PART TWO: CONTENT OF COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW employment, housing, education, culture and participation in public life”.480 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has noted that article 4 (1) of the relevant Convention “encompasses a wide variety” of measures, going on to list “outreach or support programmes; allocation and/or reallocation of resources; preferential treatment; targeted recruitment, hiring and promotion; numerical goals connected with time frames; and quota systems” in a non-exhaustive list of examples.481 The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities takes a similarly expansive approach.482 PART TWO – I The treaty bodies have clarified that, while positive action encompasses a broad range of potential measures, those measures must be designed with a clear objective, on the basis of demonstrated need and with the involvement of affected groups. The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has noted that States should develop “goal-directed programmes which have the objective of alleviating and remedying disparities”.483 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has noted that measures should be “designed to serve a specific goal”, noting that the “choice of a particular ‘measure’ will depend on the context … and on the specific goal it aims to achieve”.484 The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has noted that “measures should be designed and implemented on the basis of need, grounded in a realistic appraisal of the current situation of the individuals and communities concerned”, and noted that this entails obligations of both data collection and analysis, and consultation.485 Similarly, the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has noted that women should “have a role in the design, implementation and evaluation of such programmes” and emphasized the need for the use of sex disaggregated data.486 The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has noted that “States parties must consult closely with and actively involve” persons with disabilities487 and that “data and its analysis are of paramount importance for developing effective … equality measures”.488 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION POLICIES IN HIGHER EDUCATION IN BRAZIL In its report on its visit to Brazil in 2013, the United Nations Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent described how Brazil had been “a regional leader in affirmative action policies in employment and education for Afro-Brazilians and other marginalized groups”.489 In 2003, Decree No. 4886 created the National Policy for the Promotion of Racial Equality in Brazil, which provided for affirmative action for persons from these groups. Pursuant to the Policy, since 2004, quotas have been in operation in some universities, which have enabled greater access to higher education.490 Following a number of legal challenges that claimed that affirmative action policies in higher education constituted discrimination, on 26 April 2012, the Federal Supreme Court of Brazil unanimously ruled that the use of racial quotas in education was constitutional.491 On 29 August 2012, the Quota Law (Law No. 12.711) was adopted. Under the law, 50 per cent of the vacancies in federal universities and technical further education institutions “are reserved for students 480 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 32 (2009), para. 13. 481 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 25 (2004), para. 22. 482 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 28. 483 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 32 (2009), para. 22. 484 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 25 (2004), paras. 21–22. 485 Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 32 (2009), para. 16. 486 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 25 (2004), paras. 34–35. 487 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 29. 488 Ibid., para. 34. 489 A/HRC/27/68/Add.1, para. 25. 490 Ibid., para. 27. 491 Federal Supreme Court of Brazil, “STF declared the constitutionality of the quota system at the University of Brasília”, 26 April 2012. Available at www2.stf.jus.br/portalStfInternacional/cms/destaquesClipping.php?sigla=portalStfDestaque_en_us&idConteudo=207138. 61