Notes 1 2 3 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ICCPR (adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976), General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI). HRC, General Comment No. 18: Non-discrimination, 10 November 1989, para. 12. In addition, Article 3 ICCPR prohibits sex discrimination. CESCR, General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/GC/20, 10 June 2009. ECHR, CETS No. 005 (opened for signature 4 November 1950, entered into force 4 November 1953). Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR, CETS No. 177 (adopted 4 November 2000, entered into force 1 April 2005), Article 1(1). The ECtHR has recently confirmed this in the cases Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina (Applications 27996/06 and 34836/06), 22 December 2009, para. 53. AfrCH (concluded on 26 June 1981, entered into force on 21 October 1986), OAU Doc.CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev.5. ACHR, OAS Treaty Series No. 36, 1144 UNTS 123 (signed on 22 November 1969, entered into force 18 July 1978). Article 24 of the ACHR reads as follows: ‘All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.’ FCNM, CETS No. 157. Article 4 FCNM reads as follows: ‘1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited. 2. The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities. 3. The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered to be an act of discrimination.’ 12 13 14 15 16 17 HRC, General Comment 23, Article 27 (50th session, 1994), Compilation of General Comments and General Recommendations Adopted by Human Rights Treaty Bodies, UN Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 38 (1994), para. 4. See also, CESCR, General Comment No. 20: Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, E/C.12/GC/20, 10 June 2009, particularly comment on Article 2(2) ICESCR. HRC, General Comment 18, Non-discrimination, para. 7. Ibid., para. 13. HRC, General Comment 23, Article 27, para. 4. Simunek et al. v the Czech Republic, Communication No. 516/1992, Views of 19 July 1995. CCPR/C/54/D/516/1992; J.G.A. Diergaardt (late Captain of the Rehoboth Baster Community) et al. v Namibia, Communication No. 760/1997, UN Doc. CCPR/C/69/D/760/1997 (2000); HRC, Waldman v Canada, Communication No. 694/1996, UN Doc. A/55/40, CCPR/C67/D/694/1996. The ECtHR is a judicial body under the ECHR; unlike the HRC’s decisions, the ECtHR’s judgments are legally binding. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics), (Application no. 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64), (1968) 1 Yearbook of the European Convention on Human Rights 832, para. 10. Ibid. Podkolzina v Latvia, (Application no. 46726/99), ECtHR, Judgment 9 April 2002. The ECtHR, however, found a violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 ECHR, as discussed in the section on ‘The right to stand for elections’ (p. 24). Jewish Liturgical Association Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France, 27 June 2000. Thlimmenos v Greece (Application No. 34369/97) [2001] 31 EHRR 15. Aziz v Cyprus (Application No. 69949/01) Judgment of 22 June 2004. Nachova v Bulgaria (Application Nos 43577/98, 43579/98) [2006] Grand Chamber, 42 EHRR 43. Timishev v Russia (Application Nos 55762/00, 55974/00) [2007] 44 EHRR 37. D.H. and Others v The Czech Republic (Application No. 57325/00) [2008] ELR 17. Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, supra 6. Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, January 19, 1984, IACtHR (Ser. A) No. 4 (1984). Ibid., para. 57. Ibid. Amnesty International v Zambia, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Comm. No. 212/98 (1999). Organisation Mondiale Contre La Torture v Rwanda, ACHPR, Comm. Nos 27/89, 46/91, 49/91, 99/93 (1996). Giovanni Maria Sotgiu v Deutsche Bundespost, Case 152/73, 12 February 1986, para. 31. Ballantyne, Davidson, McIntyre v Canada, Communications Nos 359/1989 and 385/1989, UN Doc. CCPR/C/47/D/359/1989 and 385/1989/Rev.1 (1993). Ibid., para. 11.5. J.G.A. Diergaardt (late Captain of the Rehoboth Baster Community) et al. v Namibia, supra 16. Ibid., para. 10.10. Interestingly, the HRC did not deal with this claim under Article 27 ICCPR. The case suggests that the state could legitimately insist on all communications between the authorities and minorities to take place in the official language, and that an exclusive official language does not automatically discriminate against minority languages. It should be pointed out that, the authors did not allege that their language rights were denied under Article 27 ICCPR and limited their submission under this provision entirely to land use; therefore, in the absence of a complaint from the authors, the HRC was not in a position to construct a case under Article 27. However, the joint dissent led by P.N. Bhagwati seems to suggest that were the authors to insist on the violation of language rights under Article 27 rights, the HRC could consider their claim under this provision. The individual opinion by R. Lallah took a contrary view, though. Mr. Rupert Althammer et al. v Austria, Communication No. 998/2001, UN Doc. CCPR/C/78/D/998/2001 (2003). Cecilia Derksen v Netherlands, Communication No. 976/2001, UN Doc. CCPR/C/80/D/976/2001 (2004). MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 51