of international law – mentions precisely equality as the great principle to be respected by the action of the State. In this context, the mention “to the extent of the available resources” should not be interpreted as a concession to the State that allows granting the resources to its liking. This reference allows the State to progressively move forward in the implementation of this right. Yet in the field of education – the priority of priorities - under no circumstance can the state invoke the lack of financial resources to limit the exercise of this right. Thus we are in the middle of a question that is decisive for the future of minorities and cultural rights in general. Indeed, we address here the question of the practical implementation of the indivisibility of human rights. There cannot be freedom of thought without the freedom to choose one’s master (G. Burdeau), and there cannot be freedom of education without public funding allocated to this freedom. In this sense, the principle according to which a State has the obligation to set up an acceptable education for minorities to the maximum of the available resources, a general obligation with regard to all the economic, social and cultural rights cannot be only a rhetoric assertion. The recommendations have to be more demanding on this point. We should recall the Convention 169 on Indigenous Peoples (ILO) that asserts that “governments shall recognize the right of these peoples to establish their own educational institutions and facilities, provided that such institutions meet the minimum standards established by the competent authority in consultation with these peoples. Appropriate resources shall be prov ided for this purpose.” (art. 27, par. 3). The formulation of this text is clear: Indigenous Peoples must be able to create their own school centres and manage them, and these educational centres must be funded by the public authorities. In this regard, it should be recalled that, in the Folgero judgment, the European Court [of Human Rights] indicates that the verb ‘to respect’ means more than only ‘to recognize’ or ‘to take into consideration’. It implies a positive obligation on behalf of the State. The Fribourg Declaration on Cultural Rights, which has received the support of numerous well-known figures, in particular of members of treaty bodies and special rapporteurs, has outlined the right of minorities to education when stating that: “everyone has the right throughout one’s lifespan, alone or in community with others, to education and training that, responding to fundamental educational needs, contribute to the free and full development of one’s cultural identity while respecting the rights of others and cultural diversity”. A strong educational system in a multicultural society has to build up positively on multiculturality, as multiculturality provides numerous resources for an education based on human rights. Taking responsibility of multiculturality thusly, we go beyond the judicial fiction of neutrality, which fundamentally overshadows the central question of culture, that is, the question of meaning. As François Audigier stated in a document of the Council of Europe on the teaching of values: “(everyone) must be able to form their own identity, in relation to multiple points of reference… (The transmission of values in a democratic society) results in a critical internalization of the rules to wanting to live together … (This means) consequently to irretrievably, and intrinsically, introduce and accept the question of values in schools.” Pluralism and cultural diversity are a creative richness. This is the vision of the Declaration on Cultural Diversity and of the World Commission on Culture and Development of the United Nations.