PART TWO: CONTENT OF COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW PART TWO – I any Article of the Convention”.378 To this extent, article 14 “is autonomous”.379 The Court has clarified that article 14 also extends “to those additional rights, falling within the general scope of any Convention Article, for which the State has voluntarily decided to provide”.380 Applying these principles, broad areas of life have been identified as falling within the scope of article 14, including (illustratively): adoption procedures,381 family life,382 housing,383 insurance cover,384 pensions,385 procedures for acquiring citizenship,386 provisions for the legal recognition of partnerships,387 social security measures388 and the investigation of bias-motivated crimes.389 It is also noteworthy that article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention establishes a right to non-discrimination in respect of all areas of life, though the Protocol requires separate ratification by parties to the Convention.390 4. Justifications SUMMARY • Any provision, criterion or practice adopted pursuant to a legitimate aim that is appropriate, necessary and proportionate to that aim will not give rise to a finding of discrimination. Direct discrimination may be justified only very exceptionally. In some instances, it may be both necessary and appropriate to differentiate between groups or to implement a policy or practice that has the effect of disadvantaging one group more than others. As such, international law recognizes the potential for justification in discrimination cases, though it is notable that the potential for conduct that is otherwise discriminatory to be justified varies significantly dependent on the form of discrimination and the ground. While none of the core United Nations human rights treaties establish an explicit justification test – with some small divergences in approach and wording, detailed further below – a large degree of consensus in this area has emerged. Whether a distinction amounts to discrimination will depend on whether it pursues a legitimate aim and can be justified by reference to reasonable and objective criteria. This, in turn, requires an assessment of the proportionality of a measure or adopted practice. As noted below, this justification test operates differently in respect of direct or indirect discrimination and is not applicable in cases of harassment or victimization. 378 European Court of Human Rights, Carson and others v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 42184/05, Judgment, 16 March 2010, para. 63. 379 European Court of Human Rights, Sidabras and Džiautas v. Lithuania, Applications Nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, Judgment, 27 July 2004, para. 38. 380 European Court of Human Rights, Fábián v. Hungary, Application No. 78117/13, Judgment, 5 September 2017, para. 112. 381 See, for example, European Court of Human Rights, A.H. and others v. Russia, Application No. 6033/13 and 15 other applications, Judgment, 17 January 2017 (rectified 12 December 2017); E.B. v. France, Application No. 43546/02, Judgment, 22 January 2008; and X and others v. Austria, Application No. 19010/07, Judgment, 19 February 2013. 382 European Court of Human Rights, Biao v. Denmark, Application No. 38590/10, Judgment, 24 May 2016. 383 European Court of Human Rights, Moldovan and others v. Romania, Application Nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, Judgment No. 2, 12 July 2005; and European Court of Human Rights, Vrountou v. Cyprus, Application No. 33631/06, Judgment, 13 October 2015. 384 European Court of Human Rights, P.B. and J.S. v. Austria, Application No. 18984/02, Judgment, 22 July 2010. 385 European Court of Human Rights, Willis v. the United Kingdom, Application No. 36042/97, Judgment, 11 June 2002; Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, Application No. 49151/07, Judgment, 8 December 2009; Andrejeva v. Latvia, Application No. 55707/00, Judgment, 18 February 2009; Gaygusuz v. Austria, Application No. 17371/90, Judgment, 16 September 1996; and Koua Poirrez v. France, Application No. 40892/98, Judgment, 30 September 2003. 386 European Court of Human Rights, Biao v. Denmark, Application No. 38590/10, Judgment, 24 May 2016. 387 European Court of Human Rights, Oliari and others v. Italy, Application Nos. 18766/11 and 36030/11, Judgment, 21 July 2015; Pajić v. Croatia, Application No. 68453/13, Judgment, 23 February 2016; X and others v. Austria, Application No. 19010/07, Judgment, 19 February 2013; and Vallianatos and others v. Greece, Application Nos. 29381/09 and 32684/09, Judgment, 7 November 2013. 388 European Court of Human Rights, Gaygusuz v. Austria, No. 17371/90, Judgment, 16 September 1996. 389 European Court of Human Rights, Identoba and others v. Georgia, Application No. 73235/12, Judgment, 12 May 2015, para. 65; M.C. and A.C. v. Romania, Application No. 12060/12, Judgment, 12 April 2016, para. 113; Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Application No. 43577/98, Judgment, 6 July 2005, para. 160; 97 Members of the Gldani Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and 4 others v. Georgia, Application No. 71156/01, Judgment, 3 May 2007, paras. 138–142; R.B. v. Hungary, Application No. 64602/12, Judgment, 12 April 2016, paras. 80 and 84; and Bayev and others v. Russia, Application Nos. 67667/09, 44092/12 and 56717/12, Judgment, 20 June 2017, paras. 81–84. 390 Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, art. 4. 51