PART TWO: CONTENT OF COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW On account of its definition, harassment is never justified, because conduct that violates dignity or creates a hostile environment based on a protected characteristic is never pursuant to a legitimate aim;403 for similar reasons, victimization cannot be justified. Matters related to incitement to discrimination – which can also not be justified – are dealt with below. As explained in further detail below, under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the respective Committee has established a specific test to be applied in cases concerning the provision (or denial) of reasonable accommodation. PART TWO – I JUSTIFICATION AND REASONABLE ACCOMMODATION UNDER THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has given detailed guidance on the justification test to be applied in cases concerning reasonable accommodation.404 The term “reasonable”, according to the Committee, is not linked to the duty to provide accommodations, but rather relates to the “relevance, appropriateness and effectiveness” of an accommodation.405 Phrased differently, the concept of “reasonableness” involves an assessment of whether a measure meets (or is capable of meeting) its intended purpose of ensuring equal participation.406 A reasonable accommodation must not impose a “disproportionate or undue burden” on the accommodating party.407 The “undue burden” test involves a proportionality assessment, which seeks to balance the desirability of ensuring the equal enjoyment of a right (for instance, to political participation) with the burden or impact of making an accommodation on the accommodating party.408 Factors that may be considered as part of this assessment include, inter alia, “financial costs, resources available (including public subsidies), the size of the accommodating party (in its entirety), the effect of the modification on the institution or the enterprise, third-party benefits, negative impacts on other persons and reasonable health and safety requirements”.409 The Committee distinguishes “reasonable accommodation” from “procedural accommodation”.410 Procedural accommodations are those “necessary and appropriate modifications and adjustments in the context of access to justice … needed in a particular case” to ensure equal participation.411 While denial of a reasonable accommodation is capable of justification through application of the undue burden test, denial of a procedural accommodation – such as the provision of sign language interpretation for a deaf person in legal proceedings – cannot be justified, on account of the relationship between the accommodation and its role in achieving access to justice.412 403 See the definition of harassment in section I.A.2(c) of part two of the present guide. 404 While the Committee’s jurisprudence is specific to disability discrimination, a similar test could be applied to other grounds of discrimination. As discussed in section I.A.2(d) of this part, the concept of “reasonable accommodation” has been applied in respect of a diverse range of grounds at the international and national level, including religion or belief and gender identity. 405 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 25 (a). 406 Ibid. 407 Ibid., para. 25 (b). 408 Ibid., para. 26 (d). 409 Ibid., para. 26 (e). 410 Ibid., para. 25 (d). 411 Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on Disability and Accessibility, “International Principles and Guidelines on Access to Justice for Persons with Disabilities” (Geneva, 2020), p. 9. 412 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 6 (2018), paras. 25 (d), and 51. 53