principles. The Court’s approach in Cyprus v Turkey appears realistic at this stage. Where economic accessibility is concerned, states are free to adopt educational policy they see fit: there is no state obligation to fund private minority schools.222 However, even though states are not obliged to financially support private schools, the question of public funding may arise if a state chooses to subsidize education of some minority groups and refuses funding to others. Such treatment may be challenged as discriminatory, although it will not necessarily render a positive state action. Thus, the decision of the UN Human Rights Committee in Waldman v Canada 223 suggests that, although there is no requirement on states to fund private minority schools, if they choose to assist private schools, minority schools would have to be treated in an equal manner. Furthermore, as Martin Scheinin, a member of the HRC, argued in his individual (concurring) opinion in Waldman v Canada,224 Article 27 ICCPR imposes positive state obligations to promote religious instruction in minority religions; to this end, an optional arrangement within the public education system is one permissible arrangement. To avoid discrimination in funding religious (or linguistic) education, in some cases states may legitimately make decisions regarding public funding based on whether there is a constant demand from minorities for such education; another legitimate criterion in making such decisions is whether there is a sufficient number of children to attend such a school, to ensure the viability of providing religious (or linguistic) education.225 Conclusions Access to education is essential to guaranteeing the right of minorities to education, as well as ensuring that they have equal opportunities with the majorities to enjoy other fundamental rights, such as the right to effective participation in the political, economic, social and cultural life of a country, and freedom of speech and assembly. States should ensure that access of minorities to education is non-discriminatory, physically accessible and economically affordable. As far as non-discriminatory treatment in access to education is concerned, recent jurisprudence of international courts and quasi-judicial bodies shows remarkable developments, such as in D.H. and others v Czech Republic and Oršuš and Others v Croatia before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR and The Yean and Bosico Children v Dominican Republic decided by the IACtHR. Litigation in this area is essential for strengthening these principles further and eliminating discrimination against minorities in this context. Cyprus v Turkey is a significant development in ensuring access of minorities to education in a minority language. It imposed an obligation on states to provide secondary education in a minority language where it assumed the responsibility for primary education. The precedential value of Cyprus v Turkey may be limited, as the context of this case should be taken into consideration. Yet it provides a clear indication that, although the ECtHR is unlikely to recognize a free-standing right to education in a minority language, there exist situations where the Court can hardly ignore the group dimension of minority protection. In addition, in Cyprus v Turkey education was not physically accessible; thus, the case sets a clear standard on the physical accessibility of education to minorities and may serve as a benchmark in future cases to substantiate demands for education in a minority language where, for example, attendance of existing schools in a minority language may not be physically accessible, with a negative impact on family life. One objection to minorities’ demand for public schooling in a minority language may be the freedom of minorities to establish their own schools. This freedom, however, is intimately linked with the requirement of economic affordability of education. Provisions in domestic legislation on freedom of minorities to establish their educational establishments are redundant if a minority group does not have adequate resources to organize such education. So far, in the context of nondiscriminatory treatment of various minority schools, Canada was required to provide public funding to religious minority schools in a non-discriminatory manner. However, Article 27 ICCPR may be used to impose positive duties on a state to promote religious education. Furthermore, in making decisions regarding public funding, states should take into account whether (1) there is a sufficient demand from minorities for religious education or education in a minority language and (2) whether there is a sufficient number of children to attend such schools. While judicial or quasi-judicial findings of a general minority right to education in a minority language might be difficult to obtain, particularly under P1-2 ECHR, justifying ex post minority-friendly policies on the basis of equality and minority clauses, as well as finding of exceptions to the lack of a general entitlement on a case-by-case basis, appear to be realistic developments. MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 23