A/HRC/7/19/Add.2 page 19 the communities themselves. Although the Estonian society is not viewed as discriminatory by the minorities, they argued that they regularly encounter discriminatory practices that directly affect their capacity to enjoy their human rights. In this regard, the incident with the Russian bronze soldier, particularly the dichotomous reactions it triggered in the Estonian and Russianspeaking communities, show that there are deep discrepancies in perceptions and memories between the two communities, as well as particular grievances that should be addressed in order to improve inter-community relations. 77. One of the main concerns expressed by the Russian-speaking minority concerns statelessness and the perceived discriminatory nature of citizenship regulations. As many authorities emphasized, the citizenship regulations are not formally discriminatory, as they do not differentiate applicants on the basis of ethnicity, nationality, race or other grounds. However, if one considers the particular historical context in which these regulations exist, especially concerning the demographics of the stateless population, one realizes that the Russian-speaking minority is largely the most affected group. It is in this broader sense, political rather than legal, that the Special Rapporteur considers extremely credible the views of the representatives of the Russian-speaking minorities who expressed that the citizenship policy is discriminatory. The large number of stateless persons currently living in Estonia – around 8 per cent of the resident population – is evidence that a problem exists. 78. The Special Rapporteur is aware that the problem of statelessness in Estonia involves sensitive issues related to the recent historical experience of the country, in particular the need to reaffirm the principle of legal continuity of the state and the reinforcing of the Estonian national identity.He welcomes the Government’s decision to extend to persons of undefined nationality the right to vote in local elections. However, he highlights the need to revisit this policy as a means to bridge the significant gap that separates the Estonian and Russian-speaking communities. In particular, he notes the existence of vulnerable groups of non-citizens – elders and socially-marginalized populations – who could enjoy easier access to citizenship, including free-of-charge language courses to prepare for the language exam. 79. The broader language policy put in place in Estonia is viewed as even more problematic by ethnic minorities. The main problem that needs to be addressed concerns the perception by minorities that there is an attempt to suppress the linguistic diversity of Estonia with policies that reinforce the role of Estonian in wide-ranging domains of public and private life. The role of the Language Inspectorate and its mandate to oversee whether people have a minimum knowledge of Estonian contribute to this impression. The Special Rapporteur recognizes the legitimate right of Estonia to protect and promote its official language. However, in order to comply with international instruments, and in order to build tolerance and understanding, minority languages should also be protected. 80. Referring to the crisis in April 2007 concerning the relocation of the statue of the Soviet soldier, many authorities referred to the difficult role of history and symbols in inter-community relations. The large gap in the understanding of history between the Estonian and Russian communities was clearly seen in this case: whereas the Russian community saw the monument as a symbol of respect to those that died fighting Nazi Germany, the Estonian community viewed the monument as a symbol of the start of the Soviet occupation. These conflicting views of key historical events are a major obstacle for the promotion of mutual understanding. The allegation of lack of consultations, made by members of the Russian minority, concerning the decision to