A/69/261 stipulates an obligation for State parties in this field: “In order to promote equality and eliminate discrimination, States Parties shall take all appropriate steps to ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided.” It should be noted that article 5 of the Convention generally deals with equality and non-discrimination and that reasonable accommodation thus plays a systematic role in this specific context. In its concluding observations on reports of States parties, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has clarified that it treats failure to ensure reasonable accommodation as a violation of the principles of equality and non -discrimination. 20 50. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities reflects some of the most recent thinking in this area, including insights from international debates on measures needed to effectively combat discrimination, in particular indirect forms of discrimination. It seems fair to infer that what the Convention specifically stipulates as regards reasonable accommodation on behalf of persons with disabilities might also apply to persons suffering discrimination on other grounds, including religion or belief. 2. Reasonable accommodation in the workplace 51. Measures of reasonable accommodation in the workplace in order to ensure everyone’s freedom of religion or belief on the basis of equality and non-discrimination are not a mere utopian dream. Fortunately, we have a number of impressive success stories in this field which may help to inspire positive action and dispel unjustified fears. 52. In many institutions, a more or less appropriate infrastructure already exists or is in the process of development. Accommodating religious or belief -related diversity in the workplace has become a standard practice in many public institutions and private companies. One example is respect for specific dietary needs originating from religious prescripts or other conscience -based reasons. Workplace canteens frequently provide halal or kosher food and offer vegetarian meals, and in many cases this is appreciated even by employees who have not requested such options for religious reasons. Public and private employers have successfully negotiated pragmatic ways of accommodating diverse religious holidays, for instance, by permitting employees to use parts of their annual vacation for this purpose. Trade unions and staff representatives often participate in such negotiations. There are also examples of employees performing their prayer rituals in the workplace without any negative implications on professiona l operations. Moreover, the wearing of religious garments is considered part of normal life in many public institutions or private companies and is largely respected by colleagues and customers. In short: provided there is goodwill on all sides, practical solutions can be found in most cases. So before dealing with remaining challenges and __________________ 20 14-58756 See the references to “reasonable accommodation” in the Committee’s concluding observations CRPD/C/TUN/CO/1, paras. 12-13; CRPD/C/ESP/CO/1, paras. 19-20, 40 and 43-44; CRPD/C/PER/CO/1, paras. 6-7; CRPD/C/ARG/CO/1, paras. 11-12; CRPD/C/CHN/CO/1 and Corr.1, paras. 11-12 and 74; CRPD/C/HUN/CO/1, paras. 15, 16, 27, 34, 39 and 41-43; CRPD/C/PRY/CO/1, paras. 13-14, 32, 44 and 65; CRPD/C/AZE/CO/1, paras. 13, 41 and 43; CRPD/C/CRI/CO/1, paras. 11-12, 28 and 55-56; CRPD/C/SWE/CO/1, paras. 9-10, 21, 23 and 26; CRPD/C/SLV/CO/1, paras. 13-14, 28-32, 49-50 and 55; CRPD/C/AUS/CO/1, paras. 45-46. See also the Committee’s views on the cases of H.M. v. Sweden (CRPD/C/7/D/3/2011); Nyusti and Takács v. Hungary (CRPD/C/9/D/1/2010); Bujdosó et al. v. Hungary (CRPD/C/10/D/4/2011); and X. v. Argentina (CRPD/C/11/D/8/2012). 15/23