PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation discrimination includes “guarantees of non-repetition and public apologies”.616 The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has elaborated that “where the discrimination is of a systemic nature, the mere granting of compensation to an individual may not have any real effect in terms of changing the approach. … States parties should also implement ‘forward-looking, non-pecuniary remedies’”.617 In its jurisprudence under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has repeatedly recommended that, in addition to measures designed to address the needs of complainants, States adopt systemic measures such as reviewing and strengthening laws and providing training for relevant professionals.618 In practice, remedies in this area can be usefully considered as either institutional – focused on correcting, deterring and preventing discrimination within institutions found liable for discrimination – or societal – focused on addressing the social causes and consequences of discrimination. 1. Institutional remedies Institutional remedies focus on correcting and reforming the structural, organizational and policy conditions that resulted in the discrimination. These measures range from court orders to repeal or amend discriminatory policies or to adopt equality policies through to requirements to provide training and courses on sensitization for members of staff. Tribunals in Ireland have made orders creating obligations such as: “reviewing recruitment policies, diversity auditing, adopting diversity policies or non-discrimination codes, or a duty to organise equality training”.619 In South Africa, the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act provides that equality courts established by the Act may make orders including – but not limited to –“an order restraining unfair discriminatory practices or directing that specific steps be taken to stop” discrimination; “an order requiring the respondent to undergo an audit of specific policies or practices”; or “an appropriate order … to suspend or revoke the licence of a person”.620 Elsewhere, a comparative study on approaches to remedy and sanction in Europe found examples of States that provide powers such as the withdrawal or temporary suspension of authorizations or licences,621 withdrawal of State funds or exclusion from public procurement tenders622 and confiscation orders.623 As these examples indicate, institutional remedies include corrective, deterrent and preventative components. STRUCTURAL INJUNCTIONS IN CANADA AND COLOMBIA In Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education), the claimants sought an institutional remedy: an order that French language facilities and programmes be provided at the secondary school level. The establishment and operation of French-language education was required by section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but this had not been complied with by the government of Nova Scotia, which had failed to prioritize the obligation. The Supreme Court upheld an initial trial judge’s order that the province was in violation and must make “best efforts” to provide the relevant educational programme by specified dates. It ordered not only that the French-language minority in Nova Scotia be provided with homogenous educational facilities in specific regions for specific grades by specific times but also that the government officials use their best efforts to comply with this order and that the court would retain jurisdiction to hear reports from the Government on compliance with the order.624 82 616 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 20 (2009), para. 40. 617 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 22. 618 See, for example, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, O.G. v. Russian Federation (CEDAW/C/68/D/91/2015), para. 9 (b); E.S. and S.C. v. United Republic of Tanzania (CEDAW/C/60/D/48/2013), para. 9 (b); and L.C. v. Peru (CEDAW/C/50/D/22/2009), para. 9.2. 619 Iordache and Ionescu, “Discrimination and its sanctions”, p. 19 (footnote omitted). 620 South Africa, Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act, sect. 21 (2). 621 This includes Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, North Macedonia, Portugal and Romania. See Iordache and Ionescu, “Discrimination and its sanctions”, p. 19. 622 Ibid. For example, Italy. 623 Ibid. For example, Czechia and Portugal. 624 Supreme Court of Canada, Doucet-Boudreau v. Nova Scotia (Minister of Education) [2003] SCC 62.