ethnic character, or because members of a religion belong predominantly to particular ethnic groups’.178 The application of these limitations is clear from the recent case of Mrs Azmi in the UK,179 a Muslim teaching assistant at the Headfield Church of England (Controlled) Junior School,180 dismissed for refusing an instruction not to wear her veil covering her face while in class with pupils assisting a male teacher. Mrs Azmi brought a case before the Employment Tribunal (ET) at Leeds and claimed direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimization on the ground of religion under the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief ) Regulations 2003 – the piece of legislation which incorporates EC Employment Directive in the UK legal system. In the decision of 19 October 2006 the ET dismissed her claims of direct discrimination and harassment; the claim of victimization succeeded and she was awarded a monetary compensation. Where direct discrimination is concerned, the ET ruled that Azmi’s comparator was a person who was issued instructions and following a failure to follow the instructions was suspended. As she failed to follow the instructions, her suspension could not be regarded as direct discrimination. The ET did not accept Mrs Azmi’s argument that her comparator should have been another Muslim woman who covers her head but not her face.181 As to indirect discrimination, the ET found that although the treatment in question could amount to indirect discrimination against the applicant on the ground of religion, such treatment was justified because it pursued a legitimate aim of ensuring that the children received the best possible instruction in the English language. Furthermore, the treatment was justified because it was proportionate: the requirement to remove the veil was not imposed by the school immediately; up to 16 November 2006, Mrs Azmi was permitted to wear the veil, when she considered it appropriate. The Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) upheld this decision. In its assessment it relied on Articles 1 (the purpose of the Employment Directive), 2 (Concept of Discrimination) and 4 (Occupational Requirements).182 Where direct discrimination is concerned, the EAT followed the restrictive approach of the ET by confirming its choice of a comparator. The case signals the significance of choosing an appropriate comparator. A choice of such a broad comparator in this case is unfortunate and is unlikely to help a claim of any Muslim woman, dismissed for a failure to follow the instructions which she deemed to contradict her religious belief. Arguably, in a case of discrimination on the ground of religion, at the very least, a comparator should have been a person who refused to follow instructions due to one’s religion or belief. Furthermore, both Tribunals found that persons who shared the applicant’s belief were likely to be 18 disadvantaged by the school’s practice as compared to others. The Tribunals, however, were influenced by the school’s statements indicating that the observation of Mrs Azmi’s teaching demonstrated that it was unsatisfactory when she taught in a veil covering her face as compared to her teaching without it. Accordingly, her dismissal was a proportionate measure necessary to achieve the legitimate aim of ensuring a proper learning of pupils who should be able to interpret facial expression of a teacher. Thus, this case demonstrates that although the Employment Directive made it possible for individuals to bring claims of discrimination on the ground of religion, it may be too weak to remedy the situation of religious minorities.183 It is regrettable that the EAT refused to refer a preliminary ruling question to the ECJ and we will need to wait and see what the latter’s approach would be. Conclusions The principle of non-discrimination of minorities and indigenous peoples is not developed to its full potential. This is partially due to the limited number of cases where claims of discrimination against minorities were considered. Nevertheless, recent advancements in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR, ACHPR and InterAmerican Commission of Human Rights (IACHR), coupled with legislative developments such as Protocol 12 ECHR and EU Equality Directives, may serve as a major impetus for strengthening anti-discrimination law. Furthermore, the ECtHR is yet to explore the full potential of Protocol 12; in this respect, a wider ratification of the instrument, particularly by western European countries, is desirable. Findings of indirect discrimination against minorities by the HRC and ECtHR can be evaluated as positive developments in anti-discrimination law, because they may open the way for greater protection of minority groups. However, the application of this concept needs further development, particularly in the Inter-American and African contexts. In the European context, the ECJ’s finding of indirect discrimination in cases concerning sex and nationality discrimination, and the elaborate rules of the Equality Directives may guide the jurisprudence of other courts and quasi-judicial bodies. Furthermore, major moves can be observed in the ECtHR’s jurisprudence, which accepted statistical evidence and agreed that, in certain situations, the burden of proof may be shifted on to the authorities. Where the grounds of discrimination are concerned, international and regional courts and quasi-judicial bodies seem to accord a high level of scrutiny in cases concerning discrimination on the grounds of race or ethnicity. For example, The Yean and Bosico Children v Dominican MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE