briefing

Recognition of Minorities in : Protecting Rights and Dignity 1 By Panayote Elias Dimitras

Self-identification and term ‘minority’ to describe themselves. fact, not a matter of law’. Similarly, equality A generally accepted informal defini- the first OSCE High Commissioner tion considers minorities to be non- on National Minorities (HCNM), ‘All human beings are born free and dominant groups, not always numeri- Max van der Stoel, said: ‘I know a equal in dignity and rights.’ Article 1 cally inferior to majorities, whose minority when I see one.’ 3 of the Universal Declaration of members possess ethnic, religious or The Council of Europe (CoE) and Human Rights entails respect for the linguistic characteristics that differ the United Nations (UN) have inter- various identities, including ethnic or from the rest of the population and preted the treaty provisions on minori- national, religious or linguistic identi- show, if only implicitly, a sense of soli- ty rights in favour of acknowledging ties. It is important that everyone has darity directed towards preserving the self-identification of minority the right to choose their identity (i.e. their culture, traditions, religion or groups. The 1994 General Comment self-identification) for all humans to language.2 by the UN Human Rights Committee be ‘equal in dignity’. Since identities Recognition is essential to secure (HRC) on Article 27 of the can better be enjoyed with others who the rights of minority groups in a International Covenant of Civil and share the same identities, the recogni- state. Lack of recognition can lead to Political Rights (ICCPR), 4 makes clear tion of such groups’ existence is essen- instability and conflict. The legal that the existence of minorities does tial. While recognition is routinely recognition of minorities and the sub- not depend on state decisions but is to given to the identities of majority sequent respect of their rights con- be established by objective criteria; groups in states, it is often not done tributes to peaceful coexistence. Since and that non-citizens and even non- for a multiplicity of ethnic or national, non-recognition hinders the enjoy- permanent residents of states qualify religious or linguistic minority groups. ment of internationally recognized for protection under Article 27. International standards favour the rights, it leads to the violation of the Moreover, it is spelled out that the self-identification of minorities. economic, social and cultural rights of protection of minorities’ civil and Minorities’ recognition by states and minorities, and to their ultimate mar- political rights cannot be limited to the international community – espe- ginalization in society. invoking general equality before the cially the expert bodies that review the There is a strong link between law, equal protection by the law, and implementation of minority rights – minority status and poverty, and non-discrimination. All existing should be in the form of acknowledg- unrecognized minorities are denied minorities need to be acknowledged ing their existence, while refraining access to economic, social and political by states, and states are urged to from imposing any arbitrary or dis- development. Recognition based on ensure the survival and development criminatory recognition criteria. self-identification is the first step in of the identity of all minorities. The absence of a universally agreed the process of securing minority rights Article 27 of the ICCPR declares: definition of a ‘minority’ reflects the and safeguarding the position of mem- fact that many states would have liked bers of minorities as equal members of ‘[I]n those States in which ethnic, the definition to be restrictive, or society. religious or linguistic minorities would have used any definition in a The principle of self-identification exist, persons belonging to these restrictive way. Conversely, many was first enunciated by the Permanent minorities shall not be denied the groups, especially some indigenous Court of Justice in 1930, when it right, in community with the other peoples, are opposed to the use of the ruled that a minority is ‘a matter of members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and nationals or citizens, they need not country, and their entitlement to practise their own religion, or to be permanent residents. Thus, the enjoyment of their culture, the use their own language.’ migrant workers or even visitors in practice of their religion or the use a State party constituting such of their language in community The HRC Comment on Article 27 minorities are entitled not to be with other members of their group.’ observes: denied the exercise of those rights. [...] The existence of an ethnic, Another UN treaty body that was ‘[T]his article establishes and religious or linguistic minority in a faced with similar problems when recognizes a right which is given State party does not depend reviewing state reports was the conferred on individuals belonging upon a decision by that State party Committee on the Elimination of to minority groups and which is but requires to be established by Racial Discrimination (CERD). It distinct from, and additional to, objective criteria [...]’. issued two General Recommendations, all the other rights which, as in which self-identification was speci- individuals in common with With Article 27, the protection of fied as the sole international standard everyone else, they are already minority rights imposes specific obliga- for the recognition of minority groups, entitled to enjoy’. tions on states parties: including indigenous peoples. It also called on the states to report on all eth- The last sentence in point 4 declares: ‘9. [...T]he protection of these nic or national or indigenous groups rights is directed towards ensuring present on their territory, including on ‘Some States parties who claim that the survival and continued their demographics. CERD stated: 6 they do not discriminate on development of the cultural, grounds of ethnicity, language or religious and social identity of the ‘Having considered reports from religion, wrongly contend, on that minorities concerned, thus States parties concerning basis alone, that they have no enriching the fabric of society as a information about the ways in minorities.’ whole. Accordingly, the Committee which individuals are identified as observes that these rights must be being members of a particular Point 5 continues: protected as such and should not be racial or or groups, confused with other personal rights Is of the opinion that such ‘5.1. The [...] persons designed to conferred on one and all under the identification shall, if no be protected are those who belong Covenant. States parties, therefore, justification exists to the contrary, to a group and who share in have an obligation to ensure that be based upon self-identification by common a culture, a religion the exercise of these rights is fully the individual concerned.’ and/or a language. Those terms also protected and they should indicate indicate that the individuals in their reports the measures they And in General Recommendation designed to be protected need not have adopted to this end.’ XXIV, 1998, CERD stated: 7 be citizens of the State party [...]. A State party may not, therefore, The last sentence under point 4 is to ‘2. It appears from the periodic restrict the rights under article 27 challenge those states that claim that reports submitted to the Committee to its citizens alone.’ they cannot have any minorities since under article 9 of the International they do not discriminate against their Convention on the Elimination of ‘5.2. Article 27 confers rights on citizens on the grounds of ethnicity, All Forms of Racial persons belonging to minorities language or religion. When France’s Discrimination, and from other which “exist” in a State party. [...] implementation of the ICCPR came information received by the [I]t is not relevant to determine the up for review, the HRC, in its 1987 Committee, that a number of degree of permanence that the term Concluding Observations 5 unequivo- States parties recognize the presence “exist” connotes. Those rights simply cally rejected France’s argument: on their territory of some national are that individuals belonging to or ethnic groups or indigenous those minorities should not be ‘The Committee wishes to recall peoples, while disregarding others. denied the right, in community [...] that the mere fact that equal Certain criteria should be with members of their group, to rights are granted to all individuals uniformly applied to all groups, in enjoy their own culture, to practise and that all individuals are equal particular the number of persons their religion and speak their before the law does not preclude the concerned, and their being of a language. Just as they need not be existence in fact of minorities in a race, colour, descent or national or

2 RECOGNITION OF MINORITIES IN EUROPE: PROTECTING RIGHTS AND DIGNITY ethnic origin different from the the EU Race Equality Directive ‘persons belonging to the same nation- majority or from other groups 2000/43/EC, 8 may offer other forms al minority, to another national minor- within the population.’ of minority rights protection. ity, or to the majority’. Article 27 of the ICCPR defines ‘others’ as: ‘in com- It also drew states parties’ attention to: FCNM munity with the other members of their group’. Although the individual ‘[T]he application of different The Framework Convention for the or collective character of minority criteria in order to determine Protection of National Minorities came rights is not a prerequisite for the ethnic groups or indigenous peoples, into effect in 1998 and, as at February effective implementation of the leading to the recognition of some 2004, has been ratified by 35 states. In FCNM, it has been pointed out that: and refusal to recognize others, may Article 3, the right to self-identifica- give rise to differing treatment for tion is guaranteed, in addition to the ‘[M]ost of the Convention’s Articles various groups within a country’s clarification that persons can also freely have a collective dimension [...] population’. choose not to be treated as members of and, in practice, can only be a minority. The text of Article 3 enjoyed as a joint exercise by Further, CERD invited states parties: follows: 9 persons belonging to a national minority’. 11 ‘[T]o endeavour to include in their ‘1. Every person belonging to a periodic reports relevant national minority shall have the While the Explanatory Report explains information on the demographic right freely to choose to be treated that it is for everyone: ‘to decide composition of their population, or not to be treated as such and no whether or not he or she wishes to [...] information on race, colour, disadvantage shall result from this come under the protection flowing descent and national or ethnic choice or from the exercise of the from the principles of the Framework origin’. rights which are connected to that Convention’, it says that there is no choice.’ implied: ‘right for an individual to EU legislation choose arbitrarily to belong to any ‘2. Persons belonging to national national minority’. In the European context, minority minorities may exercise the rights It also explains that: ‘[N]o disadvan- rights are safeguarded primarily by the and enjoy the freedoms flowing tage shall arise from the free choice it CoE’s Framework Convention for the from the principles enshrined in the guarantees, or from the exercise of the Protection of National Minorities present framework Convention rights which are connected to that (FCNM). The European Union (EU), individually as well as in choice.’ Further: on the other hand, does not have its community with others.’ own system of minority protection. ‘Paragraph 2 provides that the Nevertheless, principles of minority Yet, the FCNM was accompanied by rights and freedoms flowing from rights and recognition of these rights an Explanatory Report 10 that has been the principles of the Framework are relevant to EU legislation. ‘Respect invoked by those states that oppose the Convention may be exercised for and protection of minorities’ has recognition of minorities on the basis individually or in community with been included in the Copenhagen cri- of self-identification and consider it others. It thus recognises the teria for EU enlargement. ‘Protection important to refute any insinuation possibility of joint exercise of those of the rights of persons belonging to that even some minority rights may be rights and freedoms, which is minorities’ has been included in the collective rights. Article 3 of the distinct from the notion of latest draft of the European Explanatory Report says that ‘the indi- collective rights. The term “others” Constitution. vidual’s subjective choice is inseparably shall be understood in the widest Although minority rights are not linked to objective criteria relevant to possible sense and shall include directly mentioned in the EU Charter the person’s identity’. Some states have persons belonging to the same of Fundamental Rights, the Charter argued that objective criteria should be national minority, to another contains a non-discrimination clause, defined by the states themselves. national minority, or to the in which the denial of minority rights, It is also mentioned that the enjoy- majority.’ under certain circumstances, may qual- ment of minority rights by individuals ify as discrimination prohibited by the ‘in community with others’ does not The Explanatory Report’s wording was Charter. Moreover, the concept of mean that these rights are collective. It negotiated so as to allow for even the indirect discrimination stipulated by is argued that ‘others’ could include

RECOGNITION OF MINORITIES IN EUROPE: PROTECTING RIGHTS AND DIGNITY 3 most recalcitrant CoE members to unconditional right to decide 20 states. Following the HRC’s inter- accept the FCNM text. which groups within their pretation of Article 27, which includes territories qualify as national migrant groups among minorities, the FCNM’s Advisory Committee minorities in the sense of the AC noted that in all states reviewed Framework Convention. Any there were grounds for improvement, The FCNM’s Advisory Committee decision of the kind must respect as none offered the FCNM’s protec- (AC), which reviews the FCNM’s the principle of non-discrimination tion to recent migrant communities. A implementation, adopted the prevail- and comply with the letter and comprehensive examination of the ing international standard of recogni- spirit of the Framework AC’s opinions,14 with some informa- tion of minorities by acknowledging Convention [...]. The Assembly tion from other sources, helps establish their self-identification. The AC’s abili- calls on: i. member states who have various concerns related to the recogni- ty to exchange information with the not already done so (that is, tion of minorities according to the states under review, to be invited to Andorra, France and Turkey) to principle of self-identification, which visit these states, to receive extensive swiftly sign and ratify, without includes the right of every individual information and/or to meet with non- reservations or declarations, the to be or not to be treated as a member governmental organizations (NGOs) Framework Convention; ii. of any minority. These types of non- and/or minority representatives, has member states who have signed but recognition or inadequate recognition allowed the AC to carry out what no have not ratified (Belgium, are examined below. other expert body of the CoE or UN Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Latvia, has done to date: a thorough and sys- Luxembourg and the Netherlands) Problems over recognition tematic examination of every aspect of to swiftly ratify, without the implementation of the FCNM, reservations or declarations, the Unrecognized ethnic or national including the issue of minority recog- Framework Convention; iii. those minorities nition. states parties which have ratified As previously mentioned, France refus- The AC’s work has enhanced the the Framework Convention but es to recognize any minority; therefore determination of the CoE’s most repre- have made declarations or the Basques, Bretons, Corsicans, Roma sentative and political body, the reservations, to drop them in order etc. are unrecognized. Turkey considers Parliamentary Assembly (PACE), to to exclude arbitrary and unjustified that no can have an ethnic adopt strongly-worded recommenda- distinctions, as well as the non- identity other than Turkish; hence tions in favour of the recognition of all recognition of certain minorities’. 13 Muslim Kurds or Roma are unrecog- existing minorities. In 2001, PACE nized, while non-Muslims are recog- adopted Recommendation 1492 The states parties not named in the nized only as religious minorities (see (2001): Rights of national minorities, last recommendation are Liechtenstein below). Greece’s approach is similar: all which stated: and Malta, which declared that they Eastern Orthodox are viewed as ethnic had no national minorities; Denmark, Greeks, while Muslims are recognized ‘The Assembly condemns the denial Germany, Macedonia, Slovenia and but only as a religious minority; hence of the existence of minorities and of Sweden, which listed those national Macedonians as well as Roma are minority rights in several Council minorities to be protected by the unrecognized minorities. The AC did of Europe member states and the FCNM; and , Estonia, , not review these three countries as they fact that many minorities in and Switzerland, which considered citi- have yet to sign and/or ratify the Europe are not afforded adequate zenship as a requirement for individu- FCNM. Their reluctance is based on protection.’ 12 als to be recognized as members of the expectation that FCNM ratifica- minorities: this qualification is not tion will put pressure on them to move Two years later, in Recommendation included in Article 3 or the towards recognition of their minorities, 1623 (2003): Rights of national Explanatory Report of FCNM and is with the FCNM being invoked in minorities, the AC’s findings were the therefore unduly restrictive. domestic courts. basis of a more elaborate text, declar- The AC did not feel bound by these These countries belatedly ratified ing that states’ interpretations of the declarations and signalled existing the ICCPR in 1981 (France), 1997 FCNM must be in line with Article 3 minorities in each country that should (Greece) and 2003 (Turkey): only of the Convention. Moreover: also be protected by the FCNM. By France has submitted related reports February 2004, the AC’s opinions for about its implementation, but since ‘[T]he Assembly considers that the 26 states had been published. It had the critical 1997 HRC review it has states parties do not have an concerns about minority recognition in not submitted its next report, which

4 RECOGNITION OF MINORITIES IN EUROPE: PROTECTING RIGHTS AND DIGNITY was due in 2000; while Greece has yet Muslims and some other religious Macedonians and ) but to submit its first report, due in 1998. groups have not been acknowledged by grants their members full rights only in The CoE’s the courts as ‘racial groups’ to qualify ‘minority zones’. These zones were against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) for protection under the Race defined by the state in the inter-war has highlighted the recognition prob- Relations Act; while the people of period and have never been effectively lems in its reports on France and Cornwall and the Bailiwick of Jersey abolished, although the authorities Greece (although it did not do this in have requested to be considered deny their continuous existence. its report on Turkey).15 national minorities: the government Members of these minorities living Reviewing the parties to the disagrees on the former, while an outside these areas do not enjoy the FCNM, the AC notes that Albania extension of the territorial application same rights as those inside the zones. does not recognize the Egyptian com- of the FCNM to Jersey was necessary Similarly, in Austria, and munity as a national minority and as a for the latter. enjoy fewer, if any, rights out- separate group from the Roma, The AC was unable to assess the side the corresponding ‘autochthonous’ although its members aspire to that statements of the Maltese and the San areas of settlement, Carinthia, status. In Armenia, the AC notes that Marinese authorities that there are no Burgenland and Styria. Characteris- some small minorities are recognized as national minorities in their territories, tically, in Albania and Austria, minori- national minorities, while others are since these states did not provide any ty members who move to the respec- not. In Cyprus, the AC, CERD, ECRI related information in their reports tive capitals, are deprived of the rights and HRC failed to record the presence and the AC could not obtain sufficient enjoyed in ‘traditional’ minority areas. and non-recognition of Roma, even information from other sources. In Denmark, members of the only though their problems have occasional- Conversely, Liechtenstein provided suf- recognized national minority of ly received international attention; ficient information to persuade the AC Germans, as well as the Inuit while the internationally recognized that no national minorities exist on its (Greenlanders) and Faroese, who are (Greek-) Cypriot government and the territory. considered as indigenous and who live Turkish-Cypriot authorities have used By February 2004, the AC had not outside the traditional areas of settle- the Roma’s problems to criticize each completed its evaluation of the imple- ment, were not granted minority other before international bodies.16 mentation of the FCNM in Bosnia rights. The AC believes that ethnic In their report, the Czech authori- and Herzegovina, , living in the home rule areas of ties mentioned the ‘Moravian and Macedonia, and Portugal; while the Greenland and the Faroe Islands could Silesian national identities’, registered AC opinions on Slovenia, adopted in also benefit from the FCNM’s provi- in the 1991 census, but did not recog- September 2002; Ireland, adopted in sions. Similarly, the AC recommended nize them as national minorities pro- May 2003; and on Poland, and Finland consider offering FCNM pro- tected by the respective legislation. Montenegro, and Spain, adopted in tection to the , who are a minori- Denmark did not consider Roma a November 2003 are yet to be pub- ty-in-a-minority, in the autonomous national minority. did not lished. In some of these states, minori- Swedish minority-inhabited province consider the a national minor- ties are clearly denied recognition. of Åland. In Switzerland, such a status ity either, although the AC reported Examples include Macedonians and exists for the ethnic majority Germans that members of that community in Bulgaria, as pointed out by who are a minority in French-speaking wanted to benefit from the state’s ECRI, 17 and in Macedonia cantons like Fribourg and Valais (as minority policy. In Sweden, speakers of (seldom mentioned even by interna- well as for the French – generally con- Swedish dialects in Scania and Gotland tional expert bodies).18 ECRI has high- sidered as a national linguistic minority favour recognition as national minori- lighted the non-recognition by – in German-speaking cantons like ties, but the Swedish authorities have Slovenia of ‘non-autochthonous’ Roma Bern). refused this. In , besides some and ‘Southerners’ (, Croats, 130 ‘nationalities’ covered by the Kosovo Albanians or ) who Ethnic or national minorities FCNM, there are eight ‘ethnographic migrated to Slovenia while it was part recognized only among citizens (sub-ethnic) groups of the Ukranian of the Socialist Federative Republic of In Estonia, the AC noted that the citi- people’ – in state terminology – (such Yugoslavia.19 zenship requirement, for individuals to as Boikos, and ) who benefit from the FCNM provisions, is are not covered, even though at least Ethnic or national minorities inappropriate: many minority mem- some of them have sought recognition recognized only in ‘traditional’ areas bers who settled in that country before of their specific identity. In the United The AC points out that Albania recog- the re-establishment of independence Kingdom (UK), the AC notes that nizes three national minorities (Greeks, in 1991 were not able to acquire its

RECOGNITION OF MINORITIES IN EUROPE: PROTECTING RIGHTS AND DIGNITY 5 citizenship due to the restrictive citi- call themselves Turks and their associa- ethnically, and – zenship law. ECRI has expressed a sim- tions Turkish: they can only use the linguistically. ilar concern for Latvia (not reviewed name ‘Muslim’. Yet, other members of by the AC as it has signed but not rati- the ‘Muslim’ minority can, and are Controversial state-imposed fied the FCNM).20 This is contrasted often encouraged to, call themselves arrangements with the generous provisions of the and their groups Pomak or Roma. In Armenia, the AC reported the con- corresponding Lithuanian citizenship troversy over whether Kurds and law, highlighted by the AC. Finally, the Exclusion of indigenous peoples from Yezidis belong to one single or two dif- AC also noted that in Ukraine, former- minority protection ferent national minorities, as the state ly deported have had The AC took exception to Denmark’s recognizes them. In Austria, the recent- difficulties in obtaining citizenship, practice of referring to the Inuit ly introduced distinction between which is a prerequisite for the enjoy- (Greenlanders) and Faroese as indige- ‘Croatian’ and ‘Burgenland Croatian’ ment of their rights. nous peoples and not applying the languages was seen by some Croats as a FCNM to them. The AC considered potential source of division that could Ethnic or national minorities that minority protection could be weaken their overall position. In recognized but with different status to offered to indigenous peoples without Azerbaijan and Estonia, the census others prejudice to their also benefiting from questionnaires included a compulsory In Italy, while Roma are formally pro- other standards specific to indigenous question on individuals’ ethnic origin tected by the FCNM, they have no peoples. The AC therefore welcomed that the AC found incompatible with legal instrument granting them full Finland’s and Sweden’s inclusion of the the right to choose not to be treated as effective and comprehensive protec- Sami among the minorities covered by a member of a minority. Likewise in tion. the FCNM. In Norway, the state con- Azerbaijan, small minorities, such as sidered the Sami as a minority in the Budukha, Khynalyg and Kryz, were Ethnic or national minorities terms of international law, but the included only as ‘others’ and their des- recognized only as religious or Sami Parliament (unlike the Sami ignation by the state did not always linguistic minorities Parliament of Sweden) refused the respect their members’ preferences. In The AC points out that in Albania, inclusion of the Sami in the govern- Cyprus, the three religious minorities members of the Roma and the ment’s national minority policy: the (Armenians, Latins and Maronites) Aromanian/Vlach minorities would AC therefore reiterated its position as were obliged to choose, as a group and like their groups to be recognized as first stated in its opinion on Denmark. once and for all, to belong to either national minorities, yet they are men- Although not considered indigenous the Greek Cypriot or the Turkish tioned in the state report merely as lin- peoples, Finland’s Swedish representa- Cypriot national community: they guistic minorities. Moreover, the AC tives appeared divided as to whether opted for the former, but the AC con- notes that among / their group, which enjoyed many sidered this ‘choice’ to be incompatible there are some who consider that two rights, should have been considered a with Article 3. Moreover, Latins were distinct groups exist and that this dis- national minority, although the state dissatisfied with the official use of that tinction should be acknowledged by reported that the FCNM was de facto designation for them, preferring to be the state, even though others consider applied to that group. In Russia, the acknowledged as Roman Catholics. there is one single group. In Cyprus, state and a number of indigenous peo- In Finland, the AC subscribed to many Maronites are dissatisfied with ples agreed that there was no incom- the reservations expressed by minority being recognized as a religious and not patibility between the status of indige- representatives about the distinction an ethnic minority, which would nous peoples and that of minority in between ‘Old ’ and other reflect their Arab origin and, for some, the sense of the FCNM. Yet the Russians. In Italy’s Bolzano province, the Arabic dialect they speak. Crimean Tatars in Ukraine, according members of the German and Ladino Among the countries not bound by to the AC, preferred to be called communities were obliged to declare the FCNM, Turkey considers non- indigenous peoples rather than (and their linguistic affiliation, which could Muslim communities as religious not in addition to) a national minority. not change between censuses, and was minorities, even though they aspire to Not all Russians in Ukraine wish to be used for the distribution of political be recognized as ethnic or national: for considered a national minority; while mandates and public sector posts: as in example, Turkey’s Greeks cannot call many ethnic Ukrainians whose first Cyprus, the AC disapproved of this themselves Greeks (‘Yunanli’) but only language is Russian were not being suf- system. In Romania, Roma did not Greek-Orthodox (‘Rum’). In Greece, ficiently distinguished from Russians – want to be called ‘Gypsies’ (‘T, igani’), Turks are likewise denied the right to because of the name’s pejorative status,

6 RECOGNITION OF MINORITIES IN EUROPE: PROTECTING RIGHTS AND DIGNITY while there appeared to be confusion membership to a people is also unac- 13 http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp?link= http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2FDocu in the census forms betweens Tatars ceptable. ments%2FAdoptedText%2Fta03%2FEREC1 and Turks. 623.htm In Russia, the AC warned against Migrants 14 The AC opinions per country, as well as the whole process of the FCNM the creation of artificial groups in the In every state with migrant popula- implementation review, can be handily 2002 census questionnaire, unless there tions, none of which were protected by accessed through The CEDIME-SE Guide was effective demand for the recogni- the FCNM, the AC – implementing to the FCNM, available at: http://www. tion of such separate identities by the inclusive definition of the HRC on greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/special_issues /fcnm_guide.html. Unless mentioned 21 those concerned. In , the AC Article 27, but without making explicit otherwise, all information below comes disapproved of the police collecting reference to it – noted that it would be from these AC opinions. data on the ethnicity of alleged offend- possible to consider additional groups 15 On France: ECRI, CRI, 2000, no. 31, http://www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/Ecri/1 ers – and of the Roma in particular – in the application of the FCNM on an -ECRI/2-Country-by-country_approach/ which was based on ‘visible characteris- Article-by-Article basis under the France/France_CBC_2.asp#TopOfPage; on tics’. In Ukraine, the AC registered a FCNM. The AC welcomed Russia’s Greece: ECRI, CRI, 2000, no. 32, http://www.coe.int/T/E/human%5Frights/ controversy on the relationship willingness, however, to extend FCNM Ecri/1%2DECRI/2%2DCountry%2Dby%2Dc between the Moldovan and the protection to non-citizens, and the ountry%5Fapproach/Greece/Greece_CBC Romanian identities, and implied that measures taken in Denmark to intro- _2.asp#TopOfPage; on Turkey: ECRI, CRI, there might have been efforts to duce extra-curricular teaching of 2001, no. 37, http://www.coe.int/T/E/human %5Frights/Ecri/1%2DECRI/2%2DCountry% impose one identity or the other. migrant community languages within 2Dby%2Dcountry%5Fapproach/Turkey/Tur Moreover, the AC disapproved of a the state school system. key_CBC_2.asp#TopOfPage mandatory rather than an optional 16 See a series of articles at http://www. Notes greekhelsinki.gr/special-issues-roma- question on nationality in Ukraine’s 2001.html and the ECHR ruling in ‘Denizci census questionnaire; and of the 1 The focus of this briefing is on Europe. and Others v. Cyprus’ (23 May 2001) police’s practice of collecting informa- MRG has also published a briefing by http://www.echr.coe.int/Eng/Press/ Slimane, A., Recognizing Minorities in 2001/May/Denizcijudepress.htm tion on Crimean Tatar and Roma Africa, London, MRG, 2003, available at 17 ECRI, CRI, 2004, no. 2, http://www.coe.int/ alleged offenders. Finally, the UK’s www.minorityrights.org T/E/human_rights/Ecri/1-ECRI/2-Country- census drew the AC’s criticism, as 2 MRG, World Directory of Minorities, by-country_approach/Bulgaria/ London, MRG, 1997, p. xv. many people could not declare their Bulgaria_CBC_3.asp#TopOfPage 3 Max van der Stoel, ‘Acceptance speech’, 18 See for example GHM & MRG-Greece, affiliation with a particular group, 15 December 1993, http://www.osce.org/ Bulgarians of Macedonia: a First Approach, including the Cornish, Roma/Gypsies, hcnm/documents/speeches/1992/ February 1998, http://www.greekhelsinki. 15dec92.html Welsh and Ulster-Scots. gr/english/reports/bulgarians-of- 4 http://193.194.138.190/tbs/doc.nsf/ Macedonia2-98.html; MILS Constitutional Questions about ethnic origin in (Symbol)/fb7fb12c2fb8bb21c12563ed004d Court Dissolves Bulgarians’ Association censuses or ethnic statistics are fre- f111?Opendocument Radko, 23 March 2001, http://groups. quent problems. The CoE’s and UN’s 5 ICCPR/C/79/Add.80 see: http://193.194. yahoo.com/group/balkanhr/message/1895 138.190/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/bfd68d7522f 19 ECRI, CRI, 2003, no. 39, http://www.coe.int expert bodies do require states to pro- 679be8025653100621983?Opendocument /T/E/human%5Frights/Ecri/1%2DECRI/2%2 vide statistical data on, or disaggregat- 6 General Recommendation VIII, 1990, DCountry%2Dby%2Dcountry%5Fapproach ed by, minorities. States need such data http://193.194.138.190/tbs/doc.nsf/ /Slovenia/Slovenia_CBC_2en.asp#TopOf (Symbol)/3ae0a87b5bd69d28c12563ee00 to accommodate minorities. Yet, this Page 49800f?Opendocument 20 ECRI, CRI, 2002, no. 21, http://www.coe. data should be confidential at the level 7 http://193.194.138.190/tbs/doc.nsf/ int/T/E/human_rights/Ecri/ 1-ECRI/2- of the individual and public only at (Symbol)/9ce4cbfde77a452a8025684a005 Country-by-country_approach/Latvia/ 5a2d0?Opendocument the aggregate level. In such data collec- Latvia_CBC_2.asp#TopOfPage 8 http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/oj/ 21 On a related past practice of the Soviet tion, everyone should have the right to dat/2000/l_180/l_18020000719en0022002 Union authorities, called ‘academic freely identify with a group of their 6.pdf nationalism’, see Tishkov, V., ‘Post-Soviet choice but also be given the option to 9 The full FCNM text is available at: nationalism in R. Kaplan and J. Feffer http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/ (eds), Europe’s New Nationalism: States refuse all identifications, without any Treaties/Word/157.doc and Minorities in Conflict, Oxford disadvantage resulting from this 10 The full document is available at: University Press, 1996. choice. All choices should be listed http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Report s/Html/157.htm equally; with perhaps an option to 11 Phillips, A., The FCNM: A Policy Analysis, write in an additional choice, but not MRG, available at: http://www. an entry ‘others’, which implicitly greekhelsinki.gr/bhr/english/organizations/ fcnm_pol_paper_aug.doc downgrades the groups included there. 12 http://assembly.coe.int/Main.asp? Data collection that assigns group link=http%3A%2F%2Fassembly.coe.int%2F Documents%2FAdoptedText%2Fta01%2FE REC1492.htm

RECOGNITION OF MINORITIES IN EUROPE: PROTECTING RIGHTS AND DIGNITY 7 working to secure the rights of minorities and indigenous peoples

Conclusions and recommendations The AC's comprehensive review of the implementation of Engage in, or enhance, dialogue with NGOs working on the FCNM has helped establish that there are many ways minority rights and/or representing minorities, and seek in which states do not adhere to the internationally ways to empower or strengthen them. accepted norm of the self-identification of minorities. Consequently, scores of minorities and migrant groups are States are urged to: unable to enjoy the most fundamental right of 'equality in Recognize the existence of all minorities that even dignity'. States and inter-governmental organizations need implicitly seek recognition and abolish all criteria that to make concerted efforts to remedy this situation. have restricted the full enjoyment of this right. Implement swiftly and thoroughly the recommendations Inter-governmental organizations are urged to: on recognition by expert bodies of inter-governmental Encourage, and provide adequate resources to, their organizations. expert bodies to review the implementation of minority Include among the minorities protected by international rights by member states through a comprehensive or regional instruments and domestic legislation, monitoring procedure similar to that of the FCNM's AC, indigenous and migrant groups, without prejudice to the with attention inter alia to the fundamental aspect of the rights these groups may additionally enjoy under recognition of minorities. different instruments or laws. Explicitly endorse by the top policy institutions (such as Engage in, or enhance dialogue with, NGOs working on the CoE’s Committee of Ministers) the recomm- minority rights and/or representing minorities, and seek endations of the expert bodies and urge the states ways to empower or strengthen them. concerned to implement them. Introduce special monitoring mechanisms for states that International donors are urged to: are reported by expert bodies to be in grave violation of Consider minority rights and especially the fundamental minority rights, or have refused to ratify the international right to recognition as one of their priorities, and provide or regional standards for minority protection and have grants to empower or strengthen communities or NGOs therefore escaped the expert bodies’ review. working on minority rights and/or representing minorities.

Recognition of Minorities in Europe: Protecting Rights and Dignity © Minority Rights Group International 2004. Published April 2004. ISBN 1 904584 18 7.

Author Panayote Elias Dimitras is a Visiting Professor at the Central European University, ; Director, Center for Documentation and Information on Minorities in Europe – Southeast Europe; and Spokesperson, Greek Helsinki Monitor. Project Coordinator Snjezana Bokulic. Editor Katrina Payne. Minority Rights Group International (MRG) is a non- governmental organization (NGO) working to secure the rights of ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities and indigenous peoples worldwide, and to promote cooperation and understanding between communities. MRG has consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and observer status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. MRG is registered as a charity, no. 282305, and a company limited by guarantee in the UK no. 1544957. Acknowledgements This activity is part of the South-East Europe Diversity and Democracy Programme coordinated by MRG. The programme is financially supported by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Development Cooperation Ireland, European Commission (CARDS), Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA East), and UK Department for International Development.

The text does not necessarily represent the views of the donors, nor does it necessarily reflect in every detail and in all its aspects the collective view of MRG.

Minority Rights Group International 54 Commercial Street, London E1 6LT, United Kingdom Tel +44 (0)20 7422 4200 Fax +44 (0)20 7422 4201 Email [email protected] Website www.minorityrights.org