circumstances, this may be neither possible nor desirable by minority communities or by indigenous majorities communities. Segregation in schools results from segregational residential housing rather than schooling choices. Such advocacy would therefore not be relevant in too many cases where it is impossible to relocate and or compel tens of thousands of people to move or be bussed to different schools. Dr. Charles Russo, Joseph Panzer Chair in Education, School of Education and Allied Professions, and Adjunct Professor in the School of Law, University of Dayton, USA, discussed national case law and addressed the issues of desegregation strategies in the field of education, social cohesion and content and delivery of the curriculum. In particular, Dr. Russo suggested that treatment of education as an integrative, rather than a segregative, factor. If tolerance and acceptance of diversity of religious beliefs and world views are not encouraged in schools and not imbued throughout curricula, both by majority and minority population groups, then we cannot expect to find them present throughout the rest of societies in which social cohesion is the goal. Ms. Libia Grueso, Centre of Social Investigations, Universidad de los Andes, Colombia spoke about indigenous peoples and their right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions, their right to access to education in the context of Colombia and made reference to internally displaced persons and the ILO Convention 169. Dr. Fernand de Varennes, Associate Professor, Murdoch University, Australia made his intervention with respect to international and national level case law, mother tongue instruction, indigenous peoples, and made suggestions with respect to the style and language of the recommendations. As to the latter, he reiterated that, stylistically, the recommendations need to be written in clearer, simpler but also more direct form. If we are talking about the right to education, and especially the application of equality and non-discrimination, then states have obligations, and individuals have a right. When you use the word should, governments have no obligation – it is essentially at their discretion. The recommendations must not go backward: we must have recommendations that clearly sets out obligations, that in certain conditions states must or shall provide as far as is possible an appropriate level of education in the language of a minority where they are in substantial numbers. Ms. Aleksandra Vujic, Voivodina Centre for Human Rights, Serbia addressed the issue of minority language education suggesting that distinction should be made between opportunities of education in mother tongue for persons belonging to «homogenous» minorities and «dispersed» minorities. Homogenous minorities have more opportunities to preserve their language and culture in education through the medium of mother tongue while dispersed minorities whose only opportunity is more than often, just to learn their language are strongly faced with assimilation process and lost of their language and culture. It is for this reason that, in creating educational minority policy, the state should take into account these two distinctions. For persons belonging to «homogeneous» national minorities, education in mother tongue could be organised in their mother tongue, for more or less all subjects. For «dispersed » national minority groups, learning of mother tongue should be taught with elements of national culture. 14