A/HRC/13/23 50. The Court has long asserted that minority protection justifies the application of a different electoral system within the State in order to ensure better minority representation in the legislature.24 Nevertheless, it has established that, “any electoral system must be assessed in the light of the political evolution of the country concerned”, and, as a result, “features that would be unacceptable in the context of one system may accordingly be justified in the context of another”.25 51. Concerning a national legal requirement for a political party to adopt a structure which was alien to indigenous peoples’ customs if it was to be allowed to participate in elections, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that such imposition constituted a discriminatory impediment to equal participation in elections. The Court, moreover, determined that the universal rights of equality and political participation give rise to an obligation on the State to adopt affirmative and targeted measures to guarantee equal participation of indigenous groups.26 D. Preconditions for and obstacles to effective political participation 52. A continuing and substantive dialogue is required in order to ensure the effective participation of women and men belonging to minorities in their society. This dialogue should be multidirectional: it must involve persons belonging to minorities as well as majority populations, and it also must be between persons belonging to minorities and the authorities. Such dialogue can be achieved only if effective channels of communication are in place.27 Such channels must take into account the specific needs of minority women, as well as other marginalized segments of minority communities exposed to intersectional discrimination. 53. A central issue in relation to the political participation of minorities is how to determine that the quality of participation is truly “effective”.28 When considering whether participation of persons belonging to minorities is effective, two of the most important aspects of participation must be examined. The first relates to the means which promote full and effective equality of persons belonging to minorities. The second assesses the impact of these means on the situation of the persons concerned and on the society as a whole. This impact may be viewed differently by different actors, depending on their engagement in the processes. It is not sufficient for States to ensure formal participation of persons belonging to minorities; States must also ensure that the participation of minority representatives has a substantial influence on decisions which are taken, so that there is, as far as possible, a shared ownership of the decisions taken.29 24 25 26 27 28 29 14 European Commission on Human Rights, Lindsey and others v. the United Kingdom, application No. 8364/78, judgement of 8 March 1979. Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v. Belgium, application No. 9267/81, judgement of 2 March 1987. On the issue of thresholds and their impact on minority participation, dissenting opinion in another European Court case warned that high thresholds virtually eliminate the possibility of regional or minority parties entering parliament and distort the essential purpose of a proportional system, thus suppressing parliamentary criticism and debate, which are the essence of representative democracy. Yumak and Sadak v. Turkey, application No. 10226/03, judgement of 8 July 2008. Yatama v. Nicaragua, case 12.388, judgement of 23 June 2005. Council of Europe, Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (“Advisory Committee”), commentary on the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and public affairs, adopted on 27 February 2008 (ACFC/31DOC(2008)001), para. 11. Declaration, art. 2, paras. 2 and 3. Advisory Committee, paras. 18 and 19. GE.10-10198