A/74/160 49. What is also informative in this general comment is what is missing: it did not include the requirements that appeared in some of the previous proposed definitions or descriptions, which would have restricted the rights under article 27 to more limited groups of individuals who share in common a culture, a religion and/or language; and there is no need to demonstrate loyalty to the State or non-dominance, nor is there a requirement to demonstrate some kind of subjective attachment to one’s culture, religion or language. The approach put forward in the general comment is what could be described as perhaps the one of the widest, most inclusive possible: all individuals who are members of one of the three listed categories of minorities are entitled to claim the rights under article 27, “even” migrant workers or visitors. It is not restrictive with regard to requiring some link with the State or any other type of subjective or other requirement. 50. The jurisprudence of the Human Rights Co mmittee is for its part logically coherent with the overall understanding of this concept of a minority. As has always been the case since 1947, there have been conflicting opinions expressed by various parties both within and outside the United Nations, including in some of the Human Rights Committee’s own communications. 51. It should also be pointed out that the number of communications that have resulted in the adoption of views on article 27 is not particularly large. One of the main reasons for this state of affairs is that many communications involving minorities are never dealt with substantively under article 27, since they are disposed of under other human rights standards. For example, matters involving religious minorities are often considered and finalized only by reference to rights such as freedom of religion or belief, or the prohibition of discrimination on the ground of religion, and never reach the stage of being examined under article 27. 17 52. Nevertheless, all of the communications appear consistent with the description of a minority in the general comment. They furthermore add additional elements as to who is a member of a minority under article 27 which were implicit if not explicitly expressed in the general comment. These can be summ arized as follows: (a) Indigenous peoples may constitute linguistic, religious or ethnic minorities in the States in which they find themselves. Most of the Committee ’s jurisprudence on article 27 involves indigenous peoples. This means that individuals w ho are members of indigenous groups may also in some countries find themselves numerically to be members of a cultural, religious and/or linguistic minority; 18 (b) The “territory” to consider in determining whether or not a group is a linguistic, religious or ethnic minority is the entire State, and not one of its subunits; 19 (c) One of the objective criteria, if not the main one, for determining whether a group is a minority in a State is a numerical one. A minority in the territory of a __________________ 17 18 19 19-11967 For example, communication No. 694/1996, Waldman v. Canada, Views adopted on 3 November 1999, in relation to the funding of Jewish minority schools, and communication No. 1621/2007, Raihman v. Latvia, Views adopted on 28 October 2010, involving a member of the Russian minority. See, among others, Communication No. 511/1992, Lansman et al. v. Finland, Views adopted on 26 November 1994, and 167/1984, Ominayak and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, Views adopted on 26 March 1990. Communication Nos. 359/1989 and 385/1989, Ballantyne, Davidson and McIntyre v. Canada, Views adopted 31 March 1993 (CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 and 385/1989/Rev.1), para. 11.2: [T]his provision refers to minorities in States; this refers, as do all references to the “State” or to “States” in the provisions of the Covenant, to ratifying States. Further, article 50 of the Covenant provides that its provisions extend to all parts of Federal States without any limitations or exceptions. Accordingly, the minorities referred to in article 27 are minorities within such a State, and not minorities within any province. A group may constitute a majority in a province but still be a minority in a State and thus be entitled to the benefits of article 27. 17/19