104 PROMOTING AND PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS it is no longer necessary to link an allegation of discrimination to a specific substantive right set out in the Convention. Discrimination is not limited to those cases where a person or group is treated worse than another group. It may also constitute discrimination to treat different groups as if they were alike, that is, to treat a minority and a majority alike may discriminate against the minority. The Court has endorsed positive measures taken to improve the situation of minorities as being compatible with the principle of non-discrimination. The Court has stressed that “democracy does not simply mean that the views of the majority must always prevail: a balance must be achieved which ensures the fair and proper treatment of minorities and avoids any abuse of a dominant position” (Chassagnou and Others v. France (1999) and Gorzelik and Others v. Poland (2004)). In 2009, the Court ruled that provisions in the constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina that restricted certain political offices to members of the three “constituent peoples” of the State (Bosniacs, Croats and Serbs) violated article 14 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with article 3 of Protocol No. 1 which guarantees elections “which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people”, as well as the general prohibition of discrimination under article 1 of Protocol 12. The applicants were of Roma and Jewish origin, respectively, and thus were ineligible under the law of Bosnia and Herzegovina to stand for election to one house of the parliament or to the presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina (Sejdic and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina (2009)). A number of cases brought under the Convention have dealt with linguistic rights. The Strasbourg institutions have consistently held that there is no right to use a particular language in making contact with Government authorities, but, in the context of judicial proceedings, everyone has the right to be informed promptly, in a language he or she understands, of the reasons for arrest (art. 5 (2)) and the nature of any criminal charge (art. 6 (3)(a)); there also is a right to a free interpreter if a defendant cannot speak or understand the language used in court (art. 6 (3)(e)). Article 8 of the Convention provides for the right to respect for an individual’s private and family life, home and correspondence. In Yordanova and Others v. Bulgaria, concerning a planned eviction of Roma from a settlement in Sofia, the Court held that in the context of article 8, the applicants’ specificity as a socially disadvantaged group, as well as their particular needs, had to be considered in the proportionality assessment and that the enforcement of the removal order against the applicants would constitute a violation of article 8. Article 10 guarantees the right to freedom of expression and thus protects the right to use a minority language in private or among members of a minority group. Minorities have a right to publish their own newspapers or use other media without interference by the State or others. Protocol 2, article 2, states that no person shall be denied the right to education. The education of children belonging to the group is another means of protecting a minority’s identity. While under the Convention there is no right per se to education in one’s mother tongue, the discontinuance of mother-tongue education may in certain circumstances violate the right to education (Cyprus v. Turkey (2001)). Article 9 enshrines the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The individual right to freedom of religion includes the right to manifest that religion, which implies that a minority is to have the necessary degree of control over community religious matters. The Court has held that the State must not interfere in the internal affairs of a church and that “freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the foundations of a ‘democratic society’ within the meaning of the Convention. The pluralism indissociable from a democratic society, which has been dearly won over the centuries, depends on it” (Serif v. Greece (1999)).