180 Ninety-two per cent of pupils and 35 per cent of staff of the school were Muslims. Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, para. 3. 181 Ibid., para. 55. 182 The EAT specifically emphasized that Article 2(5) of the Directive replicates Article 9(2) ECHR by providing limitations on freedom to manifest religion (para. 42); however, it was noted that the UK implementing legislation did not have an equivalent provision. Azmi v Kirklees Metropolitan Borough Council, para. 47. 183 In the recent report on the implementation of the Employment Directive by member states, the European Commission has specifically indicated several issues concerning the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. In particular, the Commission pointed out that: ‘[n]ational case law arising since the adoption of the Directive has highlighted conflicts between employee dress codes and manifestations of religious belief. Some of these cases have been treated as human rights matters (raising issues of freedom of religious expression) rather than discrimination cases, but they indicate that this area is likely to be a sensitive issue in implementing the Directive.’ 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 54 Communication from the Commission, ‘The application of Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation’, supra 177. Advisory Committee on the FCNM, Commentary on education under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, ACFC/25DOC(2006)002, 2 March 2006, 7. CESCR, General Comment on the right to education (Art.13): 8 December 1999 E/C12/1999/10. Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948 UNGA Res. 217 A(III)) (UDHR), Article 26. ICESCR (adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession 16 December 1966, entered into force 3 January 1976, UNGA Res. 2200A (XXI)) (ICESC), Article 13. CRC (adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession 20 November 1989, entered into force 2 September 1990, UNGA Res. 44/25) (CRC), Article 28. Convention (No. 169) Concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries guarantees the right to education of indigenous people specifically (adopted on 27 June 1989 by the General Conference of the ILO, entered into force on 5 September 1991), Articles 26–31. Convention against Discrimination in Education (adopted 14 December 1960, the General Conference of UNESCO) (CDE), Article 1(1). Ibid., Article 1(2). Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Official Journal C 364, 18.12.2000, 1–22, Article 14(2). Ibid., Article 14(3). AfrCH (concluded on 26 June 1981, entered into force on 21 October 1986), OAU Doc.CAB/LEG/67/3 Rev. 5. Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 14 November 1988, entered into force on 16 November 1999), OAS Treaty Series 69. FCNM CETS No. 157. Belgian Linguistics, supra 18. Ibid., para. 27. Ibid., para. 32. Ibid., para. 7. D.H. and Others v The Czech Republic, supra 50. Affaire Sampanis et Autres c. Grèce (Application No. 32526/05), Judgment of 5 June 2008 (final on 5 September 2008), para. 96 (in French). 203 Oršuš and Others v Croatia, Application No. 15766/03, Judgment of 17 July 2008. 204 Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2005)003, 27 May 2004, paras 88, 89. 205 Opinion on Italy, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)007, 14 September 2001, para. 55; Second Opinion on Italy, ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)003, 24 February 2005, para.114. 206 Second Opinion on the Slovak Republic, ACFC/OP/II(2005)004, 26 May 2005, para. 98. 207 Opinion on the Czech Republic, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)002, 6 April 2001, paras 61–3; Second Opinion on the Czech Republic, ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)002, 24 February 2005, paras145–9; Opinion on Bulgaria, ACFC/OP/I(2006)001, 27 May 2004, para. 97, etc. 208 Advisory Committee on the FCNM, Commentary on education under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, supra 184, 21. 209 Convention against Discrimination in Education, supra 190, Article 2(b). 210 Generally, there are fewer cases on the right to education in the inter-American and African contexts, because this right is perceived more as a matter of principle, with the countries striving to guarantee to individuals more pressing rights, such as the right to food, health, water, safe environment, etc. Social and Economic Rights Action Centre and the Centre for Economic (SERAC) and Social Rights (CESR) v Nigeria, ACHPR Communication 155/96; Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights, Human Rights Trust of Southern Africa v The Government of Zimbabwe Forced Evictions HopleyPorta Farm and Hatcliffe Communities, ACHPR Case Communication No. 314/05. 211 The Yean and Bosico Children v Dominican Republic, supra 137. 212 Ibid., para. 109(34). 213 Ibid., para. 109(35). 214 Ibid., 109(36). 215 Cyprus v Turkey (2002) 35 EHRR 30. 216 Ibid., para. 44. 217 Ibid., para. 43. 218 Ibid., para. 277. 219 Ibid., para. 278. 220 Ibid. 221 For example, in Hopu and Bessert v France, the HRC dealt with the applicants’ claims that by constructing a hotel complex at a fishing lagoon and on a burial ground, France violated the minority rights of an indigenous Polynesian community in Tahiti, through the medium of Article 17 ICCPR (the right to privacy) and Article 23 ICCPR (the right to family life). The HRC resorted to general human rights provisions, because of France’s reservation to Article 27 ICCPR: Hopu and Bessert v France, 29 July 1997, HRC, No. 549/1993. Equally, the ECtHR itself has not hesitated to read the ECHR provisions broadly to accommodate minorities in other contexts. See supra 84. 222 Although minorities have the right to establish their own schools, for example, under Article 13 FCNM, as the Advisory Committee noted, this provision does not give rise to any observations of state compliance, simply because minorities do not have the financial resources to establish their own educational institutions. Advisory Committee on the FCNM, Commentary on Education under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, ACFC/25DOC(2006)002, 22. 223 Waldman v Canada, supra 16. 224 Ibid., Individual opinion by member Martin Scheinin (concurring), para. 5. 225 Ibid. 226 For example, the Advisory Committee under the FCNM has confirmed that indigenous groups, such as the Sami in Norway, can benefit from the protection under the FCNM. MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE