ACFC/56DOC(2016)001 Roma59 have been excluded altogether from the scope of application of the Framework Convention and thereby entirely denied protection as a national minority, because of the fact that they live territorially dispersed and not settled in substantial numbers anywhere in the country.60 f) Support by “kin-states” 35. A number of states parties define the term ‘national minorities’ as those groups who have a link with a “kin-state”, classifying those without such link as ‘ethnic minorities’ or ‘ethno-linguistic groups’. The Advisory Committee considers that the question whether support is or is not available from another state cannot be used as a relevant point of differentiation with respect to recognition or access to rights. While not favouring any particular terminology, it has criticised cases when different categories lead to the formation of hierarchies and different “categories” of minorities, as this may result in unjustified distinctions with respect to applicable rights.61 36. The Advisory Committee has welcomed bilateral agreements to facilitate crossborder relations and co-operation, for instance regarding the supply of textbooks and exchanges of teachers for the benefit of high-quality education in minority language schools. However, it has disapproved of agreements that outsource such fundamental aspects of minority protection to another state.62 It follows from the international law principle of state sovereignty that states hold the single jurisdiction over their territory and population, a jurisdiction that can be restricted only within the limits of international law. Overall, the responsibility to protect minority rights, as part of general human rights, lies primarily with the state where the minority resides.63 While the Advisory Committee interprets Article 17 to imply that states parties must not interfere with the enjoyment of benefits from other countries, they must not rely on them instead of striving themselves for the realisation of minority rights. g) Specific identity markers and ascribed categories 37. In a variety of states parties, the understanding of the term ‘national minority’ is linked to specific characteristics that are often considered as emblematic for identity and for differentiating the minority from the majority, including language, religion, culture, ethnic background, specific traditions or visible features. These markers are often based on common perceptions that are shared within society, by members of the majority and minorities alike. Nevertheless, employing such externally defined markers entails the danger of including or excluding individuals against their will.64 The Advisory Committee reiterates 59. The term “Roma and Travellers” is used at the Council of Europe to encompass the wide diversity of the groups covered by the work of the Council of Europe in this field: on the one hand a) Roma, Sinti/Manush, Calé, Kaale, Romanichals, Boyash/Rudari; b) Balkan Egyptians (Egyptians and Ashkali); c) Eastern groups (Dom, Lom and Abdal); and, on the other hand, groups such as Travellers, Yenish, and the populations designated under the administrative term “Gens du voyage”, as well as persons who identify themselves as Gypsies. 60. See First Opinion on the Netherlands. 61. See, for instance, Second and Third Opinions on Albania and First Opinion on Poland. 62. See Second Opinion on Albania and First Opinion on Germany. 63. See also OSCE HCNM Bolzano/Bozen Recommendations on National Minorities in Inter-State Relations, June 2008. 64. The Advisory Committee considered, for instance, that the over-reliance on the “racial group” criterion applied in the United Kingdom might, despite its wide application, result in a priori exclusions of groups that have legitimate claims. See Third Opinion on the United Kingdom. 15