A/70/335 which they are facing inequality. In some cases, disaggregated data enables the recognition of certain groups within a country, whose status is otherwise denied. In some instances not collecting such disaggregated data could equate to denying recognition to certain minority groups within a country and the vulnerable situation those groups face. It also facilitates access to justice for victims of discriminatory practices, which have often turned out to be difficult to prove. 32. Moreover, those statistics allow tailored measures based on empirical evidence, rather than assumptions, to be developed, avoiding the one -size-fits-all trap and thus optimizing the likelihood of policies being design ed which would have an effective impact on the welfare of marginalized groups. According to the Millennium Development Goals Report 2015, significant progress has been made, for instance, in the availability of detailed data on indigenous peoples in Latin America as a result of the inclusion of questions on indigenous people in 17 out of 29 countries during the census round in 2010. The collection of detailed data on those groups revealed, among other things, that the proportion of births attended by health professionals was 38 percentage points lower among indigenous women than non-indigenous women in Mexico and 45 percentage points lower in Peru. The availability of those disaggregated data led to the adoption of more effective interventions to reduce inequality. By 2012, more than 80 per cent of births among indigenous women were attended by health personnel in both countries. 33. Collecting data also enables the competent authorities to decide whether affirmative action is needed to bridge inequalities between different groups within society. Census data have also increasingly been used as tools of accountability for assessing the performance of democratically elected Governments in improving the welfare of their citizens. 34. Disaggregating data is also a means of identifying indirect discrimination, which refers to laws, policies or practices which appear neutral at face value, but de facto treat certain population groups less favourably with no reasonable justification. For instance, the United States, in its most recent report to the universal periodic review in 2015, stated that in addressing the disproportionate percentage of minorities, particularly African-Americans, in the criminal justice system, “the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 has reduced the disparity between more lenient sentences for powder cocaine charges and more severe sentences for crack cocaine charges (the latter of which are more frequently brought against racial minorities). Data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission through June 2014 ind icate that 7,706 federal crack offenders’ sentences have been reduced as a result of retroactive application of this change: of these offenders, an estimated 90 percent are African-American” (A/HRC/WG.6/22/USA/1). The harsher sentencing for crack cocaine-related offences was generating indirect discrimination in the administration of justice. 35. In addition to its function as a tool that would enable the assessment of the overall situation of discrimination, inform sound policies and monitor the impact of measures put in place, collecting data is also necessary to fulfil the right to information, especially for traditionally disadvantaged groups, which is provided for in article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Indeed access to demographic and ethnic data could have an empowering effect on traditionally marginalized groups, as it could foster greater and better participation in decision-making processes, thus positively impacting the realization of other 15-14106 11/24