A/CONF.189/PC.1/7 page 25 97. In Indonesia, the ethnic-Chinese Indonesian minority, made up largely of Christians, was the victim, during the riots of 1998, of a wave of violence, vandalism, looting, arson and even many killings (see E/CN.4/1999/15, para. 113 ff.). 98. In Australia, it is reported that Aboriginal minorities and Australians of Asian origin are sometimes subjected to discrimination concerning, in particular, the criminal justice system, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and assault causing bodily harm (see E/CN.4/1997/71, para. 47 ff.). 99. The violation suffered by the Lake Lubicon Indian minority in the Lubicon v. Canada case can be classed among the cases of aggravated violation of the rights of an ethnic and religious minority under article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.110 In this case, the Human Rights Committee recognized that the expropriation of land belonging to the indigenous community by the Canadian authorities for commercial purposes violated the right of those persons to enjoy their own culture. The Committee seems to put a broad interpretation on this term, as it states that “economic and social activities … are part of the culture of the community” in question.111 The community also claims that the expropriation is liable to rob the members of the Band of the physical realm to which their religion attaches, in violation of article 18, paragraph 1 of the Covenant.112 Although the Committee did not give a precise answer to this claim, it is reasonable to assume that the way of life and culture of the Lake Lubicon Band cannot - as it rightly claims - be separated from its right to practise its own religion. 100. In the United States of America, Native Americans are exposed to discrimination that affects them as a group differing from the majority in both ethnic and religious terms. Indeed, “the Native Americans are without any doubt the community facing the most problematical situation, one inherited from a past of denial of their religious identity” (see E/CN.4/1999/58/Add.1, para. 53). This discrimination provides a perfect example of aggravated discrimination, which has taken several forms, some of which no longer apply, such as restrictions on religious ceremonies (dropped when the Indian Reorganization Act was adopted in 1978) (ibid., para. 55), although others still persist. Examples are the problem of respect for the religious rights of Native Americans in federal and local correction facilities and the problem of the sacred nature of certain territories and sites (ibid., para. 60). The latter is an example of a real clash of concepts, as it stems from the failure of legislators working within a Western legal system to comprehend Native American values and traditions. Native Americans are in fact being asked to “prove their religion”, and in particular the religious significance of sites, most of which are situated on land that does not belong to them. However, this demand conflicts with this minority’s beliefs, because a Native American site is by definition secret and to reveal its location to non-Native Americans would, for them, be tantamount to interference in matters of religion (ibid., paras. 59-60 and 68). This conflict over legislation also arises with regard to Native American religious practices that require the use of protected animals (eagles’ feathers) or hallucinogenic plants that are banned under United States legislation. The adoption of neutral legislation is therefore unlikely to protect this ethnic and religious community, whose religious practices are different from those of the majority or of other minorities.113