PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, and their effective enforcement and implementation, that the rights to equality and non-discrimination can be effectively guaranteed. First, the personal scope of the right to non-discrimination has been clarified, as States have recognized that discrimination on the basis of “other status” covers many characteristics omitted from the short list of characteristics included by name in the first international treaties. The early human rights instruments listed only a small number of specified grounds, omitting age, disability and sexual orientation, among others. As States have recognized that unfavourable treatment arising on the basis of these and other grounds is as serious and as harmful as such treatment arising on those grounds listed in the first instruments, so a broader list of grounds has been codified into law. Reflecting this, human rights treaty bodies have recognized a growing number of grounds as forms of “other status”: in 2021, the list of grounds recognized in international law numbered more than 20. In the process, the treaty bodies have reinforced and reiterated the need for an open-ended and inclusive approach to recognizing grounds of discrimination – the progressive recognition of additional grounds over the decades underlines the need to keep the list open. A further development is the recognition that acts based on the perception that a person possesses a particular characteristic, or on the basis of association with those who do, also constitute discrimination, irrespective of the actual status of the person concerned. In parallel, human rights bodies have increasingly recognized States’ obligations to prohibit intersectional discrimination – that is, discrimination which occurs because of the interaction between two or more different characteristics – something that can only be achieved through comprehensive anti-discrimination laws. Second, different forms of discrimination have been defined and expressly prohibited, as States have recognized that the initial interpretation of the right – as a right to be treated in the same way – failed to effectively address all forms of discrimination. In particular, there has been a recognition that treating people with different needs and characteristics equally can give rise to discrimination. As such, additional forms of discrimination have been codified into law at both the national and international levels. The concept of indirect discrimination – which arises when the application of universal rules has a disproportionate negative impact on those with a particular characteristic – is long-established in international law. In a separate development, international law has recognized a right to reasonable accommodation – adjustments necessary to enable persons with disabilities or other particular groups to participate on an equal basis – as an essential element of the right to non-discrimination. These and other developments reflect a progression from a narrow interpretation of the right to non-discrimination, focused upon the prohibition of differences in treatment, to an inclusive model, which seeks equal participation by recognizing and accommodating difference. Third, States developed new measures of remedy to address the full range of harms arising from discrimination and established the necessary procedural safeguards to ensure the effectiveness of anti-discrimination laws. These measures have been codified at the international level. At the domestic level, challenges experienced in the application, implementation and enforcement of anti-discrimination laws have led to the development of new standards in the areas of remedy for discrimination and access to justice for those exposed to discrimination. Human rights bodies have provided guidance on the measures that States should incorporate into their laws in order to ensure equal and effective access to courts, to ban and redress victimization and to adapt rules regulating evidence and proof to ensure effectiveness of the right to non-discrimination. In situations in which such a claim is successful, the notion of remedy has been expanded to incorporate measures designed to address the institutional and societal aspects of discrimination. Fourth, there has been a growing recognition of the necessity and scope of positive, proactive measures to ensure non-discrimination in the enjoyment of rights and equality of participation in all areas of life. This is built on a recognition that eliminating discrimination alone will not address all status- or identitybased inequalities, many of which are deeply rooted in social and economic structures or arise as a result of historic patterns of discrimination. Positive action – often referred to as special measures or temporary special measures – involves targeted, preferential measures designed to address such inequalities. While the earliest human rights instruments recognized that States might adopt such targeted measures designed to redress disadvantage and increase equality for certain persons and groups, it has subsequently been established that such measures are not simply permissible but required. More broadly, since the turn of the century, there has been a growing recognition that achieving substantive equality requires a holistic, and comprehensive xxii