A/74/160 Nations system. There is, however, a further key element that requires clarity with regard to who is a minority. The absence of consistency in understanding w ho is a minority is a recurring stumbling block to the full and effective realization of the rights of minorities. Different United Nations entities may contradict one another because they consider different groups of persons as constituting a minority, an d diverge from the practices of colleagues in other entities. States Members of the United Nations hesitate to engage on matters relating to minorities since they do not know who is a minority and what that entails. In some countries, there may be even the assumption that the absence of a “definition” means it is left to each State to determine freely who is or is not a minority. In most of these situations, the uncertainty leads to restrictive approaches: in many situations, persons are deemed to be “undeserving” because they are not “traditional” minorities, not citizens or not sufficiently “dominated”. The end result is that some minorities are excluded because they are not the “right kind” of minority according to different parties. 22. These inconsistencies, controversies and contradictions regarding the concept at the United Nations and within or between different agencies or sections have been occurring for decades. The absence of any agreed upon approach to who is a minority under article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has also led to Member States being uncertain at best in their responses or engagements, including in accepting country missions. Some have at times been ambivalent, hesitant or even hostile, given the uncertainties as to who ought to be considered a minority and to claim the rights identified under this provision and the commitments contained in the 1992 Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities. Instead of providing flexibility, openness and the possibility of progress, the absence of common points of reference as to what constitutes a minority has led to a curtailment of who can lay claim to minority protection. The only way to rectify this is to provide greater clarity, as indicated by the Special Rapporteur in his 2017 statement to the General Assembly. In preparation for the present study, the Special Rapporteur invited United Nations mechanisms and entities to provide submissions. 1 B. Historical contextualization 23. Among the most common misconceptions regarding the concept of who is a minority within the United Nations and its entities is the often repeated implication that there was “one” attempt in the 1970s by a United Nations independent expert to provide a definition of what constitutes a minority and that, while the definition was not accepted at the time, it can still provide a useful reference point today. 2 This is incorrect, not least because it was neither the first nor even the last such attempt. Furthermore, many core aspects of this approach have been dismissed, particularly in the jurisprudence and clarifications by the Human Rights Committee. 1. A long-standing hesitancy 24. The absence of an agreed definition of a minority, and the inconsistencies, controversies and contradictions mentioned earlier, result from a long -standing hesitancy that continues to afflict the international community today. Events leading __________________ 1 2 19-11967 The supplementary information regarding the survey disseminated during the preparation of the present report is available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Minorities/SR/A74160 _Survey.docx. Various documents of the United Nations refer approvingly to the definition proposed by Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti in 1976. See for example OHCHR, “Minorities under international law”, available at https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Minorities/Pages /internationallaw.aspx. 9/19