A/CONF.189/PC.1/7 page 10 identity or ethnic origin and largely covers minority status [Ben Achour, 1994].29 Discrimination, measures of intolerance and xenophobic practices cannot be defined or dealt with separately. The discrimination is aggravated because it is difficult in some instances to dissociate ethnic aspects from religious aspects. Article 27 30. This article is aimed directly at minorities and is worth citing in full: “In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language.” Several authors have written on this article [Capotorti, 1991; Fenet and Soulier, 1989; Rousso-Lenoir, 1994; Duffar, 1995].30 The many problems posed by this article are well known, particularly with regard to its relevance to article 18 of the Covenant,31 the interpretation of the phrase “In those States in which … minorities exist”32 and the question of who is entitled to the rights guaranteed.33 Article 27 applies to persons who suffer from aggravated discrimination, because the latter does not concern “an isolated individual” but a person belonging to a group of people ethnically distinct from the majority or from other minorities. The phrase “ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities” deserves further consideration with regard to the issue with which we are concerned. 31. The use of the expression “ethnic minorities” is not accidental. The genesis of this article reveals that the word “ethnic” replaced the word “racial”. Mr. Capotorti sums up perfectly the justification for this change: “… so-called racial groupings were not based upon scientific facts and tended to become indistinct as a result of evolutionary processes, intermarriage, and changes in ideas or beliefs … the word ‘ethnic’ seemed to be more appropriate, as it referred to all biological, cultural and historical characteristics, whereas ‘racial’ referred only to inherited physical characteristics” [E/CN.4/Sub.2/384/Rev.1, para. 197].34 32. These observations need no further comment. Suffice it to say that the drafters of article 27 of the Covenant eventually retained the broadest category able to encompass all the others, including the one differentiated by assumed or real genetic characteristics. 33. However, the problem is not a straightforward one. It becomes more complicated when one tries to define the broad category of “ethnic group”. An ethnic group (ethnos in Greek, that is, “people”) is a sociological category. It is defined by sociologists as “a community defined … by the existence of one or more common characteristics, such as language, religion, tribal origin, nationality or race, and by the fact that its members share the same sense of identity” [Stavenhagen, 1991; Breton, 1992].35 This means that the ethnic group, as a sociological category, largely covers the legal concept of ethnic minority or, indeed, minority in general. Religion is one of the factors, sometimes a major factor, in distinguishing between the two concepts, as in both cases religion contributes to forging the group identity. This raises doubts about the advantages of distinguishing between the different kinds of minorities.