A/79/169 contradiction in terms 29 and blatant disregard for “the diversity of the forms of State found in the world today”. 30 On the contrary, examining the diversity of a State’s structure as it relates to minority rights is precisely the object of the present report. Beyond the intellectual and academic interest of such an analysis, two compelling reasons justify, in the view of the Special Rapporteur, t he effort required to produce such a report, and the time required for Member States to take it into consideration. First, State institutions are not static; they regularly evolve. Having some guidance, or even benchmarks, on how the evolution of institutional arrangements may affect minority rights may, in such an evolutionary context, be of use. Second, genuine post-conflict peacebuilding will benefit from having some guiding principles on how to build strong, inclusive and resilient institutions for a ju st and lasting peace, so that the fate of minorities does not become or remain a destabilizing factor, in the interest of both the affected populations and the international community. It is for these reasons that the Special Rapporteur submits the present thematic report to the General Assembly, presenting elements that may prove relevant for designing minority-friendly institutional arrangements or policies. VI. Underlying factors promoting minority-friendly institutional designs 22. As shown above, minority rights must be specifically defined at the national level. Some types of institutional arrangements may promote the enjoyment of rights by persons belonging to minorities, others less so. According to international law, States are defined by a territory, a population and a Government. 31 How these three elements relate to each other is not defined in international law but is left to each State to arrange, according to the principle of self-determination. Nevertheless, the institutional structure of a State should allow it to respect its int ernational obligations, in particular in the field of human rights, and even more specifically as regards “a minority population”. 32 In that regard, one preliminary and essential issue is that persons belonging to minorities should be allowed to participate to public life in the country where they live. Institutional design which leads to the exclusion of persons belonging to a minority from decision-making processes should not be tolerated under any circumstances. Some minority groups are not recognized for citizenship in the country where they live, therefore ending up fully excluded from decision -making processes. 33 This is not contrary to international law as such but often entails disastrous consequences for their enjoyment of socioeconomic rights. It is therefore important that States find ways in such cases to take into account the civil, socioeconomic and cultural rights of these minority groups, even if they are deprived of effective participation in decision-making on issues of direct concern to them. Consultative mechanisms, or a specific State administration dedicated to ensuring __________________ 29 30 31 32 33 24-13136 In the same vein, the General Assembly, when adopting resolution 217 (III) on 10 December 1948 stated that “it is difficult to adopt a uniform solution of this complex and delicate question, which has special aspects in each State in which it arises”. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975 , p. 12, at para. 94. As there is no authoritative legal definition of “State” in international law, it is commonly agreed that the criteria set forth in article 1 of the Inter-American Convention on the Rights and Duties of States of 1933 reflect a shared understanding of what a State is, as a legal person of international law. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2022 , p. 477, at paras. 103 and 106. See also Oona A. Hathaway and Alaa Hachem and Justin Cole, “A new tool for enforcing human rights: erga omnes partes standing”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, Vol. 61, No. 2 (2024). See A/73/205. 11/20