ACFC/56DOC(2016)001 diversity of European societies in recent years, increased attention has been paid by a number of actors to the imperative of forming inclusive and integrated societies where diversity is respected and preserved.9 With that in mind and in order to clarify both the personal and substantive reach of its work, the Advisory Committee considers it appropriate to devote its Fourth Thematic Commentary to the Framework Convention’s scope of application. 4. The adoption of the Framework Convention in 1995, in the aftermath of violent conflicts in Europe, as the only legally binding international instrument on the rights of persons belonging to national minorities, firmly anchored the protection of minority rights within the universal set of multilaterally recognised human rights. Minority rights, according to Article 1 of the Framework Convention, form part of the international human rights protection system, which is based on the premise that everyone is born free and equal in dignity and rights.10 The purpose of embracing minority rights as an integral part of human rights was not to challenge the notion of equality among all individuals, but to advance it further by establishing a set of specific rights for persons belonging to national minorities to ensure that they are enabled to participate fully and equally in society while being protected from assimilation. Importantly, persons belonging to national minorities require guarantees to enable them: (i) to express difference and to have that difference recognised; (ii) to gain equal access to resources and rights despite difference; and (iii) to engage in social interaction on the basis of respect and understanding across difference. 5. The superficial conclusion is sometimes made that the application of the Framework Convention, given the absence of a definition of national minority, is in practice left solely to the discretion of states parties. This interpretation, however, is incorrect. It runs counter to Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the basic principle of pacta sunt servanda. The purpose of this Commentary is to make it clear that the absence of a definition in the Framework Convention is indeed not only intentional but also necessary to ensure that the specific societal, including economic and demographic, circumstances of states parties are duly taken into account when establishing the applicability of minority rights. The Framework Convention was deliberately conceived as a living instrument whose interpretation must evolve and be adjusted regularly to new societal challenges. Multiple identities and increasing mobility, for instance, have become regular features of European societies. However, such features must not limit access to minority rights. This approach is fully in line with the principle of dynamic interpretation developed by the European Court of Human Rights with respect to the European Convention on Human Rights. 6. While the Framework Convention binds states parties from its entry into force within the domestic jurisdiction, its framework character nevertheless requires additional legal instruments at domestic level to make it fully operational. In many states, definitions of rights holders have been established in domestic legislation to give effect to the provisions laid down in the Framework Convention. The Advisory Committee has consistently acknowledged that states parties have a margin of appreciation in this context, but has also 9. The increased preoccupation with integration-related issues is, for instance, reflected in the work of the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities (HCNM) (see Ljubljana Guidelines on Integration of Diverse Societies November 2012) as well as in the fact that the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has included integration policies in the four topics common to all member states in its fifth round country reports. 10. See Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 5