigenous peoples, recent normative developments suggest that the right to consultation should be seen as instrumental in obtaining indigenous peoples’ free, prior and informed consent. A question arises as to whether free, prior and informed consent entails an actual right to veto. MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 29