PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation on Human Rights prohibits discrimination arising on the basis of the “perception that others have of [an individual’s] relationship with a social sector or group, regardless of whether this corresponds to the reality or to the self-identification of the victim”.176 Such discrimination, according to the Court, has the purpose or effect of reducing individuals: “to the single characteristic attributed to [them], without taking other personal conditions into consideration. This reduction of the identity results in a differentiated treatment and thus, in the violation of the victim’s rights.”177 The Court has previously cited the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as regards the prohibition of discrimination based on perception and association with approval178 and has implicitly recognized that discrimination based on the association of an individual with a person belonging to a protected group is prohibited.179 In the European Union, understanding of these concepts has been developed through the cases Coleman v. Attridge Law and CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia. In the former case, the Court of Justice of the European Union found that a woman who had been treated unfavourably because of her son’s disability had been subject to discrimination. According to the Court, limiting the application of the employment equality directive to persons possessing a protected characteristic (in this case disability) would be to “deprive th[e] directive of an important element of its effectiveness”.180 Applying this reasoning, in CHEZ, the Court found that the race equality directive extended to “persons who, although not themselves a member of the race or ethnic group concerned, nevertheless suffer less favourable treatment or a particular disadvantage on one of those grounds”. The case concerned Anelia Nikolova, a non-Roma woman with a business in a Roma neighbourhood, in which electrical metering was different to that in predominantly non-Roma neighbourhoods. Ruling in the case, the Court held that the applicant must demonstrate that discrimination had occurred in respect of a ground set out in the directive; membership of a particular group was not required.181 Accordingly, Ms. Nikolova had suffered discrimination on grounds of racial or ethnic origin, regardless of the fact that she did not belong to the group in question. This approach has similarly been applied at national level.182 To varying extents, both the European Court of Human Rights183 and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights have each recognized acts of discrimination based on perception or association as prohibited.184 26 176 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, 24 November 2017, para. 79. See also Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Perozo et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment, 28 January 2009, para. 380; and Ríos et al. v. Venezuela, Judgment, 28 January 2009, para. 349. 177 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Flor Freire v. Ecuador, Judgment, 31 August 2016, para. 120. 178 Ibid., para. 121. 179 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gonzales Lluy et al. v. Ecuador, Judgment, 1 September 2015, paras. 214–216. 180 Court of Justice of the European Union, Coleman v. Attridge Law, Case C-303/06, Judgment, 17 July 2008, para. 51. 181 Court of Justice of the European Union, CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria AD v. Komisia za zashtita ot diskriminatsia, Case C-83/14, Judgment, 16 July 2015, para. 56. 182 See, for example, Hungary, Criminal Code, 2012, sect. 216. 183 In Guberina v. Croatia, the Court stated clearly that the article 14 prohibition of discrimination under the European Convention on Human Rights “covers instances in which an individual is treated less favourably on the basis of another person’s status or protected characteristics”. The Court has also identified “discrimination on account of one’s actual or perceived ethnicity” as a form of racial discrimination. See, respectively, European Court of Human Rights, Guberina v. Croatia, Application No. 23682/13, Judgment, 22 March 2016, para. 78; and Timishev v. Russia, Applications Nos. 55762/00 and 55974/00, Judgment, 13 December 2005, para. 56. 184 For instance, in a resolution adopted in 2014, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights expressed concern regarding violence and discrimination against individuals due to their “actual or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity”. Under the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa, discrimination on the basis of association with a person with disabilities is prohibited (art. 5 (2) (c)). See African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, resolution on protection against violence and other human rights violations against persons on the basis of their real or imputed sexual orientation or gender identity (ACHPR/Res.275(LV)2014).