ACFC/44DOC(2012)001 rev States Parties must make sure that individuals are free from obstacles or pressure on the use and recognition of their names in their own language. This means that relevant civil servants, such as those issuing birth certificates, must be aware of their obligations. While the provision is worded in a way that allows States Parties to apply it in light of their own particular circumstances and legal system, a clear legislative framework in line with international standards should exist and be implemented in an equal manner. 62. In cases where persons have been obliged to change or give up their names, Article 11 of the Framework Convention requires that it should be possible for the original form of the name to be added to passports, identity documents or birth certificates. Registration should occur at the request of the person concerned or his/her parents.72 The requirement to produce documentary evidence thereof should not, in practice, unduly restrict the right to have the original form of the names added to identity documents, nor must costs be prohibitive.73 Authorities may, in line with Article 11, require that personal identity documents contain a phonetic transcription of the personal name into the official alphabet, if it contains foreign characters. However, the transcription should be as accurate as possible and should not be disconnected from the essential elements of the minority language, such as its alphabet and grammar. In addition, the Advisory Committee expects that the right to official recognition of names in minority languages is always fully respected.74 New technologies facilitate the use of diacritic signs and alphabets of national minorities. States are therefore encouraged to make use of all available technical opportunities in order to offer full and effective guarantees to the rights provided by Article 11 of the Framework Convention.75 63. Problems may arise from a conflict of language traditions, for instance, in determining the suffix of female names after marriage, which may extend to the names of children. The Advisory Committee welcomes legislation which provides for the possibility of surnames to be entered in registers without the feminine suffix required by some Slavic language grammar rules, and, conversely, legislation that allows for a Slavic suffix in countries that do not usually have such practice, following the rule about gender declension of names. 76 2.2. Information of a private nature visible to the public 64. Provisions unduly limiting the use of a minority language (alone or as an addition to the official language) in advertisements and announcements, signs and other information of a private nature visible to the public are not compatible with Article 11.2 of the Framework Convention. In this connection, the Advisory Committee recalls that the expression “of a private nature” in Article 11 of the Framework Convention refers to all manifestations of a minority language which are not official, including for example signs, posters or advertisements. The Advisory Committee also welcomes measures to raise the profile of minority languages and history in maps.77 2.3. Public signs 65. Article 11.3 of the Framework Convention states that provision must be made for topographical indications to be displayed also in minority languages in areas traditionally inhabited by “substantial numbers of persons belonging to a national minority”. The conditions are stricter, thus, than those contained in Article 10.2, as settlement must be both traditional and in substantial numbers. Like in Article 10.2, a minimum percentage for the latter is not fixed. Transparent procedures, entailing clear criteria of what constitutes 72 First Opinion on Lithuania; First Opinion on Ukraine. First Opinion on Latvia. 74 First Opinion on Azerbaijan; See in this context also the UN HRC decision Raihman vs. Latvia, where the Committee considered the transformation of a personal name in accordance with the Latvian grammar rules as a breach of the ICCPR. 75 Third Opinion on Finland; Second Opinion on Poland. 76 First Opinion on the Czech Republic; Third Opinion on Germany. 77 Third Opinion on Germany. 73 20