PART THREE: PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS and is expressly prohibited under article 1(1) of the American Convention”.932 The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also held that racial discrimination manifests itself repeatedly “in everyday interpersonal relations”, permeating all social behaviour, personal as well as institutional.933 There is one further aspect of the ban on racial discrimination that merits comment here; States’ denial that racial discrimination exists – particularly systemic discrimination – even in relatively open and evident cases of such discrimination. The United Nations network on racial discrimination and protection of minorities has described this problem as follows: PART THREE While in the first half of the 20th century, the exclusion of minorities and other groups affected by racial discrimination was done more-or-less openly, today there are few if any governments in the world which pursue policies celebratory of the exclusion and discrimination of such groups. In the most common scenario, Governments deny that racial discrimination exists. This is the case in even scenarios of flagrant systematic abuse. In many contexts, Governments blame marginalized groups for their own exclusion. This problem extends to the most granular level, in which even in glaring cases of discrimination, parties deny the discrimination or provide elaborate justifications for obvious unequal treatment.934 The problem of denial of racial discrimination has posed – and continues to pose – particular obstacles to addressing it.935 B. Community, autonomy, equality and non-discrimination and harmful practices Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that ethnic minorities have the right “in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture”. Legislation and jurisprudence at regional and national levels have developed the content of this collective aspect of minority rights and its interaction with the right to non-discrimination. For example, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has elaborated protection of collective property rights extending to Afrodescendent populations as indicated by its jurisprudence in the Moiwana Community v. Suriname case.936 Indeed, this reflects the fact that the Court has progressively elaborated further on the protection of Afrodescendent communities and their status as tribal peoples.937 The European Court of Human Rights has held that there is “a positive obligation imposed on the Contracting States … to facilitate the Gypsy way of life”938 and that “the vulnerable position of Roma/Gypsies means that special consideration should be given to their needs”.939 In the case of Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, the Court held that Spain had violated the right to non-discrimination when a Roma woman had been refused a widow’s pension because she had never been formally recognized as married before the Spanish civil authorities. She contended that her marriage under Roma traditions to her now-deceased husband had been treated by the Spanish authorities as “a more uxorio relationship – a mere de facto marital relationship”.940 The Court ruled 932 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Case No. 12.649, Report No. 87/10, 30 November 2010, para. 357. See also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandi and Embera Indigenous People of Bayano and Their Members v. Panama, Case 12.354, Report No. 125/12, 13 November 2012, paras. 286–288. 933 Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Access to Justice for Women Victims of Violence in the Americas (OEA/Ser.L/V/II, Doc. 68) (2007), para. 196. 934 United Nations network on racial discrimination and protection of minorities, “Inputs into Secretary General’s call to action follow-up: agenda for protection” (2021), pp. 3–4. Available at www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Minorities/UN_Network_Racial_Discrimination_ Minority_Rights.pdf. 935 The problem of denial in a human rights context is explored in detail in Cohen, States of Denial: Knowing About Atrocities and Suffering. 936 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Moiwana Community v. Suriname, Judgment, 15 June 2005, paras. 86 and 133. 937 Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka People v. Suriname, Judgment, 28 November 2007, paras. 84–86. 938 European Court of Human Rights, Chapman v. United Kingdom, Application No. 27238/95, Judgment, 18 January 2001, para. 96. 939 Particular wording in this instance from European Court of Human Rights, D.H. and others v. the Czech Republic, Application No. 57325/00, Judgment, 13 November 2007, para. 181. 940 European Court of Human Rights, Muñoz Díaz v. Spain, Application No. 49151/07, Judgment, 8 December 2009, para. 51. 135