A/CONF.189/PC.2/22 page 11 that is used officially or has constitutional status becomes a force for integration and national unity and guarantees non-discrimination among the minority languages, thereby showing the limits of linguistic diversity. 32. Whatever the situation, there are two problems to be addressed: the right of the child belonging to a minority to teaching of his own language and to teaching in his own language. The positions adopted in international instruments vary greatly in this regard, reflecting the progressive recognition of the phenomenon of minorities. No explicit recognition 33. Several instruments contain no explicit provision obliging States to arrange for teaching of or in minority languages. Examples of this are the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two International Covenants of 1966, but particularly the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which, perhaps surprisingly considering that it deals with education as a whole (arts. 13 and 14), makes no special reference to the issue of the language to be used in teaching children belonging to minorities. Two hypotheses could be advanced in this regard. 34. The first hypothesis is extensive and refers more to the spirit than to the letter of such instruments. It may be argued, either on the basis of the general principle of non-discrimination and the aims of education, or, more directly, on the basis of the rights recognized for minorities (article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), that recognition of language rights as a vector for the development of the human personality and of the sense of dignity of the children concerned, places an implicit obligation on States. Non-discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds would then be viewed as a positive obligation to guarantee the children of such minorities teaching of and in their mother tongues through the State educational system. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights does not shed any particular light on this issue in its General Comment No. 13 on article 13 of the Covenant. 35. However, on the basis of the rules of interpretation27 and as a matter of general principle, that hypothesis is difficult to accept. Even the most pertinent provisions (article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) does not impose a positive obligation on States and indeed does not refer to the right to education. This is the interpretation which the European Court of Human Rights seems to give, in the Belgian “languages in education” case, to article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights (“No person shall be denied the right to education”). In its judgement on the merits, of 23 July 1968, the Court concludes that article 2 “merely [guarantees] to persons subject to the jurisdiction of the Contracting Parties the right ... to avail themselves of the means of instruction existing at a given time”. The Court confirmed the State’s right to determine the official languages to be used in public education and stated: “The Convention lays down no specific obligations ... In particular ... [it] does not specify the language in which education must be conducted ... .”28