A/HRC/31/59 alia indigenous peoples, minorities within a population and new migrants, whose legal status, histories and relationship to States may differ. 11. It is important to query the precise meaning of terms such as “communities” and “identities” in the realm of cultural rights, which are frequently employed without definition. In international human rights instruments, “community” seems to refer to various interlocking groups, including: (a) the international community; (b) a national community; and (c) indigenous, tribal, minority, migrant, local or other communities formed in accordance with criteria such as language or ethnicity. Guidance as to which kind of category is under discussion is often implicit and contextual. Although some insight may be gained from commentaries on diverse standards, the Special Rapporteur has been unable to find a specific definition or authoritative explanation of the term “community” in international human rights law and proposes exploring further its meanings and implications. 12. Human rights law sometimes uses the term “community” in the relational sense, as well when stressing the importance for people of enjoying their rights either individually or “in community with others”, such as their right to manifest religion or belief (art. 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) or their rights as members of minorities, particularly in the fields of culture, religion and language (art. 27 of the Covenant and art. 3 of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities). 13. The centrality and meaning of group identities — and how to characterize them — are contested notions. What may be considered as “central” in terms of identity from the point of view of “community” leaders or outsiders may not coincide with individuals’ choices and realities. Individuals identify themselves in numerous ways and may select one identity over others in particular interactions and engagements. 14. A key challenge that the Special Rapporteur sees in the field of cultural rights, beyond international norms, is the routine presumption of the primordial nature of community identities. The term “community” is too often assumed to suggest homogeneity, exclusivity, structure and formality. Such a construction is embraced not only by some outside observers not willing to recognize plurality and dynamism within groups, but also by often self-proclaimed “representatives” of the concerned groups — or presumed groups — themselves. This contributes to creating, continuing and legitimizing situations of oppression. Cultural rights should never be used to those ends. 15. Moreover, Hazem Sagieh and Saleh Bechir have argued that some especially large and heterogeneous groups labelled as “communities” in contemporary parlance are in their view “to a certain extent, a ‘virtual reality’ that exists above all in the minds of … politicians, ‘experts’ and journalists — and, of course, in the minds of their supposed and self-appointed ‘spokesmen’”.3 In their view, this threatens the idea of citizenship. The vocabulary that they criticize and the associated world view has become the basis for “community-based” policy in many contexts and spheres, the impact of which the Special Rapporteur plans to investigate during her mandate.4 3 4 Hazem Sagieh and Saleh Bechir, “The ‘Muslim community’: a European invention”, Open Democracy, 16 October 2005. Available at www.opendemocracy.net/conflictterrorism/community_2928.jsp. She notes the concerns raised e.g. in Pragna Patel and Uditi Sen, Cohesion, Faith and Gender: A Report on the Impact of the Cohesion and Faith-based Approach on Black and Minority Women in Ealing (Southall Black Sisters, 2010). 5