A/HRC/13/23 hardly ever determine the outcome of decisions in a majoritarian democracy.18 In practice, minorities tend to be outvoted, unable to secure representation proportionate with their numbers, thus denying them an effective voice in the public and political life of States. The rationale for special measures is not, as is frequently perceived, to create a privileged position for minorities, but rather to level the playing field, placing minorities in the same position as majorities. Being involved in national political and social processes, contributing to policymaking and participating in (and benefiting from) public services should help to counter marginalization and alienation. States that welcome the participation and integration of minorities tend not only to be more stable, but also more prosperous.19 48. Human rights treaty bodies and courts have dealt with a range of cases involving the right to effective participation of minorities and the related prohibition of discrimination. As regards requiring proficiency in an official language, the Human Rights Committee has held that a Government’s failure to introduce legislation to permit the use of other languages disproportionately affected certain minority communities, since it denied them the use of their mother tongue in administration, justice, education, public life and Government, thus constituting a violation of article 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee concluded that the State was under an obligation to provide the community with an effective remedy, namely by allowing its officials to respond in languages other than the official one in a non-discriminatory manner.20 In another case, barring a member of a minority from standing in local elections on the grounds that her proficiency in the official language was not adequate, when such an assessment was conducted in a deficient and arbitrary way and when in fact the person already held a language certificate, was deemed by the Committee to be a violation of articles 2 and 25 of the Covenant.21 On the same issue of barring a member of a minority from standing in elections because of allegedly inadequate proficiency in the official language, the European Court of Human Rights has found that this can constitute a violation of article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the European Convention. In the particular case, the Court held that it had grave doubts as to the legal basis for subjecting candidates holding language certificates to further tests. The Court also considered that the testing lacked objectivity and procedural fairness.22 49. In a number of cases, the European Court assessed situations in which States prevented persons belonging to minorities from establishing associations aimed at furthering the cultural and political interests of the groups. The Court found that such interference constituted a violation of article 11 of the European Convention, which safeguards the freedom of assembly and association.23 18 19 20 21 22 23 GE.10-10198 Commentary of the United Nations Working Group on Minorities to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (E/CN.4/Sub.2/AC.5/2005/2), para. 42. Y. Ghai, Public Participation and Minorities, Minority Rights Group International, London, 2003, p. 5. J.G.A. Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, communication No. 760/1997, Views adopted on 25 July 2000 (CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997). Antonina Ignatane v. Latvia, communication No. 884/1999, Views adopted on 25 July 2001 (CCPR/C/72/D/884/1999). Podkolzina v. Latvia, application No. 46726/99, judgement of 9 April 2002. Sidiropoulos and others v. Greece, application No. 26695/95, judgement of 10 July 1998; United Communist Party and others v. Turkey, application No. 19392/92, judgement of 30 January 1998; Stankov and the United Macedonian Organization Ilinden v. Bulgaria, 2 October 2001, applications Nos. 29221/95 and 29225/95. 13