227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 ACFC, First Opinion on Norway, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)003, 12 September 2002, para. 19. For more elaborate rules on political participation of minorities see the (non-legally binding) Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public Life and Explanatory Note (1999), retrieved 12 September 2010, http://www.osce.org/ documents/hcnm/1999/09/2929_en.pdf. HRC, General Comment 23, Article 27, para. 7. Ilmari Länsman et al v Finland, Communication No. 511/1992, CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992 (1994). Jouni E. Länsman et al. v Finland, Communication No. 671/1995, UN Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/671/1995 (1996). Apirana Mahuika et al. v New Zealand, Communication No. 547/1993, UN Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/547/1993 (2000). Ibid., para. 9.5. For example, in Apirana Mahuika et al. v New Zealand, the HRC concluded that ‘by engaging itself in the process of broad consultation before proceeding to legislate, and by paying specific attention to the sustainability of Maori fishing activities’, New Zealand took the necessary steps to comply with Article 27 ICCPR (para. 9.8). Potential implications and recent developments of minorities’ right to participate in decisions which affect them, including the role of their free prior and informed consent, were explored by the HRC in Poma Poma v Peru, UN Doc. CCPR/C/95/D/1457/2006, 24 April 2009, discussed in the section of this guide ‘The HRC and the exploitation of natural resources located in indigenous peoples’ lands’ (p. 34). Another non-legally binding document pertinent to political participation of minorities is the Lund Recommendations on the Effective Participation of National Minorities in Public Life; these recommendations specifically recognize the right of minorities to effective participation in all aspects of public, economic, social and cultural life of a country. The Lund Recommendations is a set of political principles, which states are encouraged to take into account. The Recommendations reflect state commitments under the 1990 Copenhagen Document of the Conference on the Human Dimension (Part IV), as well as United Nations and Council of Europe instruments on human rights. The list of States party to this Convention is available at http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgi-lex/ratifce.pl?C107. The list of States party to this Convention is available at http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/cgilex/ratifce.pl?(C169) (retrieved 14 August 2009). HRC, General Comment No. 25: The right to participate in public affairs, voting rights and the right of equal access to public service (Art. 25), 12.07.96, CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.7, para. 1. Ibid., para. 24. Ibid., para. 19. IACHR, Case No. 11.166, Walter Humberto Vasques Vejarano v Peru, Report No. 48/00. Ibid., para. 93. Ibid. ACHPR, Constitutional Rights Project and Civil Liberties Organisation v Nigeria, Comm. No. 102/93 (1998). Ibid., para. 47. Ibid., para. 50. HRC, General Comment to the ICCPR No. 25, supra 238, para. 1. Aziz v Cyprus, supra 23. Ibid., para. 30. Ibid., para. 29. Lindsay and Others v the United Kingdom (Application 8364/78), ECmHR, Decision of 8 March 1979. Moureaux v Belgim, DR 33, 114, ECmHR, Decision of 12 July 1983. 253 HRC, Marie-Hélène Gillot v France, Communication No. 932/2000, Views of 15 July 2002, UN Doc. A/57/40, 270. 254 Py v France (Application 66289/01), ECtHR, Judgment of 6 June 2005. 255 Marie-Hélène Gillot v France, para. 13.16; Py v France, ibid., paras 61, 62 and 64. 256 Nicoletta Polacco and Alessandro Garofalo v Italy (Application No. 23450/94), ECmHR, Inadmissibility decision of 15 September 1997. 257 Ibid. 258 HRC, General Comment No. 25, supra 238, para. 21. 259 In addition, states must refrain from measures which may alter the proportions of the population in areas inhabited by national minorities, aimed at restricting their rights and freedom under the FCNM: see FCNM, Article 16. 260 HRC, Mátyus v Slovakia, Communication No. 923/2000, 22 July 2002, CCPR/C/75/D/923/2000. 261 Ibid., para. 2.2. 262 Ibid., para. 4.5. 263 HRC, Antonina Ignatane v Latvia, Communication No. 884/1999, 25 July 2001. 264 Podkolzina v Latvia (Application No. 46726/99), ECtHR, Judgment 9 April 2002. 265 Ibid., para. 36. 266 Susana Higuchi Miyagawa v Peru, Case 11.428, Report No. 119/99, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.106 Doc. 3 rev. at 1262 (1999), para. 37. 267 Ibid., para. 56. 268 HRC, General Comment No. 25, supra 238, para. 17. 269 IACHR, Nasry Javier Ictech Guifarro v Honduras, Case 257002, Report No. 30/06, IACHR, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.127 Doc. 4 rev. 1 (2007). 270 Fryske Nasjonale Partij and Others v the Netherlands, ECmHR, Admissibility Decision of 12.12.1985, DR45, 240. 271 Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium (Application no. 9267/81) [1988] 10 EHRR 1. 272 It is noteworthy that the Advisory Committee for the FCNM called on states to adopt a narrow approach to language proficiency requirements. See, for example, Advisory Committee, Opinion on Estonia, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)005, 14 September 2001, paras 55–60; Second Opinion on Estonia, ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)001, 24 February 2005, paras 163–6. 273 Ždanoka v Latvia (Application No. 58278/00) [2005] 41 EHRR 31. 274 Ždanoka v Latvia (Application No. 58278/00) [2007] 45 EHRR 17. 275 Ibid., para. 115 (e). 276 Ibid., para. 132. 277 Aziz v Cyprus, supra 23, para. 31. 278 Ibid., para. 32. 279 Ibid., para. 33. 280 Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, supra 6. 281 Ibid., para. 10. 282 Ibid., para. 45. 283 Ibid., para. 22. 284 Glor v Switzerland (Application No. 13444/04) ECtHR, 30 April 2009, para. 94: see in Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, supra 6, para. 48. 285 Venice Commission, Opinion on different proposals for the election of the Presidency of Bosnia and Herzegovina, CDL-AD(2006)004, 20 March 2006. 286 Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, supra 6 para. 22. 287 Ibid., para. 49. 288 Judge Mijovic has even questioned the application of Article 3 of Protocol 1 to the elections to the House of Peoples, because, in his view, members of this House are not elected, but designated/selected by the entity parliaments: Sejdić and Finci v Bosnia and Herzegovina, supra 6: Partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Mijovic, joined by Judge Hajiyev. MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE 55