A/HRC/11/36 page 11 official recognition of minority schools, in turn leading to barriers to the eligibility of students from minority schools for university;7 and the absence of reference to minority or indigenous culture and history in school curricula.8 32. Similar examples abound in other areas, such as housing, employment, access to justice and relations with law enforcement. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur recalls that the prohibition of non-discrimination has two main dimensions: not only banning non-discrimination itself, which would be required in the examples described above, but also prohibiting policies and actions that are prima facie non-discriminatory, but which in practice have discriminatory effects. Such effects can arise from the discriminatory application of otherwise race-neutral measures or the design of seemingly race-neutral measures that in fact have a disproportionate impact on the situation of minorities. 33. A clear example of non-discriminatory policies with a disproportionate impact on minorities relates to drug enforcement actions. In many countries, there is a large gap between the distribution of drug users among the general population and the distribution of persons convicted of drug offences, which is heavily skewed towards minorities. This generally indicates that drug policies, though non-discriminatory in practice, are implemented in a discriminatory manner that targets minorities, such as by a heavier police presence in areas predominantly inhabited by minorities. 34. In other instances, even when the application of a given policy is race-neutral, its design may lead to a disproportionate impact on minorities; for example, different sanctions are foreseen for drugs that have similar psychotropic and physiological effects. The classic example is that between crack cocaine and powder cocaine; due to its cheaper price, crack is more widely consumed by members of minorities. Therefore a disparity in sentences, with longer sanctions for crack consumption, also tends to disproportionately affect such minorities.9 35. With regard to the promotion of non-discrimination, the Special Rapporteur welcomes in particular the general recommendation on non-discrimination currently being drafted by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This broader and overarching general comment will further complement the work of the Committee on non-discrimination for specific rights, such as housing (general comments No. 4 and 7), food (general comment No. 12), education (general comment No. 13), health (general comment No. 14), water (general comment No. 15), work (general comment No. 18) and social security (general comment No. 19). As such, it will provide more clarity and precision for policymakers. However, the Special Rapporteur would like to stress that most cases of discrimination occur in clear-cut realms of the law and are therefore caused not by ambiguous assessment of a State’s obligations, but rather by explicit policies targeting minorities. 7 E/CN.4/2006/16/Add.2, para. 57. 8 E/CN.4/2005/18/Add.2, para. 40. 9 A/HRC/11/36/Add. 3, para. 87.