ACFC/56DOC(2016)001 instance, have been considered in the context of the education rights under the Framework Convention. 47. The Advisory Committee has emphasised in this context that the same protective measures that are applied in minority-language schools, such as the requirement of fewer pupils per class, should also apply to state schools that teach in the official language in otherwise minority-language dominated areas.72 Furthermore, the Advisory Committee has considered that other groups which enjoy special protection but are not recognised as national minorities may, in addition, benefit from the protection of the Framework Convention.73 In some contexts, it has also noted that extending the protection of the Framework Convention on a case-by-case basis to persons belonging to the constituent peoples who live in a minority situation could provide an additional tool for promoting their access to rights and addressing the issues they are faced with, without implying a weakening of their status. Indeed, the applicability of minority rights to them is considered by the Advisory Committee as fully in line with the objective and aim of the Framework Convention.74 48. In addition, the Advisory Committee has emphasised that the protection offered by the Framework Convention also extends to persons belonging to indigenous peoples without this having an effect on their status as members of indigenous peoples. Specific rights may be applicable to them, whether or not they are formally recognised as a national minority, and without implying recognition as a national minority.75 This means that individuals are free to avail themselves, beyond the rights they hold as members of indigenous groups, of the protection under the Framework Convention, or to refuse to do so. This has been particularly relevant with respect to the rights contained in Article 5 of the Framework Convention where the Advisory Committee has held that the protection from assimilation also implies that affected individuals must be supported in their efforts to adjust their traditional practices to contemporary challenges, or to engage in economic activities in order to be able to preserve their culture.76 49. As regards disputed territories or regions of states parties to the Framework Convention that are de facto outside the control of the authorities, the Advisory Committee observes that the applicability of the rights contained in the Framework Convention is not altered as a result of the change in de facto authority. On the contrary, the rights of persons belonging to national minorities remain in force and often gain a particular urgency in times of conflict.77 International access and the continuation of regular monitoring activities, however, are deeply affected if not entirely stalled by such territorial disputes. The Advisory Committee has repeatedly called on all parties to take a constructive approach in line with 72. See Third Opinions on Estonia and Lithuania. 73. See, for instance, Fourth Opinion on Spain with respect to speakers of Catalan, Basque and Galician, namely languages with co-official or protected status. The Advisory Committee found here that language rights can particularly benefit speakers of languages who live outside the designated areas. 74. See Third Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina. 75. The Norwegian Sami Parliament stated, for instance, that the Sami did not wish to be considered a national minority as they wished to maintain their status as an indigenous people. The Advisory Committee, however, considered that both protection schemes are not exclusive and may provide parallel benefits to individuals of the group. See First and consecutive Opinions on Norway. See also consecutive Opinions on Denmark, Finland, the Russian Federation and Sweden. 76. See, for instance, Third Opinion on the Russian Federation. 77. See also the Advisory Committee ad hoc report on the situation of national minorities in Ukraine, April 2014. 19