A/CONF.189/PC.1/7 page 22 80. The second classification system would be based on the race or ethnic minority suffering from religious discrimination. It will not be used because, as we have shown, there are some difficulties in defining and following clear criteria based on race or ethnic minority. Furthermore, such a classification might exclude persons who are the victims of aggravated discrimination but who do not, legally speaking, belong to an ethnic minority, for example because they are not nationals of the State on whose territory the discrimination took place. Even though the overlap between race and religion almost inevitably brings up the minority issue, this approach does not seem compatible with the universal instruments which protect rights regardless of the legal link connecting the individual and the State.91 81. A third classification system uses as a criterion the kind of religion aggravated by racial discrimination. This classification will also be ruled out, for several reasons: in the first place, it is difficult to determine the starting point, or basis, of the discrimination. In one of his last reports (E/CN.4/1995/91), the Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance states that he “had difficulty in establishing a clear distinction between religious conflicts and ethnic conflicts, and between religious intolerance and political persecution” (para. 211). Furthermore, religions are not amenable to any definition or classification.92 Lastly, certain categories of aggravated discrimination are difficult to fit into a classification system based exclusively on the criterion of religion (discrimination against Arabs, North Africans or Jews). This classification might even obscure, or actually render invisible, the problems raised by the overlap between race and religion, insofar as it tends to focus on the latter at the expense of the former. 82. A classification based on the kind of rights and freedoms involved, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the international instruments on racial and religious non-discrimination, is interesting but will not be used here.93 The boundaries between these rights are far from clear-cut and the risks of duplication and needless repetition are considerable. 83. The classification we will follow is essentially based on the legal and/or sociological status of the victims of aggravated discrimination (groups, minorities) in relation to the rest of the population in the territory of a State (majority, minority(-ies)). This is the only classification which seems to us to give the “issue” of the overlap between race and religion the prominence it deserves while taking into account, as we shall see, some of the criteria used in the other classifications. 84. Two main categories of aggravated discrimination can be distinguished, each having its own variations: (a) Discrimination against individuals who are ethnically and religiously in a minority in relation to a group that is ethnically and religiously in the majority; (b) Discrimination against individuals who are ethnically and religiously in a minority in relation to a group or several groups that are ethnically and religiously in a minority. It is important to note in advance that this study is not, and does not pretend to be, exhaustive. What is important here is not so much the examples we find of discrimination but the systems of classification themselves. The latter should above all be operationalized in respect of the measures adapted to each classification system or sub-system.94