# A global juridicial approach to the invisibilisation of minorities discrimination

Indira Boutier

► To cite this version:

Indira Boutier. A global juridicial approach to the invisibilisation of minorities discrimination. Law. Aix-Marseille Universite; University of London, 2023. English. NNT: tel-04574159

HAL Id: tel-04574159

https://hal.science/tel-04574159

Submitted on 13 May 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
## THÈSE DE DOCTORAT

Soutenue à Aix-Marseille Université
en cotutelle avec l'Université de Londres
le 15 Septembre 2023 par

Indira BOUTIER

# A global juridicial approach to the invisibilisation of minorities discrimination

109.999 words

**Discipline**

Droit

**Spécialité**

Droit public

**École doctorale**

ED 67 / École Doctorale Sciences Juridiques
et Politiques

**Laboratoire/Partenaires de recherche**

Droits International, Comparé et Européen –
Centre d'Études et de Recherches
Internationales et Communautaires

**Composition du jury**

* Javaid REHMAN
* Brunel University, London
* Paolo DE STEFANI
* Padova University
* Tawhida AHMED
* University of London
* Hélène Tigroudja
* Aix-Marseille Université
* Corinne LENNOX
* University of London
* Ludovic HENNEBEL
* Aix-Marseille Université

Rapporteur

Rapporteur

Examinatrice

Présidente du jury

Directrice de thèse

Co-directeur de thèse
Affidavit

I, undersigned, Indira Boutier, hereby declare that the work presented in this
manuscript is my own work, carried out under the scientific direction of Corinne Lennox,
James Chiriyankandath and Ludovic Hennebel, in accordance with the principles of
honesty, integrity and responsibility inherent to the research mission. The research work
and the writing of this manuscript have been carried out in compliance with both the
French national charter for Research Integrity and the Aix-Marseille University charter
on the fight against plagiarism.

This work has not been submitted previously either in this country or in another
country in the same or in a similar version to any other examination body.

Place Marseille, date 13 June 2023.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>
List of publications and participation in
conferences

1) List of publications realised as part of the thesis project:

1. Indira Boutier, Struggle for safe water: Respecting human rights in a developed country, *Canadian Yearbook of Human Rights*, Vol. III, 2019-2021, pp. 11-20

2. Indira Boutier, First step towards a legal understanding of minority groups discrimination: the case of Kashmiri Pandits, *What's new in human rights doctoral research. A collection of critical literature review*, Vol. V, Padova University Press, pp. 57-78

3. Indira Boutier, L’œuvre d’art entre propriété privée, spoliation d’une minorité et patrimoine national : l’affaire République d’Autriche c. Altmann, *L’observateur des Nations Unies* (forthcoming)

4. Indira Boutier, Pratiques judiciaire locales et droit international des droits de l'homme : l'Assam, l'Union Indienne et le traitement des minorités, *Enquête* (forthcoming)

2) Participation in conferences and summer schools during the thesis period:

1. Hate speech against the catalan minority, UNPO & Asseamblea, 19 November 2020

2. The dilemma of Indian media: propaganda vs. Human Rights, ASEAN conference on nationalism and crisis, Antwerp, 6 April 2022

3. A review of the judiciary approach to deprivation of nationality in Assam, Centre de Sciences Humaines, New Delhi, 13 October 2022

4. From Assam to the European Court of Human Rights: understanding the development of an international human rights corpus juris, EURAC Research, Bolzano, 1st December 2022
**Abstract**

This thesis analyses the visibility or invisibility of core minority rights' violations through the judicial system and the medium of judicial rulings. It examines cases of discriminatory legislation, practices and policies by the State and civil agents to see how the judiciary contributes to – or resists – discrimination that may be working at different levels, institutional and individual. Judicial decisions can be studied to evaluate the extent to which they may enact State policies. So too, agents like bureaucrats, play a critical role in implementing legislation on the ground level, and their practices towards minority groups are equally worthy of analysis. Whilst the judiciary has a legal and moral obligation to respect national legislation, judges are also expected to exercise their independence, and maintain neutrality.

The study follows two principal approaches. Firstly, a national approach with a focus on the case of India, which is not part of a regional human rights system. It will examine the case of a minority within the Muslim community in the Northeast state of Assam who are being deprived of their nationality in arbitrary ways. Secondly, the thesis adheres to an international perspective with a special focus on two regional human rights systems – the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Human Rights – to study their role in verifying States' respect for universal human rights principles. This analysis of regional courts allows us to check whether Indian judicial interpretations are consistent with interpretations in other regional systems regarding discrimination against minorities. If India may have retained a degree of anxiety about possible impositions of legal norms and principles coming from Western institutions because of its colonial past, it cannot extend its antipathy towards colonial legacies to Latin American States or their judicial systems and models.

Keywords: minority groups, discrimination, international human rights law, regional systems.
Résumé

Cette thèse analyse la visibilité ou l'invisibilité des violations des droits fondamentaux des minorités au prisme du système judiciaire. Elle examine les législations nationales, les pratiques et politiques discriminatoires de l'État et des agents civils pour comprendre comment le pouvoir judiciaire contribue – ou résiste – à la discrimination qui peut s'exercer aux niveaux institutionnel et individuel. L'étude évalue, à travers l'analyse des décisions judiciaires, comment le système judiciaire met en œuvre les politiques étatiques. En parallèle, la thèse souligne également le rôle des agents et des bureaucrates dans l'application des législations sur le terrain et leur impact sur les groupes minoritaires.

L'étude suit deux approches. Tout d'abord, une approche nationale centrée sur le cas de l'Inde, qui ne fait pas partie d'un système régional de protection des droits de l'homme, en examinant le cas d'une minorité au sein de la communauté musulmane de l'État d'Assam, dans le nord-est du pays, privée arbitrairement de sa nationalité. Deuxièmement, la thèse s'inscrit dans une perspective internationale en se concentrant sur deux systèmes régionaux de droits de l'homme – la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l'homme et la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme – afin d'étudier leur rôle dans la vérification du respect par les États des principes universels des droits de l'homme. Cette étude des systèmes régionaux a pour but de vérifier si les interprétations judiciaires indiennes sont cohérentes avec les interprétations d'autres systèmes régionaux concernant la discrimination à l'égard des minorités. Si l'Inde a pu conserver, en raison de son passé colonial, un certain degré d'anxiété face à d'éventuelles impositions de normes et de principes juridiques provenant d'institutions occidentales, cette attitude ne peut pas être étendue aux États latino-américains ou à leurs systèmes et modèles judiciaires.

Mots clés : groupes minoritaires, discrimination, droit international des droits de l'homme, systèmes régionaux.
Acknowledgments

There are many people I wish to thank for their help, support and contribution to this
thesis. First of all, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisors Dr. Corinne
Lennox, Dr. James Chiriyankandath and Professor Hennebel, who have assisted and
encouraged over the last year. They helped me sharpened my focus, provided accurate and
valuable criticism of my ideas and drafts. Each of them offered beneficial elements to
understand the importance of not only an overall picture but the importance to focus on the
specificity of my work. More importantly, they created a space where I felt encouraged to
explore new ideas and approaches, by doing so they shaped my researched but also played a
significant role in shaping me as a scholar. Professor Tigroudja, who examined and discussed
my thesis, helped shape my current approach and brought clarification to some of my early
ideas. Last but not least, my warm gratitude to Dr. Barakova without whom this entire process
of a joint-PHD would not have gone so smoothly.

Grateful thanks to the jury members, Dr. Stephanie Berry and Dr. Indrajit Roy, who both
offered the intellectual stimulus and constructive criticism of my work in the upgrade process.

I had the privilege to spend a semester at Leiden University, in the Institute of Area Studies, thanks to Professor Nira Wickramasinghe who not only supported my application process but shared with me her knowledge on South Asia, and thanks to whom I benefited from a more regional comparative approach to the question of citizenship. I also availed of constructive comments from Professor Titia Loenen around a nice hot cup of tea during my time in Leiden University. I wish to thank Professor Henry Odile, at the Centre de Sciences Humaines in New Delhi for enabling my research stay. On this note, I also wish to mention Meda Roberta, for her help and warm welcome at the EURAC Centre, and Luis Viveros, for his insightful comments on the Inter-American system. Finally, I am grateful to Dr. Joanna Gomula, Lauterpartch Centre – Cambridge University, for her feedback and warm encouragement.

To the people who helped me for my field work, a special thank you to Pami Singh for
his intellectual curiosity and practical help. Further thanks goes to Santanam Swaminadhan, a
precious advisor on the field. Finally, to all those who participated in the process of interviews.
I would like to mention in particular Sanjay Hedge, Avi Singh, and Anand Grover.

The doctoral students and members of the Institute for International Humanitarian Studies and Aix Global Justice, have been consistent companions and have enriched my work with their comments and suggestions.

I am particularly grateful to my friends, I made during this journey who helped me from
near and far. A special thank you to my closest friends and partner, Adrian Garcia, who still
listen to my reflections even if they do not always understand what this is all about. On an even
more personal level, thank you to Philippe Boutry who sent me on this journey and for his kind
and unfailing support, to Anna Teicher and Magarater Witakher, and to Matis Ringdal ultimate
technical wizard and far more. Finally, the last thoughts of gratitude go to my parents and my
sister Anya Boutier, who have stood by and encouraged me to always follow my dreams and
convictions.
Table of contents

AFFIDAVIT 2

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND PARTICIPATION IN CONFERENCES 3

ABSTRACT 4

RESUME 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS 8

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 13

TABLE OF CASES 16

TABLE OF FIGURES 33

INTRODUCTION 34

1. Research question 41

2. Research methodology 42

3. Research structure 46

PART 1. LAW AND THE POLITICS OF STATE: APPROACHES TO POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL FRAMEWORKS 48

INTRODUCTION 49

CHAPTER 1. THE LEGAL CONSTRUCTION OF MINORITY GROUPS 50

1. An overview of legal definitions of minority groups 50

2. Debating the place of minorities in a new international order 53

3. The contemporary challenges 57

4. Conclusion 60

CHAPTER 2. ADDRESSING THE RIGHT TO NON-DISCRIMINATION 62

1. Protection against discrimination at the international level 63

2. When is there discrimination? 66

2.1. Qualifications 66

2.2. Violation of the principle of equality 69

2.3. Justifications of discrimination 70

3. States' obligations 71

4. Scholarly perspectives on discrimination 74

5. Conclusion 77

CHAPTER 3. ASSAM IN ACADEMIC DISCOURSE: A REVIEW OF EXISTING LITERATURE 78

1. Ethnicity in Assam 78

1.1. Colonial interventions in the ethnic landscape 79
<table><tr><td>1.2.</td><td>Emergence of micro-nationalism</td><td>82</td></tr><tr><td>1.3.</td><td>Politicisation of ethnic conflicts</td><td>84</td></tr><tr><td>2.</td><td>Citizenship in Assam</td><td>88</td></tr><tr><td>3.</td><td>Conclusion: Assam through a long-term approach</td><td>91</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2">CONCLUSION</td><td>92</td></tr></table>

## PART 2. INSTITUTIONAL, ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL ERASURE OF RELIGIOUS AND ETHNIC MINORITIES:

### A CASE STUDY OF ASSAMESE MUSLIMS 93

INTRODUCTION 94

CHAPTER 4. CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL STRUCTURE OF NATIONALITY 98

1. *Requirements for a new nation* 100

1.1. Consolidation of unity in the context of Partition 102

1.2. The Indian Constituent Assembly Debates 104

1.3. Judicial understandings and interpretation of nationality 110

1.3.1. Articles 5 to 11 of the Constitution 110

1.3.2. Residency from women and children's perspective 111

1.3.3. Citizenship through fraud 115

1.4. The Citizenship Act, 1955 and its evolution 116

1.5. Conclusion 118

2. *Contemporary politics: using nationality to build a Hindu nation* 119

2.1. Controlling citizenship through the National Register of Citizens 122

2.1.1. Political genesis 123

2.1.2. Regimes of legal regulations 125

2.1.3. Impact on vulnerable groups 127

2.1.4. International Human Rights Law violations 133

2.1.5. Conclusion 134

2.2. The political project of the Citizenship Amendment Act 136

2.2.1. Ideological shifts from Nehru to today 136

2.2.2. Challenges and controversies 140

2.2.3. Judicial actions before the Supreme Court 147

2.2.4. International responses 151

2.2.5. Conclusion 153

3. *Conclusion* 154

CHAPTER 5. EXCLUSION VS INCLUSION 155

1. *Reaffirming Assamese identity: the context* 157

1.1. Historical dynamics 157

1.2. Political perspectives on migration 159

1.3. Poetic responses to discrimination 161

2. *The 1985 Assam Accord* 163

2.1. Dividing citizens: Article 6A of the Assam Accord 163

2.2. Legalising arbitrariness 166
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>2.3.</td>
      <td>Sonowal v. Union of India: the politicisation of Justice</td>
      <td>169</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.</td>
      <td>Phase one: Foreigners Tribunals</td>
      <td>173</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.</td>
      <td>Procedural arrangements leading to Foreigners Tribunals</td>
      <td>175</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.1.</td>
      <td>The role of Border Police</td>
      <td>175</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.2.</td>
      <td>The “D” voters category</td>
      <td>178</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.</td>
      <td>The weakening of judicial grounds</td>
      <td>182</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.1.</td>
      <td>Recourse to quasi-judicial bodies</td>
      <td>182</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.2.</td>
      <td>Denial of due process</td>
      <td>184</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.3.</td>
      <td>Mobilising criminal and civil law</td>
      <td>186</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.</td>
      <td>Tracing illegal procedures through the right to a fair trial</td>
      <td>187</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.1.</td>
      <td>Judging without justification</td>
      <td>187</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.2.</td>
      <td>Uses of ex-parte rulings</td>
      <td>188</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.3.</td>
      <td>Denying the right to access to justice because of sustained and chronic deprivation of resources</td>
      <td>194</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.4.</td>
      <td>Dependence and partiality of judges</td>
      <td>198</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.</td>
      <td>Phase two: detention camps as a new legal norm</td>
      <td>207</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.1.</td>
      <td>Background</td>
      <td>208</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.2.</td>
      <td>Dehumanising the minority through arbitrary detention</td>
      <td>212</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.3.</td>
      <td>From a regional to a national scale</td>
      <td>217</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>5.</td>
      <td>Conclusion</td>
      <td>219</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">CONCLUSION</td>
      <td>221</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">PART 3. PROTECTING MINORITY GROUPS WITHIN REGIONAL INSTITUTIONS</td>
      <td>225</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">INTRODUCTION</td>
      <td>226</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">CHAPTER 6. INDIA AND REGIONAL SYSTEMS</td>
      <td>228</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.</td>
      <td>Public Interest Litigation</td>
      <td>229</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.</td>
      <td>Let good thoughts come to us from all sides</td>
      <td>233</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.</td>
      <td>Conclusion</td>
      <td>236</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">CHAPTER 7. THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE PRISM OF INTERSECTIONAL DISCRIMINATION</td>
      <td>237</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.</td>
      <td>Article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights: the prohibition of discrimination</td>
      <td>238</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.1.</td>
      <td>The role of “Cinderella” in protecting minority groups</td>
      <td>238</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.1.1.</td>
      <td>A general perspective</td>
      <td>239</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.1.2.</td>
      <td>The range of Article 14</td>
      <td>240</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.1.3.</td>
      <td>The extension of protection against direct and indirect discrimination</td>
      <td>241</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.1.4.</td>
      <td>Difference of treatment and impact on available data</td>
      <td>244</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.2.</td>
      <td>Room for manoeuvre: the margin of appreciation doctrine</td>
      <td>247</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.</td>
      <td>Addressing marginality</td>
      <td>250</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1.</td>
      <td>The culture of discrimination</td>
      <td>251</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.2.</td>
      <td>From marginality to intersectionality</td>
      <td>255</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.3.</td>
      <td>Accentuating invisibility: the case of segregated schools</td>
      <td>259</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.</td>
      <td>The concept of vulnerability and its application to minority groups</td>
      <td>264</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.</td>
      <td>Building the notion</td>
      <td>265</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.1.</td>
      <td>A multidisciplinary concept</td>
      <td>265</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.2.</td>
      <td>A multiplicity of layers</td>
      <td>266</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.3.</td>
      <td>Marginalisation and vulnerability</td>
      <td>268</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.</td>
      <td>Protecting vulnerable groups</td>
      <td>268</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.1.</td>
      <td>The uses by the European Court of Human Rights</td>
      <td>269</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.2.</td>
      <td>Applying the concept to minority groups</td>
      <td>271</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.3.</td>
      <td>Identification of special vulnerabilities</td>
      <td>273</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.</td>
      <td>The State's quandary: between vulnerability and due diligence</td>
      <td>275</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.1.</td>
      <td>The concept of due diligence</td>
      <td>276</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.2.</td>
      <td>From the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to Europe</td>
      <td>277</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.3.</td>
      <td>A key to the concept of vulnerability</td>
      <td>279</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.</td>
      <td>Conclusion</td>
      <td>280</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">CHAPTER 8. A COMPARISON WITH THE INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS</td>
      <td>281</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.</td>
      <td>Article 1 of the American Convention on Human Rights</td>
      <td>282</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.1.</td>
      <td>The relevance of Article 1.1 of the Convention</td>
      <td>282</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.2.</td>
      <td>Article 1.1 in comparison to the other articles of the Convention</td>
      <td>284</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.3.</td>
      <td>Discrimination as a key target in Article 1.1</td>
      <td>286</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.</td>
      <td>Victims of subordination and exclusion: the case of indigenous groups</td>
      <td>289</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1.</td>
      <td>General perspective</td>
      <td>289</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1.1.</td>
      <td>A political and historical approach</td>
      <td>290</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1.2.</td>
      <td>The question of migration</td>
      <td>291</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1.3.</td>
      <td>The integration process</td>
      <td>291</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.2.</td>
      <td>Constitutional evolution and indigenous particularisms at the national level</td>
      <td>292</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.3.</td>
      <td>Cultural diversity and the pro homine principle</td>
      <td>296</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.</td>
      <td>Extending responsibility: from States to judges</td>
      <td>301</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.1.</td>
      <td>The control of conventionality and constitutionality</td>
      <td>302</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.2.</td>
      <td>From regional to national jurisdiction</td>
      <td>306</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.3.</td>
      <td>Judges' role v. States responsibilities</td>
      <td>309</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>4.</td>
      <td>Conclusion</td>
      <td>314</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">CONCLUSION</td>
      <td>316</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">GENERAL CONCLUSION: INVISIBILITY IS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION</td>
      <td>318</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td colspan="2">ANNEX</td>
      <td>323</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>1.</td>
      <td>Ambedkar proposition: Article 5 of the Constitution,</td>
      <td>323</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.</td>
      <td>Miya poetry</td>
      <td>325</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.1.</td>
      <td>A Charuwa's Proposition, Maulana Bande Ali (1939)</td>
      <td>325</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.2.</td>
      <td>I beg to State That, Khabir Ahmed (1985)</td>
      <td>326</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.3.</td>
      <td>My Mother, Rehna Sultana (1 May 2016)</td>
      <td>328</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>2.4.</td>
      <td>Write Down 'I am Miya'', Hafiz Ahmed</td>
      <td>329</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>3.</td>
      <td>Performance of Foreigner's Tribunal members.</td>
      <td>330</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
BIBLIOGRAPHY 331

<table><tr><td>Statutes</td><td>331</td></tr><tr><td>Articles and Books</td><td>333</td></tr><tr><td>Conferences</td><td>369</td></tr><tr><td>Interview</td><td>370</td></tr><tr><td>United Nations documents</td><td>371</td></tr><tr><td>Human Rights Council</td><td>371</td></tr><tr><td>Human Rights Committee</td><td>371</td></tr><tr><td>Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights</td><td>372</td></tr><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination</td><td>372</td></tr><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women</td><td>373</td></tr><tr><td>Commission on Human Rights</td><td>373</td></tr><tr><td>General Assembly</td><td>373</td></tr><tr><td>Special Rapporteur</td><td>374</td></tr><tr><td>Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities</td><td>374</td></tr><tr><td>Reports</td><td>375</td></tr><tr><td>Official documents</td><td>381</td></tr><tr><td>Web resources</td><td>382</td></tr><tr><td>Newspaper</td><td>390</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>404</td></tr></table>
Table of abbreviations

AASU : All Assam Students' Union

ACHR : American Convention on Human Rights

African Charter : African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights

African Commission : African Commission on Human Rights and People's Rights

African Court : African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights

AGP : Asom Gana Parishad

Arab League : League of Arab States

ASEAN : Association of Southeast Asian Nations

BJP : Bharatiya Janata Party

CAA : Citizenship (Amendment) Act

CAB : Citizenship (Amendment) Bill

CAD : Constituent Assembly Debates

CEDAW : Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

CERD : Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

CESCR : Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Charter : United Nations Charter

CJEU : Court of Justice of the European Union

CRC : Convention on the Rights of the Child

ECHR : European Convention of Human Rights

ECI : Election Commission of India

ECtHR : European Court of Human Rights

EU : European Union

Framework Convention : Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

FT : Foreigners Tribunals

FTO : Foreigners (Tribunals) Order

HCHR : High Commissioner for Human Rights

HRC : Human Rights Committee

IACmHR : Inter-American Commission on Human Rights

IACtHR : Inter-American Court of Human Right
IAHRS : Inter-American Human Rights Systems

ICA : Indian Constituent Assembly

ICCPR : International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

ICEDAW : Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

ICERD : International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

ICESCR : International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

ICJ : International Court of Justice

IDP : Internally Displaced Persons

IHRL : International Human Rights Law

ILO : International Labour Organization

IMDT Act : Illegal Migrant (Determination by Tribunal) Act

IUML : Indian Union Muslim League

LIC : Life Insurance Company

MOA : margin of appreciation

NFHS : National Family Health Survey

NGO : Non-Governmental Organisation

NPR : National Population Register

NRC : National Register of Citizens

OAS : Organisation of American States

OCI : Overseas Citizens of India

PCIJ : Permanent Court of International Justice

PIL : Public Interest Litigation

RSS : Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh

RTI : Right to Information

SAARC : South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation

U.S : United States

UDHR : Universal Declaration of Human Rights

ULFA : United Liberation Front of Assam

UN : United Nations

UNHCR : United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
WP : writ petition
Table of cases

Notice: the following information has been classified from national to universal jurisdiction, in an alphabetic order within each category.

INDIA

<table><tr><td>Allahabad High Court, Anil Kumar @ Anantnag v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 36509 of 2020, 4 November 2020</td><td>138</td></tr><tr><td>Allahabad High Court, Priyanshi @ Km Shamreen v State of UP, WRIT- C No. - 14288 of 2020, 23 September 2020</td><td>222</td></tr><tr><td>Allahabad High Court, Salamat Ansari v State of U.P, Crl. Mis. WP No. 11367 of 2020, 11 November 2020</td><td>222</td></tr><tr><td>Allahabad High Court, Shabbir Hussain v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1952 All 257, 26 September 1951</td><td>110</td></tr><tr><td>Allahabad High Court, Smt Fatma v. State of UP, Criminal Appeal No.-7049 of 2011, 15 June 2017</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>Cachar Foreigners Tribunal, Case No. 327.2017, 18 January 2018</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>Cachar Foreigners Tribunal, Misc Case No. 07/2018, 26 April 2018</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>Calcutta High Court, Md Elabi v. the State of West Bengal, CRA 25 of 2014, 12 November 2008</td><td>110</td></tr><tr><td>Calcutta High Court, Ranjit Kumar Mazumder v. The State of West Bengal, C.R.M. No. 10076 of 2015, 9 March 2016</td><td>138</td></tr><tr><td>Calcutta High Court, Sham Roj v. Addl Superintendent of Police, AIR 1978 Cal 252, 8 June 1977</td><td>167</td></tr><tr><td>Delhi High Court, Azia Begum & Ors v. State & Ors, WP (Crl) 677/2008, 12 August 2008</td><td>116</td></tr><tr><td>Delhi High Court, Farhan v. State, WP (C) 284/2015, 11 May 2022</td><td>236</td></tr><tr><td>Delhi High Court, State (Delhi Administration) v. Master Tameej, 1974 CriLJ 100, 9 March 1973</td><td>115</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Aktara Khatun @Aktara Begum v. Union of India & Ors, WP (C) 260 of 2017, 2 May 2017</td><td>197</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Alal Uddin v. Union of India and Ors, WP (C) 3172/2020, 27 April 1959</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Amina Khatun (musstt) v. Union Of India, WP (C) Nos. 7339 of 2015, 19 April 2018</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Asia Khatoon v. Union of India, WP (C) 4020/2017, 21 November 2019</td><td>185</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Asor Uddin v. Union of India, WP (C) 6544/2019, 9 September 2021</td><td>191</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Bulbuli Bibi v. Union of India, WP (C) 7810/2019, 22 March 2021</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Government of Assam v. Mameza Khatun and Ors, WA No. 114 of 2011, 13 October 2015</td><td>178</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, H.R.A Chaoudhury v. Election Commission of India & Ors, 2002 (1) GLT, 11 January 2002</td><td>180</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Jahir Ali v. Union of India and Ors, WP (C) No. 3402/2020, 3 March 2021</td><td>184</td></tr><tr><td>Gauhati High Court, Kabir Uddin v. Union of India, WP (C) 7901/2019, 2 September 2021</td><td>192</td></tr></table>
Gauhati High Court, Khadiza Begum @Khudeza v. Union of India, the Election Commissioner of India, the State of Assam, WP (C)/6725/2019, 12 November 2019 .................................................................................. 190

Gauhati High Court, Manowara Bewa v. Union of India and Ors, WP (C) No. 2634 of 2016, 28 February 2017 185

Gauhati High Court, Md Rustom Ali v. The State Of Assam And Ors, WP (C) No 3236/2009, 26 May 2011 .... 183

Gauhati High Court, Mrs. Mamoni Rajkumari v. The State of Assam and 5 Ors, WP (C) Nos. 4476/2017 & Ors., 22 December 2017.................................................................................................................. 191, 200, 201

Gauhati High Court, Santanu Borthakur v. Union of India and Ors, WP (Crl) 2/2020, 8 May 2020.................. 212

Gauhati High Court, Shariful Islam v. Union of India & Ors, WP (C) 2780/2019, 7 June 2019 ................................. 196

Gauhati High Court, Shri Rajendra Das and Ors v. the Union of India and Ors, WP (C) No. 8295/2019, 24 November 2021 .................................................................................................................. 197

Gauhati High Court, State of Assam and Anr v. Moslem Mondal and Ors, 2013 (1) GLT (FB) 809, 3 January 2013 .................................................................................................................. 188, 189, 207, 214

Gauhati High Court, Sultana Begum v. The Union of India, WP (C) No. 7115/2016, 30 May 2019 .................... 192

Gujarat High Court, State of Gujarat and Anr v. Saiyad Aga Mohmed Saiyedm Ohmed, (1979) 1 GLR 71, 22 February 1978.................................................................................................................. 115

Karnataka High Court, Smt Archona Purnima Pramanik v. State of Karnataka, Criminal Petition No. 279 of 2020, 27 January 2020.................................................................................................................. 138

Madras High Court, P. Ulaganathan and Ors v. Government of India, WP (MD) No. 5253 of 2009, 17 June 2019 .................................................................................................................. 150

Madras High Court, Sree Latha v. The Secretary to Government, No. 1138 of 2006, 21 September 2007 ....... 207

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Ram Narain v. Central Bank of India LTD, AIR 1952 P H 178, 28 November 1951 .................................................................................................................. 113

Rajasthan High Court, Badridass Kanhaiyalal v. Appellate Tribunal of State Transport Authority Rajasthan, [1959] AIR 1960 Raj 105, 27 April 1959 .................................................................................. 200

Rajasthan High Court, Priyanka Sharma v. State (Panchayati Raj Dep), WP(C), 15 March 2013.................... 267

Rajasthan High Court, Shyam Singh v State of Rajasthan, 1973 CriLJ 441, 16 March 1972 .................................... 205

Smt Noor Jahan Begum @ Anjali Mishra & Anr v State of UP [2014] Allahabad High Court WP (C) No. 57068 of 2014 .................................................................................................................. 222

Supreme Court Legal Services v Union of India [2019] SC of India WP(C) 1045/2018 .................................... 215

Supreme Court of India, Abdul Kuddus v. Union Of India, (2019) 6 SCC 304, 17 May 2019 .................................... 184

Supreme Court of India, ADM Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521, 28 April 1976.................... 230, 231

Supreme Court of India, Ahmedabad St Xaviers College v State of Gujarat & Anr, 1974 AIR 1389, 26 April 1974 .................................................................................................................. 145, 152

Supreme Court of India, Aishat Shifa v. The State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 7095 of 2022, 13 October 2022. .................................................................................................................. 223

Supreme Court of India, Anita Kushwaha v. Pushap Sudan, AIR 2016 SC 3506, 19 July 2016.................... 197

Supreme Court of India, Anuj Garg v. Hotel Association of India, (2008) 3 SCC 1, 6 December 2007 233, 234, 236
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Aparna Bhat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 230, 18 March 2021</td>
      <td>234, 235</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Arumugam Servai v. State of Tamil Nadu, 6 SCC 405, 19 April 2011</td>
      <td>221</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Assam Accord: Writ Petition on Belhaf of Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha, WP (C) No. 562 Of 2012, 29 November 2012</td>
      <td>166</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Assam Public Works v. Union of India, WP (C) 274 of 2009, 13 August 2019</td>
      <td>181</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors v. Union of India & Ors, WP (C) No. 562 of 2012, 17 December 2014</td>
      <td>passim</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Bachan Singh v. State Of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898, 9 May 1980</td>
      <td>150</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Bachpan Bachao Andolan v. Union of India, WP(C) No.51 OF 2006, 18 April 2011</td>
      <td>269</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Bandhua Mukti Morcha v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 802, 16 December 1983</td>
      <td>231</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Basu v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1997 SC 610, 18 December 1996</td>
      <td>232</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, 1955 SCR (1) 697, 12 October 1954</td>
      <td>111, 113</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Delhi Science Forum v. Union of India, 2 SCC 405, 19 February 1996</td>
      <td>232</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, E. P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr, 1974 AIR 555, 23 November 1973</td>
      <td>149</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Frances Mullin v. Union Territory of Delhi, 1981 AIR 746, 13 January 1981</td>
      <td>231</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Govt. of Nct of Delhi v. Union of India, (2018) 8 SCC 501, 4 July 2018</td>
      <td>147</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Harsh Mander v. Union of India, WP(C) 1045/2018, 19 February 2019</td>
      <td>215</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, In Re: Distribution Of Essential v. Unknown, WP (C) No.3 of 2021, 31 May 2021</td>
      <td>236</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Indian National Congress (I) v. Institute of Social Welfare, Appeal (civil) 3320-21 of 2001, 10 May 2022</td>
      <td>182</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Indian Union Muslim League v. Union of India, I.A. No. of 2021 In WP (C) No 1470 of 2019, 1 June 2021</td>
      <td>139</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Izhar Admad Khan v. Union of India, 1962 AIR 1052, 16 February 1962</td>
      <td>167</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, WP(C) No(S). 55 OF 2019, 7 November 2002</td>
      <td>252</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Jeeja Ghosh & Anr v. Union Of India & Ors, WP (C) No. 98/2012, 12 May 2016</td>
      <td>150</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39, 27 September 2018</td>
      <td>149</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Justice K.S Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 494 OF 2012, 24 August 2017</td>
      <td>235, 316</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, 26 September 2018</td>
      <td>144, 147, 149, 150</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Kalpana Mehta And Ors v. Union of India And Ors, (2018) 7 SCC 1, 9 March 2018</td>
      <td>147</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru & Ors v. State of Kerala & Anr, AIR 1973 SC 1461, 24 April 1973</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Kulathil Mammu v. the State of Kerala, 1966 SCR (3) 706, 2 March 1966</td>
      <td>114</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, L.I.C of India & Anr v. Consumer Education & Research & Ors etc, 1995 AIR 1811, 10 May 1995</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Louis de Raedt v. Union of India, 1991 SCR (3) 149, 24 July 1991</td>
      <td>113</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Madhu Kishwar v. State of Bihar, 1996 AIR 1864, 17 April 1996</td>
      <td>233</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Madras Bar Association v. Union of India, (2014) 10 SCC 1 [53], 25 September 2014</td>
      <td>144, 175</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, 1978 AIR 597, 25 January 1978</td>
      <td>156</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Miss Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka, 1992 AIR 1858, 30 July 1992</td>
      <td>232</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Ms Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, [1999] 236 ITR 380, 17 February 1999</td>
      <td>233</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, National Human Rights Commission v State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1996 SCC (1) 742, 9 January 1996</td>
      <td>116</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, National Legal Ser Auth v. Union Of India & Ors, (2014) 5 SCC 438, 15 April 2014</td>
      <td>150</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Navtej Johar v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC 1, 6 September 2018</td>
      <td>149, 150, 236</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Nitisha v. Union of India, WP (C) No 1109/2020, 25 March 2021</td>
      <td>235</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Petition, WP (C) No. ______ Of 2019, 13 December 2019</td>
      <td>147, 148, 150, 151</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Pondicherry Khandi and Village Industries Bd v. P. Kulothangan, (2004) 1 SCC 68, 31 October 2003</td>
      <td>183</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, R K Jain v. Union of India, 1993 AIR 1769, 14 May 1993</td>
      <td>199</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, R. M. Malkani v. State Of Maharashtra, 1973 AIR 157, 22 September 1972</td>
      <td>192</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Re-Inhuman conditions in 1832 Prisons v State of Assam, WP (C) No. 406/2013, 25 September 2018</td>
      <td>217</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, S. R. Bommai v. Union of India, 1994 AIR 1918, 11 March 1994</td>
      <td>144, 170</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, S.P. Gupta v. Union of India, 1982 (2) SCC 831, 30 December 1981</td>
      <td>206</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Sarbananda Sonowal (II) v. Union of India, WP (C) No. 117 of 2006, 5 December 2006</td>
      <td>173, 188</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Sarbananda Sonowal v. Union of India & Anr, WP (C) No. 131 of 2000, 12 July 2005</td>
      <td>passim</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Shri P.G. Gupta v. State of Gujrat, (1995) 2 SCC 182, 14 December 1994</td>
      <td>234</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Smt Shanno Devi v. Mangal Sain, 1961 SCR (1) 576, 7 September 1960</td>
      <td>115</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Special Leave Petition No 13256/2017, 24 August 2017</td>
      <td>134</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Sri Adi Visheshwara of Kashi Vishwanath Temple, Varanasi And Ors v. State Of UP And Ors, 4 SCC 606, 14 March 1997</td>
      <td>153</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Khudiram Chakma, 1993 SCR (3) 401, 27 April 1993</td>
      <td>147, 148</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, State of Bihar v. Kumar Amar Singh and Ors, 1955 SCR (1) 1259, 10 February 1955</td>
      <td>114</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, State Of Karnataka And Anr v. Dr Praveen Bhai Thogadia, (2004) 4 SCC 684, 31 March 2004</td>
      <td>144</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, State Trading Corporation of India v. The Commercial Tax Officer, 1963 AIR 1811, 26 July 1963</td>
      <td>112</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Supreme Court of India, Tehseen S Poonawalla v. Union of India, 9 SCC 501, 17 July 2018</td>
      <td>221</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, The Chairman, Railway Board & Ors v. Mrs Chandrima Das & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 98, 28 January 2000</td><td>148</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, Union of India v. Namit Sharma, 10 SCC 359, 3 September 2013</td><td>175</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, Union of India v. R. Gandhi, Civil Appeal No. 3067 of 2004, 11 May 2010</td><td>206</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, Unni Krishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 AIR 2178, 4 February 1993</td><td>232</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, Vellore Citizens Welfare Forum v. Union of India & Ors, (1996) 5 SCC 647, 28 August 1996</td><td>148</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1997 SC 3011, 13 August 1997</td><td>232, 233</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, Workmen of The Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited v. M/s Straw Board Manufacturing Company Limited, (1974) 4 SCC 681, 21 March 1974</td><td>183</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, WP (C) No. 1020 of 2017, 5 December 2017</td><td>134</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of India, Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Ors v. State of Gujarat and Ors, Appeal (Crl.) 446-449 of 2004, 8 March 2006</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td>Uttaranchal High Court, Dr Vijay Verma v. Union of India, WP (PIL) No. 17 of 2018, 1 June 2018</td><td>235</td></tr></table>

## SOUTH AFRICAN CONSTITUTIONAL COURT

<table><tr><td>South African Constitutional Court, Bhe v. The Magistrate, Khayelisha, (2004) 18 BHRC 52, 2004</td><td>234</td></tr></table>

## SOUTH AMERICAN STATES

<table><tr><td>Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Acción de tutela instaurada por la Organización de los pueblos indígenas de la Amazonia colombiana OPIAC contra la Presidencia de la República y otros, SU-383/03, 13 May 2003</td><td>295</td></tr><tr><td>Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Amado De Jesus Carupia Yagari, T-428/92, 24 June 1992</td><td>296</td></tr><tr><td>Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Comunidades Indígenas del Medio Amazonas contra el Ministerio de Defensa Nacional y la Misión Aérea de los Estados Unidos, T-405/93, 23 September 1993</td><td>295</td></tr><tr><td>Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Libertad De Expresión En Opinión Consultiva De La Corte Interamericana De Derechos Humanos, C-010/00, 23 February 2000</td><td>307</td></tr><tr><td>Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Sentencia C-010/00, 19 January 2000</td><td>308</td></tr><tr><td>Corte Constitucional de Colombia, Sentencia C-253/13, 25 April 2013</td><td>295</td></tr><tr><td>Corte Constitucional de Guatemala, Sentencia, 3334-2011, 14 February 2012</td><td>308</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of Argentina, Miguel Angel Ekmekdjian v. Gerardo Sofovich, Recurso extraordinario, E000000064, 7 July 1992</td><td>307</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of Uruguay, M.L., J.F.F.0, denuncia, excepción de inconstituciónlidad arts 1, 2, y 3 de la Ley no, IUE 2-109971/2011, 22 February 2013</td><td>308</td></tr><tr><td>Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional de Bolivia, El Caso Takana El Turi Manupare II, 0572/2014</td><td>302</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Tribunal Constitucional Plurinacional de Bolivia, Sentencia 0300/2012, 18 June 2012</td><td>295</td></tr><tr><td>Venezuela Supreme Tribunal of Justice, 08-1572, 18 December 2008</td><td>308</td></tr></table>

SUPREME COURT OF NEPAL

<table><tr><td>Supreme Court of Nepal, Dil Bahadur Bishwokarma v. HMG, 2062-1-19 BS, May 2004</td><td>64</td></tr></table>

CANADA CASES

<table><tr><td>Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, R(Carson) v. Secretary of state of work and pensions, UKHL 17, 2006, 1 AC 173, 2005</td><td>252</td></tr></table>

UNITED STATES

<table><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka County, 347 US 483, 1954</td><td>260</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581, 13 May 1889</td><td>170</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321, 1997</td><td>234</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Frontier v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 1973</td><td>234</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Frost &amp; Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n, 271 U.S. 583 (1926), 7 June 1926</td><td>145</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Griggs v. Duke Power Co, 401 US 424, 8 March 1971</td><td>67, 262</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Kennedy v. Mendoza-Martinez, 372 U.S. 144, 159 [1963], 18 February 1963</td><td>148</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 1803</td><td>303</td></tr><tr><td>Supreme Court of the United States, United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 1996</td><td>234</td></tr></table>

AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM

<table><tr><td>African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, Open Society Justice Initiative v. Côte d'Ivoire, Petition No. 318/06, 18-28 February 2015</td><td>181</td></tr><tr><td>African Court of Human Rights, African commission on human and peoples' rights v. Republic of Kenya, 006/2012, 17 May 2017</td><td>298</td></tr><tr><td>African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, Penessis v. United Republic of Tanzania, No 013/2015, 28 November 2019</td><td>181</td></tr></table>
EUROPEAN SYSTEM OF HUMAN RIGHTS

<table><tr><td>Court of Justice of the European Union, Commission européenne c. République d'Estonie, ECJ C-328/09, 18 January 2010</td><td>246</td></tr><tr><td>Court of Justice of the European Union, Flaminio Costa v. ENEL, Case 6-64, 15 July 1964</td><td>312</td></tr><tr><td>Court of Justice of the European Union, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, Case 11-70, 17 December 1970</td><td>312</td></tr><tr><td>Court of Justice of the European Union, S. Coleman v. Attridge Law and Steve Law, C-303/06, 17 July 2008</td><td>288</td></tr><tr><td>European Commission of Human Rights, Crociani v. Italy, 8603/79 &amp; Others, 18 December 1980</td><td>206</td></tr><tr><td>European Commission of Human Rights, Greece v. United Kingdom, 176/1956, 1956</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Abdu v. Bulgaria, 26827/08, 11 March 2014</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Abdulaziz, Cabales And Balkandali v. United Kingdom, 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/81, 28 May 1985</td><td>234, 248, 249</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Alajos Kiss v. Hungary, 38832/06, 20 May 2010</td><td>270, 272</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Andejeva v. Latvia, 55707/00, 18 February 2009</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, 38361/97, 13 June 2002</td><td>242</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Anguelova v. Bulgaria, 38361/97, 6 June 2000</td><td>242</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Aydin v. Turkey, 23178/94, 25 September 1997</td><td>270</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, B.S. v. Spain, 47159/08, 24 July 2012</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Baralika v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 30100/18, 29 October 2019</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Bekos and Koutropoulos v. Greece, 15250/02, 13 December 2005</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Bevacqua and S. v. Bulgaria, 71127/01, 12 June 2008</td><td>276, 277, 278</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Biao v. Denmark, 38590/10, 24 May 2016</td><td>67, 68, 71, 241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Burden v. the United Kingdom, 13378/05, 29 April 2008</td><td>66, 70, 71</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Burghartz v. Switzerland, 16213/90, 22 February 1994</td><td>249</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Calvelli and Ciglio v. Italy, 32967/96, 17 January 2002</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Canea Catholic Church v. Greece, 25528/94, 16 December 1997</td><td>249</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Capital Bank AD v. Bulgaria, 49429/99, 24 November 2005</td><td>247</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Carson v. the United Kingdom, 42184/05, 16 March 2010</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Case 'relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium' (merits), 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64, 23 July 1968</td><td>70, 248</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Chapman v. the United Kingdom, 27238/95, 18 January 2001</td><td>73, 269, 270</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Christine Goodwin v. the United Kingdom, 28957/95, 11 July 2002</td><td>241, 270</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Cînta v. Romania, 3891/19, 18 February 2020</td><td>256, 257</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Claes v. Belgium, 43418/09, 10 January 2013</td><td>271</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Danilenkov v. Russia, 67336/01, 30 June 2009</td><td>241</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Denizci v. Cyprus, 25316/94; 25317/94; 25318/94; 25319/94; 25320/94; 25321/94; 27207/95, 23 May 2001</td>
      <td>238</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, DH v. the Czech Republic, 57325/00, 13 November 2007</td>
      <td>passim</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom, 7525/76, 22 October 1981</td>
      <td>270</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, El-Masri v. the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 39630/09, 13 December 2012</td>
      <td>72</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Engel v. the Netherlands, 5100/71; 5101/71; 5102/71; 5354/72; 5370/72, 8 June 1976</td>
      <td>241</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Frette v. France, 36515/97, 26 February 2002</td>
      <td>248</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, G.L. v. Italy, 59751/15, 10 December 2020</td>
      <td>256</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Garib v. The Netherlands, 43493/09, 6 November 2017</td>
      <td>255, 257</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Gaygusuz v. Austria, 17371/90, 16 September 1996</td>
      <td>249</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Giulani and Gaggio v. Italy, 23458/02, 24 March 2011</td>
      <td>72</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Glor v. Switzerland, 13444/04, 30 April 2009</td>
      <td>274</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Golder v. United Kingdom, 4451/70, 21 February 1975</td>
      <td>194</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Grande Oriente D'italia Di Palazzo Giustiniani v. Italy (n° 2), 26740/02, 31 May 2007</td>
      <td>241</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Guberina v. Croatia, 23682/13, 22 March 2016</td>
      <td>256, 270</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Handyside v. the United Kingdom, 5493/72, 7 December 1976</td>
      <td>247</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, 27765/09, 23 February 2012</td>
      <td>270</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Hode and Abdi v. the United Kingdom, 22341/09, 6 November 2012</td>
      <td>71</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Hoogendijk v. the Netherlands, 58641/00, 6 January 2005</td>
      <td>67, 68</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, 11146/11 [74], 29 January 2013</td>
      <td>255, 262, 270, 275</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Hugh Jordan v. the United Kingdom, 24746/94, 4 May 2001</td>
      <td>68, 243</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Incal v. Turkey, 22678/93, 9 June 1988</td>
      <td>206</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, JD and A v. the United Kingdom, 32949/17; 34614/17, 24 October 2019</td>
      <td>275</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Kalin v. Turkey, 31236/96, 10 November 2004</td>
      <td>242</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Karlheinz Schmidt v. Germany, 13580/88, 18 July 1994</td>
      <td>249</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Karner v. Austria, 40016/98, 24 July 2003</td>
      <td>247</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Kelly v. the United Kingdom, 30054/96, 4 May 2001</td>
      <td>243</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Khamtokhu and Aksenchik v. Russia, 60367/08; 961/11, 24 January 2017</td>
      <td>271, 274</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Kiyutin v. Russia, 2700/10, 10 March 2011</td>
      <td>270, 274</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Kurić v. Slovenia, 26828/06, 26 June 2012</td>
      <td>270</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, L v. Lithuania, 27527/03, 11 September 2007</td>
      <td>273</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Lavida v. Greece, 7973/10, 30 October 2013</td>
      <td>263</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>European Court of Human Rights, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, 44774/98, 10 November 2005</td>
      <td>248</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Lingurar v. Romania, 48474/14, 16 April 2019</td>
    <td>250</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Luczak v. Poland, 77782/01, 27 November 2007</td>
    <td>240</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, M.C. and A.C. v. Romania, 12060/12, 12 April 2016</td>
    <td>250</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, M.C. v. Bulgaria, 39272/98, 4 December 2003</td>
    <td>72, 276</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, 30696/09, 21 January 2011</td>
    <td>270, 272, 273</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, M.Y.H. v. Sweden, 50859/10, 27 June 2013</td>
    <td>256</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Makhashevy v. Russia, 20546/07, 31 July 2012</td>
    <td>272, 276</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Mazurek v. France, 34406/97, 1 February 2000</td>
    <td>241</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, McKay v. United Kingdom, 543/03, 3 October 2006</td>
    <td>206</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Mckerr v. the United Kingdom, 28883/95, 4 May 2001</td>
    <td>243</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Modarca v. Moldova, 14437/05, 10 May 2007</td>
    <td>213</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Moldovan v. Romania (no 2), 41138/98; 64320/01, 12 July 2005</td>
    <td>73</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Moustaquim v. Belgium, 12313/86, 18 February 1991</td>
    <td>70</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Mubilanzila Mayeka and Kaniki Mitunga v. Belgium, 13178/03, 12 October 2006</td>
    <td>271</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Mugenzi c. France, 52701/09, 10 July 2014</td>
    <td>270</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Muskhadzhiyeva v. Belgium, 41442/07, 19 January 2010</td>
    <td>271</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Mutlu and Yildiz v. Turkey, 30495/96, 10 July 2001</td>
    <td>242</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, N.S.K. v. the United Kingdom, 28774/2, 14 June 2022</td>
    <td>272</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Nachova v. Bulgaria, 43577/98; 43579/98, 6 July 2005</td>
    <td>73, 244, 250</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, National &amp; Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v. the United Kingdom, 21319/93; 21449/93; 21675/93, 23 October 1997</td>
    <td>71</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Novruk v. Russia, 31039/11; 48511/11; 76810/12; 14618/13; 13817/14, 15 March 2016</td>
    <td>241, 270</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Okpisz v. Germany, 59140/00, 25 October 2005</td>
    <td>66</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Oliari v. Italy, 18766/11; 36030/11, 21 July 2015</td>
    <td>255</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Opuz v. Turkey, 33401/02, 9 June 2009</td>
    <td>227, 276, 277, 278</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Oršuš v. Croatia, 15766/03, 16 March 2010</td>
    <td>passim</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Osman v. the United Kingdom, 23452/94, 28 October 1998</td>
    <td>276</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Paparrigopolous v. Greece, 61657/16, 30 June 2022</td>
    <td>241</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Petrov v. Bulgaria, 15197/02, 22 May 2008</td>
    <td>241</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Petrovic v. Austria, 20458/92, 27 March 1998</td>
    <td>234</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Pilav v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 41939/07, 9 June 2016</td>
    <td>240</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Pla and Puncernau v. Andorra, 69498/01, 13 July 2004</td>
    <td>70</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, R.R. v. Poland, 27617/04, 26 May 2011</td>
    <td>269</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Rasmussen v. Denmark, 8777/79, 28 November 1984</td>
    <td>248, 249</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>European Court of Human Rights, Refah Partisi (the Welfare Party) v. Turkey, 41340/98; 41342/98; 41343/98; 41344/98, 31 July 2001</td>
    <td>248</td>
  </tr>
</table>
<table><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Renolde v. France, 5608/05, 16 October 2008.</td><td>270</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Rotaru v. Romania, 28341/95, 4 May 2000</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, S.A.S. v. France, 43835/11, 1 July 2014.</td><td>259</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sakir v. Greece, 48475/09, 24 March 2016.</td><td>250</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Salah Sheekh v. the Netherlands, 1948/04, 11 January 2007</td><td>272</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Šaltinytė v. Lithuania, 32934/19, 26 January 2022</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sampanis v. Greece, 32526/05, 5 June 2008</td><td>262</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sampanis v. Greece, 59608/09, 11 December 2012</td><td>68, 70, 262</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sanli and Erol v. Turkey, 36760/97, 22 May 2001</td><td>242</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Savickis v. Latvia, 49270/11, 9 June 2022</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Schuler-Zgraggen v. Switzerland, 14518/89, 24 June 1993</td><td>234, 249</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina, 27996/06; 34836/06, 22 December 2009.</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sejdic Finci v. Bosnia-Herzegovina, 27996/06, 22 December 2009.</td><td>240</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Şerife Yiğit v. Turkey, 3976/05, 2 November 2010</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Shanaghan v. the United Kingdom, 37715/97, 4 May 2001</td><td>243</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sommerfeld v. Germany, 31871/96, 8 July 2003.</td><td>239, 241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Stec v. the United Kingdom, 65731/01, 65900/01, 12 April 2006</td><td>71</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Stubbings v. the United Kingdom, 22083/93; 22095/93, 22 October 1996</td><td>269</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Sutherland v. the United Kingdom, 25186/94, 21 May 1996</td><td>249</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Szolcsán v. Hungary, 24408/16, 30 March 2023.</td><td>263</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Talpis v. Italy, 41237/14, 2 March 2017.</td><td>227</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Tapeya v. Russia, 24757/18, 23 February 2022</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Thlimmenos v. Greece, 34369/97, 6 April 2000</td><td>73, 243</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Timishev v. Russia, 55762/00; 55974/00, 13 December 2005</td><td>73</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Tkhelidze v. Georgia, 33056/17, 8 October 2021</td><td>276</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Tysiac v. Poland, 5410/03, 20 March 2007</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, V.C. v. Slovakia, 18968/07, 8 November 2011.</td><td>257, 258</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Vallianatos v. Greece, 29381/09; 32684/09, 7 November 2013</td><td>255</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Van Raalte v. Netherlands, 20060/92, 21 February 1997.</td><td>71, 234</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Varnas v. Lithuania, 42615/06, 9 June 2013</td><td>241</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Vasilescu v. Belgium, 64682/12, 25 November 2014</td><td>213</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Willis v. the United Kingdom, 36042/97, 11 June 2002.</td><td>66</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Zarb Adami v. Malta, 17209/02, 20 June 2006</td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td>European Court of Human Rights, Zhdanov v. Russia, 12200/08, 16 October 2019</td><td>66</td></tr></table>
<table>
  <tbody>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Gallo v. Argentina, Case 12.632, 28 July 2015</td>
      <td>200</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, 'White Van' (Paniagua Morales et al) v. Guatemala, Merits, Series C, No. 37, 8 March 1998</td>
      <td>72</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, "The Last Temptation of Christ" (Olmedo Bustos et al) v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, No. 73, 5 February 2001</td>
      <td>284</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Acevedo-Jaramillo v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 157, 24 November 2006</td>
      <td>282</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Almonacid-Arellano et al v. Chile, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 154, 26 September 2006</td>
      <td>303, 304</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Apitz Barbera (First Court of Administrative Disputes) v. Venezuela, Series C, No. 182, 5 August 2008</td>
      <td>206, 283</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Artavia Murillo et al (In Vitro Fertilization) v. Costa Rica, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 257, 28 November 2012</td>
      <td>235, 288</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Atala Riffo and Daughters v. Chile, Series C, No. 239, 24 February 2012</td>
      <td>passim</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Azul Rojas Marín et al v. Perú, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 402, 12 March 2020</td>
      <td>286</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Barrios Altos v. Peru, Merits, Series C, No. 75, 14 March 2001</td>
      <td>313</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Boyce et al v. Barbados, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 169, 20 November 2007</td>
      <td>305</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cabrera García and Montiel Flores v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 220, 26 November 2010</td>
      <td>305</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v. Peru, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 167, 10 July 2007</td>
      <td>72</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cantos v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 97, 28 November 2002</td>
      <td>194</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Cepeda Vargas v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 213, 26 May 2010</td>
      <td>73</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Comunidad Garífuna Triunfo De La Cruz Y Sus Miembros v. Honduras, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 305, 8 October 2015</td>
      <td>294, 298</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Digna Ochoa y familiares v. México, Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 447, 25 November 2021</td>
      <td>72</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Dismissed Congressional Employees (Aguado Alfaro et al) v. Peru, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 158, 24 November 2006</td>
      <td>305, 306, 307, 313</td>
    </tr>
    <tr>
      <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Duque v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 310, 26 February 2016</td>
      <td>285, 288, 302</td>
    </tr>
  </tbody>
</table>
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Escher v. Brazil, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 200, 6 July 2009 .................................................................................................................. 73

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Espinoza Gonzáles v. Peru, Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 295, 23 June 2015 .................................................................................................................. 285

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Expelled Dominicans and Haitians v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, 28 August 2014 .................................................................................................................. 181

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fernández Ortega v. Mexico, Interpretation of Judgment of Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 224, 15 May 2011 .................................................................................................................. 302

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fernández Ortega v. Mexico, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 215, 30 August 2010 .................................................................................................................. 72, 194

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Flor Freire v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 315, 31 August 2016 .................................................................................................................. 285, 286, 287

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Fontevecchia and D'Amico v. Argentina, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 238, 29 November 2011 .................................................................................................................. 305

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Furlan and Family v. Argentina, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 246, 31 August 2012 .................................................................................................................. 288, 305

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Garrido and Baigorria v. Argentina, Merits, Series C, No. 26, 2 February 1996 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 284

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gelman v. Uruguay, Merits and Reparations, Series C, No. 221, 24 February 2011 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 305

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gelman v. Uruguay, Monitoring Compliance with Judgment, 20 March 2013 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 304, 305

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gender identity, and equality and non-discrimination of same-sex couples, Advisory Opinion OC-24/17, Series A, No. 24, 24 November 2017 .................................................................................................................. 285, 286

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gonzales Lluy et al v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 298, 1 September 2015 .................................................................................................................. 257, 286, 289

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, González et al ( .................................................................................................................. 288, 317

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Granier et al (Radio Caracas Television) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 293, 22 June 2015 .................................................................................................................. 287

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gudiel Álvarez et al ('Diario Militar') v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 253, 20 November 2012 .................................................................................................................. 305

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Guevara Díaz v. Costa Rica, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series S, No. 453, 22 June 2022 .................................................................................................................................................................................. 283

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Gutiérrez Hernandez et al v. Guatemala, Exceptiones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, 24 August 2017 .................................................................................................................. 317

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Hacienda Brasil Verde Workers v. Brazil, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 318, 20 October 2016 .................................................................................................................. 286
<table>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, Preliminary objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 186, 12 August 2008</td>
    <td>304</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Herrera-Ulloa v. Costa Rica, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 107, 2 July 2004</td>
    <td>311</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, I.V. v. Bolivia, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 329, 30 November 2016</td>
    <td>287</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Indígenas Miembros de la Asociación Lhaka Honhat (nuestra tierra) v. Argentina, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 420, 24 November 2020</td>
    <td>297</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Integrantes y Militantes de la Unión Patriótica v. Colombia, Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 455, 27 July 2022</td>
    <td>284</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Juan Humberto Sánchez v. Honduras, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 99, 7 June 2003</td>
    <td>73</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Juridical Condition and rights of the undocumented migrants, Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, Series A, No. 18, 17 September 2003</td>
    <td>passim</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kaliña and Lokono Peoples v. Suriname, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 309, 25 November 2015</td>
    <td>300</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kuna Indigenous People of Madungandí and the Emberá Indigenous People of Bayano and their members v. Panama, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 284, 14 October 2014</td>
    <td>297</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, La Cantuta v. Perú, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 162, 29 November 2006</td>
    <td>303</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Leguizamón Zaván v. Paragua, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 473, 15 November 2022</td>
    <td>72</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Lopez Lone v. Honduras, Series C, No. 302, 5 October 2015</td>
    <td>206</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, López Mendoza v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 233, 1 September 2011</td>
    <td>305</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, López Soto v. Venezuela, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 362, 26 September 2018</td>
    <td>282</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Manuela v. El Salvador, Excepciones preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 441, 2 November 2021</td>
    <td>288</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Maya Kaqchikel Indigenous Peoples of Sumpango et al v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 440, 6 October 2021</td>
    <td>288, 297</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v. Nicaragua, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 79, 31 August 2001</td>
    <td>298, 299, 300</td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
    <td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Miembros de la Aldea Chichupac y Comunidades vecinas del Municipio de Rabinal v. Guatemala, Excepciones preliminares, fondo, reparaciones y costas, Series C, No. 328, 30 November 2016</td>
    <td>224</td>
  </tr>
</table>
Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Mina Cuero v. Ecuador, Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 464, 7 September 2022..................................................................................................................72

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 150, 5 July 2006 ..................................................73

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 101, 25 November 2003..................................................................................................................73, 304

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Nadege Dorzema et al v. Dominican Republic, Merits, reparations and costs, Series C, No. 251, 24 October 2012..................................................................................................................287

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Norín Catrimán et al (Mapuche Indigenous People) v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 279, 29 May 2014 ..................................................................................................................62

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Omeara Carrascal v. Colombia, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 368, 21 November 2018..................................................................................................................73

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Paola Guzmán Albarracín et al v. Ecuador, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 405, 24 June 2020..................................................................................................................286, 288

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Pavez Pavez v. Chile, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 449, 4 February 2022..................................................................................................................67, 286

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Perozo v. Venezuela, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 195, 28 January 2009 ..................................................................................................................73

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Proposed Amendments to the Naturalization Provisions of the Constitution of Costa Rica, Advisory Opinion OC-4/84, 19 January 1984..................................181, 283, 288, 311

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Pueblo Indígena Xucuru y sus miembros v. Brasil, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Serie C, No. 346, 5 February 2017 ..................................................297

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Reveron Trujillo v. Venezuela, Series C, No. 197, 30 June 2009 ............200

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Río Negro Massacres v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 250, 4 September 2012 ..................................................................................................................73

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Ríos Avalos v. Paraguay, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 429, 19 August 2021 ..................................................................................................................305

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Rochela Massacre v. Colombia, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 163, 11 May 2007..................................................................................................................72

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Sales Pimenta v. Brasil, Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Sentencia, Series C, No. 454, 30 June 2022..................................................................................................................72

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, San Miguel Sosa et al v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 348, 8 February 2018..................................................................................................................283

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, San Miguel Sosa v. Venezuela, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 348, 8 February 2018 ..................................................................................................................285

Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Santo Domingo Massacre v. Colombia, Preliminary Objections, Merits and Reparations, Series C, No. 259, 30 November 2012..................................................................................................309, 313
<table><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Sawhoyamxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 146, 29 March 2006</td><td>300</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Serrano Cruz Sisters v. El Salvador, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 120, 1 March 2005</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Suárez Peralta v. Ecuador, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Judgment, Series C, No. 261, 21 May 2013</td><td>284</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Velasquez Rodriguez v. Honduras, Merits, Series C, No. 4, 29 June 1988</td><td>passim</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Véliz Franco v. Guatemala, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 277, 19 May 2014</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Vicky Hernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 422, 26 March 2021</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 214, 24 August 2010</td><td>67, 74, 302</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 125, 17 June 2005</td><td>300, 301</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Yatama Case v. Nicaragua, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, 23 June 2005</td><td>73, 285</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Yean and Bosico Girls v. Dominican Republic, Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, 8 September 2005</td><td>181</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Zambrano Vélez y otros v. Ecuador, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, 4 July 2007</td><td>223</td></tr><tr><td>Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Kawas-Fernández v. Honduras, Merits, Reparations and Costs, No. 196, 3 April 2009</td><td>284</td></tr></table>

COMMITTEE ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

<table><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, B.J. v. Denmark, CERD/C/56/D/17/1999, 17 March 2000</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Karen Tayah Vertido v. The Philippines, CEDAW/C/46/D/18/2008, 16 July 2010</td><td>234</td></tr><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, LR v. Slovak Republic, CERD/CC/66/D/31/2003, 7 March 2005</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Mahali Dawas and Yousef Shava v. Denmark, CERD/C/80/D/46/2009, 6 March 2012</td><td>72</td></tr><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, S.V.P. v. Bulgaria, CEDAW/C/53/D/31/2011, 12 October 2012</td><td>72</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, V.K. v. Bulgaria, CEDAW/C/49/D/20/2008, 15 October 2008</td><td>234</td></tr></table>

## HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Ali Aqsar Bakhtiyari and Roqaiha Bakhtiyari v. Australia, CCPR/C/79/D/1069/2002, 6 November 2003</td><td>181</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Francis Hopu and Tepoaitu Bessert v. France, CCPR/C/60/D/549/1993, 29 July 1997</td><td>56</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, G v. Australia, CCPR/C/119/D/2172/2012, 17 March 2017</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Ibrahim Gueye v. France, CCPR/C/35/D/196/1985, 3 April 1989</td><td>64</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Ivan Kitok v. Sweden, CCPR/C/33/D/197/195, 10 August 1988</td><td>56</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Jacob and Jantina Hendrika Van Oord v. Netherlands, CCPR/C/60/D/658/1995, 23 July 1997</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Madani v. Algeria, CCPR/C/89/D/1172/2003, 28 March 2007</td><td>214</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Mónaco de Gallicchio v. Argentina, CCPR/C/53/D/400/1990, 2 April 1990</td><td>181</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Mukong v. Cameroon, CCPR/C/51/D/458/199, 21 July 1994</td><td>213</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Muller and Engelhard v. Namibia, CCPR/C/74/D/919/2000, 26 March 2002</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Mümtaz Karakurt v. Austria, CCPR/C/74/D/965/2000, 29 April 2002</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Paul Perterer v. Austria, CCPR/C/81/D/1015/2001, 20 July 2004</td><td>187</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Rabbae et al. v. Netherlands, CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011, 18 November 2016</td><td>187</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Y.L. v. Canada, CCPR/C/27/D/112/1981, 8 April 1986</td><td>187</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Young v. Australia, CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000, 18 September 2003</td><td>70</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>Human Rights Committee, Zhao v Netherlands, CCPR/C/130/D/2918/2016, 29 December 2020</td><td>181</td></tr></table>

## INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

<table><tr><td>International Court of Justice, Belgium v. Spain: Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited [1970] ICJ 1, 5 February 1970</td><td>62</td></tr></table>

<table><tr><td>International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v. Guatemala, [1955] ICJ 1, 6 April 1955</td><td>148</td></tr></table>

## JUDICIAL COMMITTEE OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL

<table><tr><td>Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, The Honourable Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago Mr Justice Ivor Archie ORTT v. The Law Association of Trinidad and Tobago, [2018] UKPC 23, 16 August 2018</td><td>206</td></tr></table>
WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION

Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, Liu Xiaobo v. China, A/HRC/WGAD/2011/15, 27 February 2012 ....... 212
# Table of figures

## MAPS

<table><tr><td>MAP 1: LOCALISATION OF THE STATE OF ASSAM IN INDIA</td><td>95</td></tr><tr><td>MAP 2: TRANSIT CAMPS IN ASSAM IN 2020</td><td>208</td></tr></table>

## TABLES

<table><tr><td>TABLE 1: PRIME MINISTERS OF INDIA</td><td>119</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 2: IDENTIFICATION AND DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL MIGRANTS BEFORE THE IMDT TRIBUNALS</td><td>168</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 3: IDENTIFICATION AND DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL MIGRANTS BEFORE THE FT</td><td>174</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 4: NUMBERS OF D VOTERS IN ASSAM DISTRICTS IN 2021</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 5: JUDGES SELECTION AT THE END OF TWO YEARS IN 2017</td><td>201</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 6: STATE GOVERNMENTS OF ASSAM</td><td>203</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 7: NATIONALITY IN DETENTION IN ASSAM IN 2020 - IN PERCENTAGE</td><td>209</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 8: NUMBER OF DETAINEES BY GENDER IN THE ASSAMESE DETENTION CENTRES IN JANUARY 2020</td><td>211</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 9: NUMBER OF DETAINEES IN DETENTION CENTRES IN ASSAM IN JANUARY 2018</td><td>214</td></tr><tr><td>TABLE 10: DETENTION CENTRES IN INDIA IN 2020</td><td>217</td></tr></table>

## GRAPHICS

<table><tr><td>GRAPHIC 1: TYPE OF ASSISTANCE RECEIVED BY EXCLUDED INDIVIDUALS FROM THE NRC IN THE BONGAIGAON DISTRICT - IN PERCENTAGE</td><td>124</td></tr><tr><td>GRAPHIC 2: ADULTS EXCLUSION FROM THE NRC</td><td>126</td></tr><tr><td>GRAPHIC 3: DOCUMENT SUBMITTED UNDER LIST B BY EXCLUDED ADULTS</td><td>127</td></tr><tr><td>GRAPHIC 4: CHILDREN UNDER 5 WITH A BIRTH CERTIFICATE - IN PERCENTAGE</td><td>129</td></tr><tr><td>GRAPHIC 5: CHILDREN UNDER 5 WHO HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE ACCORDING TO THEIR PARENT'S WEALTH</td><td>130</td></tr><tr><td>GRAPHIC 6: SHARE OF CHILDREN UNDER 5 WHO HAVE A BIRTH CERTIFICATE ACCORDING TO THEIR RELIGION - IN PERCENTAGE</td><td>131</td></tr><tr><td>GRAPHIC 7: MEDIAN AGE AT FIRST MARRIAGE OR UNION AMONG WOMEN AGED 25 TO 49 YEARS, BY WEALTH QUINTILE IN INDIA IN 2014</td><td>185</td></tr></table>
# Introduction
This thesis focuses on the visibility and invisibility of minority groups' core human rights violations and their protection under international human rights law (IHRL), standards and principles. The complexity of discriminatory practices and policies faced by minority groups is linked to the simultaneous existence of different factors from ethnic, religious, gender, socio-economic to geographical. They are captured through the functioning of the judicial system in the context of State discrimination against minority groups. It examines whether the judicial system echoes this structural discrimination, which can operate at institutional or individual levels. Although the impact of discriminatory State practices, policies and legislation on an independent justice system is uneven and may differ from one country to another, a general trend can be discerned regarding the impact on vulnerable and marginalised groups.<fnref n="1" /> In fact, from the perspective of international law, discrimination in the administration of justice constitutes a violation of judicial impartiality.<fnref n="2" />

For the historian Arlette Farge, individuals without a face and a voice are invisible.<fnref n="3" /> However, invisibility is bigger than that, and the result of an intersectional phenomenon linked to historical, political and legal forms, which is visible and can be objectified.<fnref n="4" /> It can be said that it is an active process where society, composed of individuals and institutions, plays a key role in masking experiences, or aggravating inequalities and injustice.<fnref n="5" /> This understanding of invisibility is drawn from Anna Arendt's perspective. She suggests that the visible is associated with the political sphere, while the invisible pertains to the social sphere.<fnref n="6" /> Therefore, this notion of invisibility will serve as the framework for examining legal patterns and strategies employed to underscore the experiences of disadvantaged groups. In doing so, I seek to broaden the discussion around discrimination, and increase awareness on how the absence of legal concepts in rulings accentuate human rights abuses. An analysis of data permits us to perceive invisibility

<footnote n="1">¹ Terrance Sandalow, 'Judicial Protection of Minorities' (1977) 75 Mich. Law Rev. 1162; Mark S Hurwitz and Drew Noble Lanier, 'Explaining Judicial Diversity: The Differential Ability of Women and Minorities to Attain Seats on State Supreme and Appellate Courts' (2003) 3 SPPQ 329, 330.</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Guideline 13 (a) UN Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors 1990.</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Arlette Farge, *Sans Visages: L'impossible Regard Sur Le Pauvre* (Bayard 2004).</footnote>

<footnote n="4">⁴ Mathilde Arrivé, 'Visibilizing Invisibility, An Introduction' [2020] 8.2 InMedia.</footnote>

<footnote n="5">⁵ Marion Borderon and others, 'The Risks of Invisibilization of Populations and Places in Environment-Migration Research' (2021) 8 Humanit Soc Sci Commun 1; Tara Polzer and Laura Hammond, 'Invisible Displacement' (2008) 21 J. Refug. Stud. 417.</footnote>

<footnote n="6">⁶ Sylvie Schmitt, 'Les errements d'Arendt' [2023] La Vie des idées.</footnote>
or visibility as products of discriminatory practices, and understand how these impact minority
groups by accentuating their vulnerability and marginality.

A central issue addressed by this study is the gap between the ideal model established
within IHRL and the State's reaction to these principles. On the one hand, the judiciary and the
legal system are expected to function as neutral, though committed to the highest ideals of equal
treatment, and even to mould society in a progressive direction. This approach sees courts and
judges as applying legal norms only by reference to statutes and laws, without allowing non-
legal norms or social assumptions to interfere with their judgements. On the other hand, as legal
academic Marc Galanter highlights, law can be a tool to promote social equality, and allow
dissent.<fnref n="7" /> Inevitable interactions between law and politics influence the operation of law:
introducing tensions and oppositions between what is affirmed in legal principles and what is
done in practice. An assumed objectivity is often seen to breakdown in local situations, where
shared imperatives, interests or goals might be at variance with the laws. The importance of
local context is clearly central to understanding how laws work. In fact, the interreference of
political and social factors, and more importantly, prejudice, thus occupies a central place in
the defence of legal rights.

An analysis of non-discrimination towards minorities through the angle of IHRL
necessarily builds on a global approach. Since its elaboration, the concept of minority has been
an international question, though constructed from different countries' and groups' experiences.
This internationalisation and the use of a global language, has furthered a common vocabulary
that underlies discriminatory situations. In turn, this permits us to understand that despite
cultural and social particularisms, judicial rulings from different systems can be analysed,
compared and shed light to common debates, evolutions or weaknesses. Therefore, judicial
practices lie at the heart of this research, allowing us to grasp how invisibility of discrimination
occurs in different systems, and to identify the existence of strategic uses of certain practices.
Whilst the research focuses on a specific case of Assamese Muslims in India, it is essential to
enlarge the framework to consider global development, and open reflection on an international

<footnote n="7">⁷ Marc Galanter, *Law and Society in Modern India* (OUP 1989). In this book, Galanter points out that law is not only a body of rules but corresponds to a body of men.</footnote>
scale through the example of Roma in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and indigenous groups in the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR). Despite the focus on different groups, the research aims to understand and analyse if similar practices can be found in other minorities across systems. Whilst links between these minority groups and India do exist,<fnref n="8" /> the legal reasoning behind this approach echoes more the will to demonstrate the existence of a global phenomenon around the treatment of minorities' discrimination before the judiciary. However, for the scope of this analysis, two systems will be excluded from the examination: the African Human Rights system and the League of Arab States (Arab League). Firstly, the African human rights system, which emerged in the mid-1980s under the auspices of the Organization of African Unity and later evolved with the African Union, primarily revolves around the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter), and comprises key institutions such as the African Commission on Human Rights and People's Rights (African Commission) and the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Court). It has developed its own body of jurisprudence and is a subject of extensive scholarly research.<fnref n="9" /> Furthermore, it has grappled with the complex issue of minority groups within the context of post-colonial African states.<fnref n="10" /> The struggle for these States to implement human rights conventions, including the African Charter, has been marked by challenges, which have led to a lack of full respect for human rights within national constitutions during the early 2000s.<fnref n="11" /> This situation presents a fertile ground for an in-depth analysis of the tools used by the African Commission and African Court to protect minority groups against discrimination, and is indeed a significant area of research. Secondly, the Arab League who despite having an Arab

<footnote n="8">⁸ For the Roma group see: Donald Kenrick, *The Romani World: A Historical Dictionary of the Gypsies* (University of Hertfordshire Press 2004); Johann Christian Christoph Rüdiger and Harald Haarmann, *Von Der Sprache Und Herkunft Der Zigeuner Aus Indien* (Buske 1990); Heinrich Grellmann, *Historischer Versuch Über Die Zigeuner* (Dietrich Verlag: Göttingen 1783); Jekatyerina Dunajeva and others, ‘Collectivity and Empowermnet in Addressing Marginality: Roma and the Subaltern Communities of India’ (2017) 78 IJSW 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="9">⁹ See: Olusola Ojo and Amadu Sesay, ‘The O. A. U. and Human Rights: Prospects for the 1980s and Beyond’ (1986) 8 Human Rights Quarterly 89; Kofi Oteng Kufuor, *The African Human Rights System: Origin and Evolution* (Palgrave Macmillan 2010); Emmanuel G Bello, ‘The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: A Legal Analysis’ (1985) 194 RCADI 9; B Obinna Okere, ‘The Protection of Human Rights in Africa and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: A Comparative Analysis with the European and American Systems’ (1984) 6 HRQ 141.</footnote>

<footnote n="10">¹⁰ B Dessalegn, ‘The Normative Framework of the African Human Rights Regime on the Rights of Minorities’ (2015) 8 Miz Law Rev 455; M Raymond Izarali, Oliver Masakure and Bonny Ibhawoh, *Expanding Perspectives on Human Rights in Africa* (Routledge 2019).</footnote>

<footnote n="11">¹¹ EI Udogu, ‘Human Rights and Minorities in Africa: A Theoretical and Conceptual Overview’ [2001] J. Third World Stud.</footnote>
Charter on Human Rights (1994) does not maintain a consistent approach to human rights<fnref n="12" /> and lacks a robust enforcement mechanism. Unlike other regional human rights systems, the Arab League system does not establish a dedicated complaint mechanism, which is a critical component for ensuring effective access to justice for victims of human rights violations.<fnref n="13" /> Furthermore, the Arab League Charter, which forms the foundation of this regional organization, did not incorporate fundamental provisions related to the protection of human rights in its foundings principles. The absence of a strong human rights framework within the core principles of the Arab League makes it a less comprehensive system for our analysis, as the focus is to delve into the nuanced jurisprudence and approaches developed by regional human rights systems in addressing discrimination against minority groups. While the Arab League's efforts in the field of human rights are noteworthy such as the establishment of the Arab Human Rights Committee (2009), the chosen angle seeks to provide an in-depth examination of well-established systems with a robust legal framework for minority groups protection. Furthermore, by narrowing the focus to two systems, the importance of the African system is not undermine, but rather reflects a strategic choice to ensure the depth and clarity of the analysis.

Therefore, the international analyses of these two regional systems will allow us to determine
whether the situation in India is related to the evolution of IHRL and its use in relation to
discrimination against minorities. Moreover, beyond the theoretical contribution, this work
aims to bring a new approach in literature related to India and the regional system. At the
national level the Muslim minority's deprivation of nationality in Assam is analysed. Assam's
situation presents a multiplicity of factors – border location, targeted group, the media and
judiciary's role, and the establishment of transit camps – which aggravate the invisibility of
human rights violations.

While debates at the international level continue on the possible genocidal policies towards this
minority in India,<fnref n="14" /> the thesis follows a different approach to the legalisation of ethnic cleaning

<footnote n="12">¹² The Arab Charter faced criticism in regard to religious freedoms and gender equality due to its shortcomings in comparison to international human rights standards protected in different UN human conventions. Ahmed Almutawa, 'The Arab Court of Human Rights and the Enforcement of the Arab Charter on Human Rights' (2021) 21 Hum. Rights Law Rev. 506. Javaid Rehman, *International Human Rights Law* (Pearson Education Limited 2010) 377–384.</footnote>

<footnote n="13">¹³ Mervat Rishmawi, ‘The Revised Arab Charter on Human Rights: A Step Forward?’ (2005) 5 Hum. Rights Law Rev. 361, 365.</footnote>

<footnote n="14">¹⁴ *India: The Modi Question* (Directed by Richard Cookson, BBC 2023).</footnote>
in the State. The politicisation of the genocide concept<fnref n="15" /> has often led to its misuse in the Indian case and minimized the role of non-political institutions in increasing social disparity. Therefore, the thesis analyses the legislations and practices developed under an ethno-nationalist government since 2014, and the judicial application of political programs – the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 (CAA) and the National Register of Citizens (NRC) –, and the effects of ‘incorporation’ of political ideologies within the judiciary, leading to the Muslim minority’s invisibility in Assam. Both approaches combine political policies and judicial intervention, to analyse the invisibilization of minorities from multiple angles.

The analysis of this case aims to study not only the practice of deprivation of nationality of the Muslim minority in a State lacking a regional, supra-state judicial system to which citizens could have recourse, but also the role of the judiciary in resisting human rights violations and thus delivering justice to minorities. Consequently, this part focuses on the functioning of legal institutions and judges’ use of the law concerning minorities, through court decisions of various Indian legal bodies, the practices that accompany, precede or replace the appearance before the court, and the reports of non-governmental organisations (NGO). This legal approach differs from current literature on the application and impact of the NRC, which disregards the legal angle.<fnref n="16" /> In fact, this thesis embraces factors of community, gender, geographical location, and economic status. It focuses on the complexity of human rights violations, as well as the extent of inequality, and the multiplicity of discriminatory practices in Indian society. It leads us to question whether, at the national level, intersectional discrimination in court decisions is a benchmark in minority cases.

The absence of a regional system in India limits to the field of IHRL, with comparison between the State-level and the UN-level. Yet the development of a “global law”<fnref n="17" /> pushes to

<footnote n="15">¹⁵ In January 2022, the Senate of New Jersey sponsored by the labor leader Stephen M. Sweeney, unanimously passed a resolution condemning the 1984 Sikh massacre in India and called it a genocide. Senate Resolution No. 142, State of New Jersey, 219th Legislature 2022.</footnote>

<footnote n="16">¹⁶ The most recent book on NRC “No Land’s People” remains a personal story for the author. Abhishek Saha, *No Land’s People: The Untold Story of Assam’s NRC Crisis* (Harper Collins India 2021); Parichay Clinic and Abhishek Saha (Interview with Abishek Saha, India, 17 April 2021); Tathagat Sharma, ‘The Pan India Experiment of NRC: History, Problems Associated and Lessons to Learn from Assam’ (2020).</footnote>

<footnote n="17">¹⁷ Benoît Frydman, *Petit Manuel Pratique de Droit Global* (Académie royale de Belgique 2014); William Twining, *General Jurisprudence: Understanding Law from a Global Perspective* (Cambridge University Press 2009); Neil Walker, *Intimations of Global Law* (Cambridge University Press 2014).</footnote>
overcome this institutional limitation. Furthermore, legal systems are often analysed through
the perspective of legal factors. However, individuals are at the heart of the system and their
rights violations must be understood through concepts that encompass their situation. The lens
of regional human rights organs has importance. India has retained a degree of anxiety about
the possible imposition of legal norms and principles from Western countries, mainly due to its
colonial past.<fnref n="18" /> Yet, with the development of a comprehensive global *corpus juris* of human
rights law there is a certain relevance in considering the ECtHR and the IACtHR jurisprudence
and orientations related to discrimination faced by minority groups. The analyses of these
systems focus on the challenges of effective protection through an intersectional approach, and
following a *pro persona* hermeneutics. This angle enables us to grasp the ability of both Courts
to make minorities’ discrimination visible and draw a general conclusion on the judicial
approach to minorities, and its role in highlighting minorities’ discrimination. Individuals are
therefore put at the heart of the judicial order. Advanced by legal scholar Hélène Tigroudja to
describe Judge Cançado Trindade’s theoretical and practical approach, this idea advocates
humanisation of international law.<fnref n="19" /> Discourse of humanisation of law are interrelated to the
theoretical approach of morality of law defended by jurists such as Kelsen,<fnref n="20" /> Hart,<fnref n="21" /> Fuller<fnref n="22" /> or
Dworkin.<fnref n="23" /> In the case of the first concept, the premise is that international law should place
community interests and individuals at the forefront of its legal framework.<fnref n="24" /> Morality on the
other hand deals with the ethical foundation and principles that underpin legal system, it
questions whether laws are just, fair, and morally sound. The link between these two
movements, lies in the pursuit of creating a legal system that is not only functional but also
morally defensible. When law is humanised, it implies that it adheres to certain moral

<footnote n="18">18 India deems that the 1951 Refugee Convention is Eurocentric and further fears that policies towards refugees theoretically driven by humanist concerns would open the door to possibilities of occidental intervention in its territory (Towards an Ethical Refugee Policy, India International Centre, Delhi - Centre for Equity Studies, 5 February 2020); Indira Boutier, ‘The Non-Ratification of the 1951 Convention on Refugees: An Indian Paradoxical Approach to Human Rights’ (2021) Hors-Série RQDI 115.</footnote>

<footnote n="19">¹⁹ Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, 'International Law for Humankind: Towards a New Jus Gentium (I) General Course on Public International Law', *Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law* (Brill 2005) 77; Hélène Tigroudja, 'Le Droit International Des Droits de l'Homme Au Service Des Individus – Prendre Le Nouveau Jus Gentium Au Sérieux' (*Afronomicslaw.org*).</footnote>

<footnote n="20">²⁰ Hans Kelsen, *Pure Theory of Law* (Lawbook Exchange 1967).</footnote>

<footnote n="21">21 HLA Hart, 'Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals' (1958) 71 Harv. Law Rev 593, 599–601.</footnote>

<footnote n="22">²² Lon L Fuller, ‘Positivism and Fidelity to Law: A Reply to Professor Hart’ (1958) 71 Harv. Law Rev. 630.</footnote>

<footnote n="23">²³ Ronald M Dworkin, ‘The Model of Rules’ (1967) 35 U Chi L Rev 14.</footnote>

<footnote n="24">²⁴ Gerd Oberleitner (ed), ‘Context: The Humanization of International Law’, *Human Rights in Armed Conflict: Law, Practice, Policy* (Cambridge University Press 2015).</footnote>
principles, such as upholding human rights, treating individuals with dignity and ensuring
equitable treatment. The humanisation of law, therefore, often involves infusing a sense of
morality into the legal framework. Morality on the other hand, evaluates whether legal system
aligns with ethical standards and whether it promotes justice and fairness. When legal systems
are morally justifiable, they are more likely to be seen as humanised, as they prioritise the
welfare and rights of individuals. Both concepts strive for a legal system that is not only
functional but also ethically grounded and considerate of individuals human rights within
society. However, the will to understand the role of a global *corpus juris* of human rights law
in the protection of minority groups human rights pushes to primarily focus on humanisation,
understood here as the integration of concepts that translate historical and social situations of
individuals in rulings. This process ensures that cases at both the national and international
levels are approached with a focus on recognizing and addressing the unique circumstances of
various marginalized communities, such as the Roma, indigenous people, and Assamese
Muslims.

**1. Research question**

In this thesis I intend to discover if judges, both at the international level through regional
organs, and at the national level, react adequately to discrimination faced by minorities, or
increase discrimination by rendering minorities invisible.

The overall research question posed in this work is:

**Does international human rights law provide judges with the necessary tools to render discrimination faced by minorities sufficiently visible?**

The two scales of examination lead to two distinct divisions in the research question:

Firstly, to what extent does an examination of the Indian judiciary's handling of nationality deprivation among minority groups raise concerns about the judiciary's functioning and underscore the human rights abuses?

Secondly, how do regional human rights organs underline individuals' discrimination and integrate this in their legal reasoning?
Through this approach, the thesis puts a key actor back in the spotlight: the judge. In the aftermath of the war, international law was rebuilt around the protection of the individual, and was no longer defined as being only an inter-state law. Through this actor, the thesis pursues a movement of global thinking, ultimately linking India to regional human rights systems through the angle of the (in)visibility of discrimination suffered by minorities. An approach that has so far remained absent from the academic world.

## 2. Research methodology

The questions raised call for an approach at variance from the state-centric. It therefore centres itself in a conjunction of two methodologies within the legal frame: pragmatic and interdisciplinary.

These two approaches base themselves on the idea that studying law should not be disassociated from social contexts in which it can be mobilised and produce effects.<fnref n="25" /> This approach resonates with European scholars like Georges Gurvitch or Nicholas Timasheff,<fnref n="26" /> and had already been formulated since 1913 by the Austrian jurist Eugen Ehrlich. Ehrlich argued that “the centre of gravity of legal development lies not in legislation, nor in juristic science, nor in judicial decision, but in society itself”.<fnref n="27" /> Therefore, pragmatism permits an analysis of the human rights situation and of Courts as places where social interactions, concepts and procedures interreact, where concepts emerge and can be instrumentalised. Furthermore, through pragmatism, human rights are linked to context, perceived as more realistic and more flexible.<fnref n="28" /> This approach calls for an interdisciplinary treatment that draws upon the fields of international and national law, human rights and political science. In this sense, while utilising legal perspectives, and positions, the investigation must include non-legal dimensions as equally significant factors.

<footnote n="25">²⁵ Benoît Frydman, ‘Le Rapport Du Droit Aux Contextes Selon l’approche Pragmatique de l’Ecole de Bruxelles’ (2013) 70 RIEJ 92, 95.</footnote>

<footnote n="26">²⁶ Nicholas S Timasheff, *An Introduction to the Sociology of Law* (Transaction Publishers 1939); Georges Gurvitch, *Sociology of Law* (Kegan Paul 1973).</footnote>

<footnote n="27">²⁷ Eugen Ehrlich, *Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law* ((1913), Russel and Russel 1971) pt Foreword.</footnote>

<footnote n="28">²⁸ Daniel Memmi, ‘Human Rights Revisited: A Pragmatic Approach’ 1 Prépublication: Montreal, QC, UQAM, 19; Solomon Dersso, *Perspectives on the Rights of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples in Africa* (PULP 2010) 3.</footnote>
The core approach is to perceive law as a practice that is embedded in national politics and historical traditions, which permits a general picture of minorities’ invisibility.

Interdisciplinarity is now in common usage, since its first appearance in the 1920s,<fnref n="29" /> and can hold different meanings, referring to the use of two or more disciplines, or a wide range of academic inquiries. The idea behind interdisciplinarity lies in the possibility to build new links between normally separate fields. It can be considered as a form of interculturality which furthers a dialogue between fields.<fnref n="30" /> The connection between law, history and political science sheds light on how rulings render discrimination invisible or visible. From a legal perspective, abuses experienced by minority groups cannot be understood through a single factor, as they are often shaped by several interacting factors. When it comes to social inequalities and their consideration before courts, unequal practices are not only the result of social divisions but of several aspects that influence each other. The use of interdisciplinarity as an analytical tool therefore allows for a better understanding of the complexity of human rights violations.

The core difficulties behind this intersection of approaches reside in the navigation between elements and the understanding that law, and therefore rulings, cannot be just analysed through the angle of conventions or rights. State-level opinions also highlight practices and tensions. Therefore, methodologies from outside the legal sciences can prove helpful to conduct case law analysis, such as the grounded theory method, developed by the sociologist Anselm Strauss.<fnref n="31" /> It enables a broad and open approach to judgments and decisions, and provides an overview of the court’s reasoning. Furthermore, it allows to construct and explain a legal theory that uncovers a pattern.<fnref n="32" /> Highlighted by French jurist Raymond Saleilles at the beginning of the 20th century, comparative legal analysis is perceived as a tool to improve domestic law and legal doctrine.<fnref n="33" /> Through this angle, contributions of each regional court to the IHRL “global

<footnote n="29">²⁹ Roberta Frank, “‘Interdisciplinary’: The First Half Century” (1988) 6 Issues in IDS 139.</footnote>

<footnote n="30">³⁰ Violaine Lemay, ‘Et Si on Entrait Dans La “Danse” de l’interdisciplinarité’ (2017) 6 TrajEthos 5, 5–6; Juliette Defond, ‘L’impérialisme Humanitaire: L’instrumentalisation de La Dynamique Globale Humanitaire Au Service de l’expansionnisme Capitaliste’ (Aix-Marseille Université et Université de Montréal 2019) 53.</footnote>

<footnote n="31">³¹ Anselm Strauss and Barney Glaser, *The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research* (Aldine Transaction 1967).</footnote>

<footnote n="32">³² Ylona Chun Tie, Melanie Birks and Karen Francis, ‘Grounded Theory Research: A Design Framework for Novice Researchers’ (2019) 7 SAGE Open Medicine.</footnote>

<footnote n="33">³³ Raymond Saleilles, ‘Droit Civil et Droit Comparé’ (1911) 61 Revue internationale de l’enseignement 5, 22.</footnote>
law” become clear, and brings out similarities and dissimilarities between human rights systems.

Source material for this thesis consists of cases of jurisprudence, statutes, and other primary sources. Whilst the disciplinary core of this research mobilises the interpretive tools and critical techniques of law to evaluate legal rules, it also draws upon historical works and sources to identify the traditions and moments that shaped the specific relationship between the State and minorities. This approach will be mainly used for the research on Assam as it will study the political and public debates in legal platforms,<fnref n="34" /> along with the national and local press,<fnref n="35" /> which can provide the context of legal discourses. For the Indian study, the analysis of newspapers (in English and in Hindi), along with public debates, mirror current divergences and clashes on the question of citizenship besides clarifying the positions of the various actors involved, from political party representatives, public intellectuals, retired members of the judiciary, academics, to civil society groups. Furthermore, it will include international organisations reports, and interviews done in India during a field-work with local activists, civil society representatives, and lawyers. This will provide a variety of viewpoints and data on the situation of minorities in detention camps, the functioning of Foreigners Tribunals (FT), the impact of citizenship laws on vulnerable minorities, and the relation between India and IHRL. Additionally, subjective experiences offer comparison with official statements. Account is taken of the structure of the national and regional legal system. Adopting the choice of a case study permits a systematic and comparative analysis of not only the application of the universal protection system, but equally, a cross study of international and national texts and cases. Finally, it investigates individuals’ experiences in Assam and in the Indian judiciary through interviews. Interviewers were selected for their knowledge and role in society (NGO directors, social activists, lawyers and researchers). Sociologists like Glasser and Strauss integrated qualitative interviews within research.<fnref n="36" /> Here, the overall sample of interviews remains a relatively small, ten interviews, because of the phenomenological approach chosen. This has meant that focus is laid on how individuals interpret their social environment from a personal

<footnote n="34">³⁴ Live Law and Bar and Bench.</footnote>

<footnote n="35">³⁵ For instance: *Navbharat Times*, *Janasata*, *Northeast now*, *The Hindu*, *the Indian Express*, *the Tribune*, *the Statesman*, *Frontline*, *the Assam Tribune*, *the Sentinal*, *Northeast Time*, *Purvoday*, *Purvanchal Prahari*.</footnote>

<footnote n="36">³⁶ Barney G Glasser and Anselm L Strauss, *The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research* (Aldine Transaction 1967).</footnote>
and professional perspective, thus building a conceptual and theoretical body of knowledge. It complements an interpretive dimension used in practical theory to support or challenge gathered data,<fnref n="37" /> and elucidate various dimensions of the region's intricate socio-legal milieu. The inquiry encompassed several thematic dimensions. First, I explored the perceptions and experiences of individuals concerning the operational dynamics of foreigners' tribunals in Assam. The intent was to glean insights into the practical implications and inherent challenges confronted by both affected communities and legal practitioners engaged in addressing such cases. Furthermore, the dialogues delved into the nuanced challenges faced by legal practitioners when navigating these tribunal processes, thereby shedding light on the complex legal terrain they traverse. The aim was to encapsulate the tangible experiences and personal narratives of communities directly affected by these tribunals. In a parallel vein, the investigations extended to the domain of the Indian judiciary, with a specific emphasis on practices and phenomena observed at the Supreme Court level. The objective was to uncover hitherto underexplored insights, particularly pertaining to the rationale underpinning India's recourse to regional systems within the framework of these legal proceedings. These interviews have substantially enriched the scholarly discourse by furnishing first hand perspectives and unique empirical data, thereby advancing a nuanced understanding of Assam and India's legal and judicial ecosystem. In this perspective, two interview methods have been employed<fnref n="38" />: (i) unstructured, or “controlled conversations”, developed mainly by ethnographers like Malinowski and Mead,<fnref n="39" /> where interviews are informal, and based on instantaneous questions;<fnref n="40" /> (ii) semi-structured, that is, based on specific and emerging questions, and topics that need to be explored.<fnref n="41" /> The research process has encountered certain challenges that necessitate careful consideration. One of the notable difficulties lies in the discernment of which information collected can be effectively utilized. A wide array of data has been amassed during the interviews. Yet, it becomes incumbent to exercise judicious selection and filtering, given the imperative of data accuracy and reliability. The veracity of information gleaned, particularly from interviews conducted in Assam, sometimes poses a quandary due to the intricacies of the

<footnote n="37">³⁷ Stan Lester, 'An Introduction to Phenomenological Research' 1, 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="38">³⁸ Shazia Jamshed, 'Qualitative Research Method-Interviewing and Observation' (2014) 5 JBCP 87.</footnote>

<footnote n="39">³⁹ Bronislaw Malinowski, *Argonauts of the Western Pacific* (Routledge 1932); Margaret Mead, *The Changing Culture of an Indian Tribe* (1St Edition, Columbia University 1932).</footnote>

<footnote n="40">⁴⁰ David E Gray, *Doing Research in the Real World* (SAGE 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="41">⁴¹ Barbara Dicicco-Bloom and Benjamin F Crabtree, 'The Qualitative Research Interview' (2006) 40 Medical Education 314.</footnote>
region's socio-political environment. These complexities, compounded by the dynamic nature
of events and narratives, may render exactitude difficult to ascertain. Moreover, the current
political climate in India imposes certain constraints on open and frank discussions regarding
specific issues. These constraints are a significant impediment to comprehensive data gathering,
as they potentially hinder the exploration of certain subjects.

These three scales of examination, international, national and regional, thus use different
angles, so as to reflect critically on the production of legal jurisprudence, its influence on the
elaboration of legal norms and practices, and their effect on the subjects for whom they are
destined. It thus recognizes the importance of considering plural locations and their contribution
to enacting legal rulings.

**3. Research structure**

The argument will be developed in four main parts.

The first part, “Reflections on Law and the politics of State”, is divided into three chapters
related to a discussion of scholarly approaches to the concepts used. The understanding of the
following concept is crucial in setting the stage for the subsequent chapters and for addressing
the broader research questions. Chapter 1 on minority groups, teases out the tensions between
human rights principles through the angle of the multicultural model, and a State’s geo-political
logics that influence its approach to minority groups. Chapter 2 discusses the concept of
discrimination, analysing its various interpretations at the international level and tracing its
evolution over time. Chapter 3 offers a comprehensive exploration of the multifaceted studies
related to Assam. It aims to provide a thorough understanding of how the state issues is
underlined.

The second part, “Institutional, administrative and judicial erasure of religious and ethnic
minorities” undertakes an empirical study of Assamese Muslims, a religious and ethnic
minority in India which risks nationality deprivation through the NRC. Chapter 4 discusses the
impact of political, social, economic and cultural factors on the discourse surrounding
nationality in India. It traces the historical provisions from the Constituent Assembly Debates
(CAD) to subsequent Citizenship Acts from 1955 to 2019, until the application of the NRC in Assam and their implications for minority groups. Chapter 5 investigates the practical problems and dilemmas of implementing citizenship in a peripheral, economically disadvantaged state. It explores the judiciary's duty in ensuring equality justice for all and its impact on minority groups.

The third part, “Protecting minority rights within regional institutions” probes how international human rights conventions and standards are used at the regional level to protect minority groups facing discrimination. Before examining the specific practices and legal provisions that are mobilised to render groups invisible in the regional systems, Chapter 6 recalls the general Indian approach towards IHRL and regional systems jurisprudence, thus setting the stage for the regional analysis. Chapter 7 analyses the practices and rulings of the ECtHR concerning structural discrimination, with a focus on the Roma minorities. Chapter 8 explores cases related to the indigenous groups within the IACtHR. It is followed by a comparative analysis of the application of IHRL by regional and national judges.

Lastly, the fourth part, “Invisibility is a human right violation”, seeks to contribute to the larger international human rights debate by underlining how and why rights violations perpetrated against minority groups lead to their invisibility. It explores the role of the judiciary in this process.
Part 1. Law and the politics of State: approaches to
political and judicial frameworks
**Introduction**

Three analytic concepts – minority groups, the right to non-discrimination, and the rise of ethnic nationalism – are used to understand IHRL’s evolution on the role of the judiciary in protecting human rights. These core themes are central to understanding whether in India current positions towards international human rights are linked to a general approach or specific to the country.

This examination is conducted in three chapters. Chapter 1 analyses scholarly approaches towards minorities in literature. Chapter 2 underlines the legal constituents of discrimination and international conventions. Chapter 3 highlights the current scholarly approaches to Assam.
# Chapter 1. The legal construction of minority groups

Traditionally, the approach in international law has focused on States as central actors in the development of international legal systems. Ideally, the implementation of human rights undertaken by States presupposes equality in law and the enjoyment of all human rights,<fnref n="42" /> which implies that group identity should not be an obstacle in the exercise of their core rights.<fnref n="43" /> In practice, however, States, while recognising international standards, define their policies in the light of their own geopolitical interests and national challenges. Groups, such as religious communities or tribes, then occupy a central place in States’ policies and legal systems, leading to favouring some to the detriment of others.<fnref n="44" />

Protecting minorities from discrimination has been one of the oldest concerns for international organisations and international law. These may counter the effects of policies of systemic exclusion, or stigmatisation that may be accompanied by distorted representations, produce low self-esteem and perpetuate negative stereotypes of that group.<fnref n="45" />

Literature on minority groups focuses on the evolution of their rights and protection.

## 1. An overview of legal definitions of minority groups

The United Nations (UN) estimates 10 to 20 percent of the world's population are part of a minority group.<fnref n="46" /> Among judges to jurists, definitions of “minority” appear from 1930 with

<footnote n="42">⁴² Articles 1, 2 and 55 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1976; Article 2 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1976; Article 2 Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. 08/02/2024 09:16:00</footnote>

<footnote n="43">⁴³ Corinne Lennox, ‘Human Rights, Minority Rights, Non-Discrimination and Pluralism: A Mapping Study of Intersections for Practitioners’ [2018] Global Centre for Pluralism 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="44">⁴⁴ Fatemeh Mihandoost and Bahman Babajanian, ‘The Rights of Minorities in International Law’ (2016) 9 JPL 15.</footnote>

<footnote n="45">⁴⁵ See: Patrick Thornberry, *International Law and the Rights of Minorities* (Clarendon Press 1991).</footnote>

<footnote n="46">⁴⁶ ‘United Nations Guide for Minorities’ (*OHCHR*).</footnote>
the Greco-Bulgarian “Communities” case before the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ).<fnref n="47" /> Minorities are defined by the PCIJ as a:

> group of persons living in a given country or locality, having a race, religion, language, and traditions of their own, and united by the identity of such race, religion, language and traditions in a sentiment of solidarity, with a view to preserving their traditions, maintaining their form of worship, securing the instruction and upbringing of their children in accordance with the spirit and traditions of their race and mutually assisting one other.<fnref n="48" />

Here, the PCIJ established the existence of an objective element – “race, religion, language and tradition” – and a subjective one, with the “sentiment of solidarity” and the will to “preserve traditions”. In 1979, the Italian jurist, Francesco Capotorti, in his study for the UN on the question of minority, further narrowed the definition with the introduction of a numerical factor, adding “non-dominant position”.<fnref n="49" /> These elements are also found in Judge Deschênes (1985) definition,<fnref n="50" /> and recently in 2019 by the Special Rapporteur on minorities.<fnref n="51" /> Former member of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Patrick Thornberry, while underlining the importance of the numerical aspect, adds another element, mainly the non-involvement of minorities in the government, and the groups united commitment to maintain their cultural, customs, religion, or language.<fnref n="52" /> These multiple definitions led the UN to issue a compilation of all proposed definitions up to 1987.<fnref n="53" />

Identified features of minorities included numerical inferiority, non-dominant position of groups, possession of ethnic, religious or linguistic traits distinct from the rest of the population,

<footnote n="47">⁴⁷ Interpretation of the Convention Between Greece and Bulgaria Respecting Reciprocal Emigration, Signed at Neuilly-Sur-Seine on November 27th, 1919 (Question of the ‘Communities’) [1939] PCIJ Series B N°17.</footnote>

<footnote n="48">⁴⁸ ibid.</footnote>

<footnote n="49">⁴⁹ Francesco Capotorti, ‘Study on the Rights of Persons Belonging to Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities’ (Subcommission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities 1979) Study E/CN.4 Sub2/384/Rev 1 para 568.</footnote>

<footnote n="50">⁵⁰ Jules Deschênes, ‘Promotion, Protection and Restoration of Human Rights at the National, Regional and International Levels: Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities - Proposal Concerning a Definition of the Term “Minority”’ (Commission on Human Rights 1985) E/CN.4/Sub.2/1985/31 para 30.</footnote>

<footnote n="51">⁵¹ ‘Effective Promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities’ (General Assembly 2019) Resolution A/RES/74/160 para 53.</footnote>

<footnote n="52">⁵² Patrick Thornberry, *International Law and the Rights of Minorities* (Clarendon Press 1991).</footnote>

<footnote n="53">⁵³ ‘Compilation of Proposals Concerning the Definition of the Term “Minority”’ (Commission on Human Rights 1986) Document E/CN.4/1987/WG.5/WP.1.</footnote>
and the will to maintain a sense of solidarity directed to preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language.<fnref n="54" /> Macklem argues how this definition protects minority rights on the postulate that religious, cultural, linguistic, and ethnic attachments are key elements for human beings.<fnref n="55" /> In addition to the possible threat to their collective identity or rights, their inferior status in society, or their vulnerability to discrimination by the State or by private actors, is a crucial element. Yet, these characteristics are limited, for example they do not consider sexuality. Thus, the *Encyclopaedia Britannica*, refers to the use of minority by political and social sciences<fnref n="56" /> defining the sociological understanding of minority as:

> a culturally, ethnically, or racially distinct group that coexists with but is subordinate to a more dominant group. As the term is used in the social sciences, this subordinacy is the chief defining characteristic of a minority group.<fnref n="57" />

This definition highlights the weaker position of minorities in society, and the absence of equality between majority and minority groups because of subordination.

Scholars and lawyers agree the absence of a universally accepted definition should not lead States to violate minorities' rights, such as the right to non-discrimination.<fnref n="58" /> According to the political scientist Smihula, minorities are not only individuals within racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic groups, but equally individuals who are not part of a majority.<fnref n="59" /> These minority groups are defined by legal scholars Mihandoost and Babajanian as groups of people who can be differentiated from the social majority.<fnref n="60" /> They argue that social groups are distinct from minority groups in that the former hold a position of power in society as defined by law.

<footnote n="54">⁵⁴ ‘Effective Promotion of the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities’ (n 59) para 53.</footnote>

<footnote n="55">⁵⁵ Patrick Macklem, ‘Minority Rights in International Law’ (2008) 6 Int. J. Const. Law 531, 532.</footnote>

<footnote n="56">⁵⁶ In 1945 the American sociologist Louis Wirth defined minority as “a group of people who, because of their physical or cultural characteristics, are singled out from the others in the society in which they live for differential and unequal treatment, and who therefore regard themselves as objects of collective discrimination”, Louis Wirth, ‘The Problem of Minority Groups’ in R Linton (ed), *The Science of Man in the World Crisis* (Columbia University Press 1945) 347.</footnote>

<footnote n="57">⁵⁷ ‘Minority | Definition & Facts’ (*Encyclopedia Britannica*).</footnote>

<footnote n="58">⁵⁸ Mihandoost and Babajanian (n 44) 15.</footnote>

<footnote n="59">⁵⁹ Daniel Smihula, ‘National Minorities in the Law of the EC/EU’ (2008) 8 Rom. J. Eur. Aff. 51.</footnote>

<footnote n="60">⁶⁰ Mihandoost and Babajanian (n 44) 16.</footnote>
However, this absence of definition, stressed by scholars such as Arjmand (1998)<fnref n="61" /> or Åkermark, narrows this concept, which could exclude groups perceived as “making trouble”,<fnref n="62" /> but also prompts UN treaty body such as the Human Rights Committee’s (HRC) to signal the protection granted through Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).<fnref n="63" /> The HRC for instance underlines that minorities are protected even though they are not citizens of the State.<fnref n="64" />

## 2. Debating the place of minorities in a new international order

Legal scholar Innis Claude maintains that the international community after World War II was eager to remove any consideration of “ethnic particularisms”.<fnref n="65" /> It is significant that neither the words minority nor ethnicity come up in the United Nations Charter (Charter) or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).<fnref n="66" /> This absence led decolonising States in South Asia and Southeast Asia to consider these concepts at the national level in constitutional debates.<fnref n="67" />

When Denmark, Yugoslavia, and the USSR proposed to include minority rights in the UDHR, opposing countries pointed out the possibility of fragmentation and separatist movements that could endanger national unity.<fnref n="68" /> Latin American delegations even argued that minorities were

<footnote n="61">⁶¹ Amir Arjmand A, *Worldwide Search: Reflections on Human Rights of Law Researches* (Shahid Beheshti University Publications 1998).</footnote>

<footnote n="62">⁶² Athanasia Spiliopoulou Åkermark, *Justifications of Minority Protection in International Law* (Kluwer Law International 1997) 86.</footnote>

<footnote n="63">⁶³ ‘General Comment No. 23: Article 27 (Rights of Minorities)’ (HRC 1994) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.5; Ulrike Barten, ‘Article 27 ICCPR: A First Point of Reference’, *The United Nations Declaration on Minorities*, vol 9 (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2015).</footnote>

<footnote n="64">⁶⁴ ‘General Comment No. 23: Article 27 (Rights of Minorities)’ (n 71) para 5.1.</footnote>

<footnote n="65">⁶⁵ Innis Claude, *National Minorities: An International Problem* (Harvard, 1955) 211.</footnote>

<footnote n="66">⁶⁶The UDHR rejected identity claims and collective dimensions. Emmanuel De Jonge, ‘La Déclaration Universelle Des Droits de l’Homme Comme l’expression d’une Vision Du Monde : Une Approche Topique et Génétique’ [2010] ADARR.</footnote>

<footnote n="67">⁶⁷ Cindy Ewing, ‘Codifying Minority Rights: Postcolonial Constitutionalism in Burma, Ceylon, and India’ in A Dirk Moses, Marco Duranti and Roland Bruke (eds), *Decolonization, Self-Determination, and the Rise of Global Human Rights Politics* (Cambridge University Press 2020) 180.</footnote>

<footnote n="68">⁶⁸ Hurst Hannum, *Autonomy, Sovereignty, and Self-Determination: The Accommodation of Conflicting Rights* (University of Pennsylvania Press 1990) 71.</footnote>
unknown in their part of the world.<fnref n="69" /> Peter Hilpold, legal scholar, noted the “reluctance to act coupled with a request for more knowledge was a characterizing trait of the entire development of minority rights within the UN system.”<fnref n="70" /> Contrary to the UDHR, the ICCPR (1976) refers explicitly to minorities in Article 27 in individualistic terms: minority rights are not collective but individual rights.<fnref n="71" /> This approach emphasises the HRC complaint procedure – independent experts within the Committee monitor the respect of the ICCPR by State Parties – which hears only individual and not collective claims.<fnref n="72" />

A second movement followed the move to introduce minority into the international framework of human rights in cases other than flagrant abuses. Protection guaranteed by IHRL to minority groups had to evolve and not reflect the fragile relationship between minority membership and universal value. In fact, in 1946, Pablo de Azcarate – former deputy secretary-general of the League of Nations (1922) – argued that protection of national minorities is “limited in time and space”. He highlighted the importance of provisions and procedures related to minorities to consider the particular circumstances of each case.<fnref n="73" /> The creation of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities in 1947⁷⁴ was actually due to a Soviet initiative, in retaliation to the American proposal to institute a commission to further the cause of freedom of information.<fnref n="75" /> In its Third Session (9 to 27 January 1950), the Sub-Commission adopted its own definition of the term minority.<fnref n="76" /> After considering different definitions and classifications of minorities it drafted the future Article 27

<footnote n="69">⁶⁹ John P Humphrey, 'The United Nations Sub-Commission on the Prevention of Discrimination and the Protection of Minorities' (1968) 62 AJIL 869, 873.</footnote>

<footnote n="70">⁷⁰ Peter Hilpold, ‘UN Standard-Setting in the Field of Minority Rights’ (2007) 14 Int. J. Minor. Group Rights 181, 183.</footnote>

<footnote n="71">⁷¹ Macklem (n 63) 535.</footnote>

<footnote n="72">⁷² ‘Complaints Procedures’ (*OHCHR*); Markus G Schmidt, ‘Individual Human Rights Complaints Procedures Based on United Nations Treaties and the Need for Reform’ (1992) 41 ICLQ 645, 645.</footnote>

<footnote n="73">⁷³ Pablo de Azcárate, ‘Protection of Minorities and Human Rights’ (1946) 243 Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 124, 127–128.</footnote>

<footnote n="74">⁷⁴ ‘Economic and Social Council, Official Records, Second Year, Fourth Session, Supplement No. 3’ (Commission on Human Rights) Report 4.</footnote>

<footnote n="75">⁷⁵ Humphrey (n 77) 869–870.</footnote>

<footnote n="76">⁷⁶ “only those non-dominant groups in a population which possess and wish to preserve stable ethnic, religious or linguistic traditions or characteristics markedly different from those of the rest of the population.”, Yearbook on human rights for 1950 (1950) 490.</footnote>
of the ICCPR known at that time as the International Covenant on Human Rights. In addition, it adopted resolutions on the prevention of discrimination.<fnref n="77" />

For Morsink, political scientist, the UDHR's drafting process was due to the Holocaust, which established all the rights protected at that time from a legal perspective.<fnref n="78" /> Yet, the Declaration failed to address minority rights, or even address anti-Semitism.<fnref n="79" /> This failure is the historical marker of Article 27 of the ICCPR. In fact, the General Assembly in its first sentence of the resolution 3/217C stated that the UN "cannot remain indifferent to the fate of minorities".<fnref n="80" /> This led the General Assembly to request the HRC and the Sub-Commission to study the problem of minorities. The Sub-Commission agreed to submit not a study, but a draft treaty for the Covenant on minorities.<fnref n="81" /> The HRC started working on the General Assembly's request in 1953 with three drafts: that of the Sub-Commission, and the Soviet and Yugoslav draft. The Yugoslav draft proposed a specific prohibition of discrimination, and just as the Soviet proposal stressed States' positive obligation, it included the right to be educated in its own language, and interestingly, referred to ethnic and linguistic groups. In addition, the Chile proposal to the HRC, wanted to considerer minorities as individuals already established in the country. Chile sought to differentiate between national minority groups and immigrants, in order to preserve national characteristics.<fnref n="82" /> The HRC Draft was debated at the 3rd Committee of the General Assembly in 1961. African and Asian States like India followed the Western hemisphere's approach to the question of minority with the assimilation and integration policy. Ecuador, on the contrary, argued that the American continent did not have any minority groups, and Ghana and Upper Volta maintained that although there were minorities in their country, they had no problems. Finally, Australia insisted that aborigines could not be minorities as they were too primitive.<fnref n="83" />

<footnote n="77">⁷⁷ ibid 489.</footnote>

<footnote n="78">⁷⁸ Johannes Morsink, *The Universal Declaration of Human Rights: Origins, Drafting, and Intent* (University of Pennsylvania Press 1999) 90–91.</footnote>

<footnote n="79">⁷⁹ Jacob Dolinger, 'The Failure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights' (2016) 47 U. MIA IALR 164, 168.</footnote>

<footnote n="80">⁸⁰ '217 C (III). Fate of Minorities' (General Assembly 1948) Resolution A/RES/3/217 C.</footnote>

<footnote n="81">⁸¹ Manfred Nowak, *U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary* (NP Engel, Publisher 2005) 639.</footnote>

<footnote n="82">⁸² EW Vierdag, *The Concept of Discrimination in International Law: With Special Reference to Human Rights* (Springer Science & Business Media 2012) 153.</footnote>

<footnote n="83">⁸³ Nowak (n 89) 640.</footnote>
The third phase reached its peak in 1992 with the General Assembly proclamation of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities. The preamble declares that the Declaration was “inspired by the provisions of article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights”.<fnref n="84" /> While the 1992 Declaration makes a list of the rights possessed by minorities (enjoy its own culture, practice its own religion, use its own language...) like Article 27 of the ICCPR it establishes these rights on an individual basis.<fnref n="85" /> Moreover, both of them protect the same rights: cultural, religious, linguistic, political participation,<fnref n="86" /> and freedom of association. Despite this individualistic approach, the HRC through its decisions, has interpreted Article 27 in a collective dimension.<fnref n="87" />

Issues surrounding minorities human rights violation received more visibility within the UN with: (i) the establishment of the Working Group on Minorities (1995); (ii) the 2005 appointment by the Human Rights Council of an independent expert on minority issues whose titled changed to Special Rapporteur on minority issues after the Human Rights Council resolution 25/5.<fnref n="88" />

Yet, Macklem sees an important ambiguity in IHRL concerning a State's obligation to secure the protection of minority rights, finding its sources in a larger framework which perceives human rights as a protection of individual interests conforming to universal values. <fnref n="89" /> Consequently, to be protected minority rights must be considered as a fundamental criterion of being human. Thus, religious, cultural, linguistic rights are universal and undergird international minority protection. This protection implies that State should not discriminate against members of minority groups.

<footnote n="84">⁸⁴ Preamble Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities 1992.</footnote>

<footnote n="85">⁸⁵ Macklem (n 63) 536.</footnote>

<footnote n="86">⁸⁶ ‘Report of the Human Rights Committee’ (HRC 1992) A/47/40 para 322.</footnote>

<footnote n="87">⁸⁷ *Ivan Kitok v Sweden* [1988] HRC CCPR/C/33/D/197/1985; *Francis Hopu and Tepoaitu Bessert v France* [1997] HRC CCPR/C/60/D/549/1993.</footnote>

<footnote n="88">⁸⁸ ‘Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities’ (Commission on Human Rights 2005) Resolution 2005/79; ‘Mandate of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues’ (Human Rights Council 2014) A/HRC/RES/25/5 para 11.</footnote>

<footnote n="89">⁸⁹ Macklem (n 63) 540.</footnote>
**3. The contemporary challenges**

Despite growing recognition of the deep connections between minority groups and the survival or stability of democracy,<fnref n="90" /> their protection remains a challenge. In fact, in times of crises, minority groups become the first target. UN Special Rapporteur on minority issues, Fernand de Varennes, highlighted the alarming use of hate speech towards minorities during Covid-19, promoting discrimination towards these communities and violence.<fnref n="91" /> Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, Ahmed Shaheed, also pointed to the proliferation of conspiracy theories attributing the development and spread of Covid-19 to minorities. He deplored the use of antisemitic hate speech,<fnref n="92" /> and warned against discrimination faced by minorities in accessing public services.<fnref n="93" />

International law requires governments to ensure the non-violation of individual rights, and also expects them to provide procedural safeguards such as the right to a fair trial. Yet, the last few decades, especially since 9/11, have witnessed an expansion of State powers that tend to deprive individuals deemed a national security threat of their fundamental rights. In particular, with rising terrorist threats, States have developed legislation to deprive individuals of their citizenship. Since 2014, 9 European Union (EU) member States, notably France and United Kingdom, extended or introduced citizenship revocation legislation to tackle terrorism.<fnref n="94" /> Often, individuals belonging to minority groups are also the most vulnerable. In practice, the application of nationality deprivation is seen to target nationals who “acquired

<footnote n="90">⁹⁰ Kwadwo Appiagyei-Atua, 'Minority Rights, Democracy and Development: The African Experience' (2012) 12 Afr. Hum. Rights Law J. 69.</footnote>

<footnote n="91">⁹¹ Fernand de Varennes (@fernanddev, Twitter, 28 December 2020); Panarat Thepgumpanat Tostevin Shoon Naing, Matthew, 'Anti-Myanmar Hate Speech Flares in Thailand over Virus' *Reuters* (24 December 2020); Fernand De Varennes (Covid-19: securitisation, minorities, diversity, European Centre for Minority Issues, 7 April 2021).</footnote>

<footnote n="92">⁹² 'Rise in Antisemitic Hatred during COVID-19 Must Be Countered with Tougher Measures, Says UN Expert' (*OHCHR*, 17 April 2020).</footnote>

<footnote n="93">⁹³ 'UN Expert Warns against Religious Hatred and Intolerance during COVID-19 Outbreak' (*OHCHR*, 22 April 2020).</footnote>

<footnote n="94">⁹⁴ Emilien Fargues (When States Take Rights Back - Citizenship Revocation and Its Discontents, Weatherhead Center For International Affairs - Harvard University, 22 February 2021); Sandra Mantu, ""Terrorist" Citizens and the Human Right to Nationality" (2018) 26 J. Contemp. Eur. Stud. 28.</footnote>
nationality by naturalization or by descent while born abroad”.<fnref n="95" /> According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) 2017 report, 75% of the world’s stateless individuals belong to minority groups.<fnref n="96" />

The issue of minorities’ questions the effectiveness of both international law and the rule of law implemented through the instrument of the judiciary and courts. Minorities are at the forefront in checking the drift that may occur in the name of national security, external aggression, or national consolidation. These developments in liberal democracies have not gone unnoticed or unchallenged in international forums or human rights groups. Civil society activists, lawyers, constitutional experts and UN treaty bodies, caution against the erosion of human rights under the guise of national security or majority ethnic nationalism. It is argued that respect of human rights, necessary to the preservation of democracy, depends on the individual’s legal recognition by the State, which in turn must stand as guarantor of these rights.

In most multi-ethnic societies, dominant groups often tend to have a more important socio-economic and political position in comparison to minorities, leading to minorities’ exclusion from decision-making processes and power centres. This situation pushes to emphasise on two concepts: vulnerability and marginalisation. Marginalisation is a core concept in legal research, yet it faces some difficulties, conceptually wise. It primarily serves as a doorway to broader discussions, it's equally valid to suggest that it's quite a narrow concept.<fnref n="97" /> Within socio-legal studies, marginalisation turns out to be a synonym of disadvantage, exclusion, inequality, stigmatisation etc. These synonyms suggest a sense of exclusion and suppression, where voices go unheard. While describing the ‘edge’ of marginalised individuals, legal scholars have focus on the impact of marginalisation on individuals and their experiences.<fnref n="98" /> Analysing

<footnote n="95">⁹⁵ ‘Human Rights and Arbitrary Deprivation of Nationality: Report of the Secretary General’ (Human Rights Council 2013) A/HRC/25/28 para 19; Noah Bialostozky, ‘The Misuse of Terrorism Prosecution in Chile: The Need for Discrete Consideration of Minority and Indigenous Group Treatment in Rule of Law Analyses’ (2008) 6 JHR 81.</footnote>

<footnote n="96">⁹⁶ “‘This Is Our Home” - Stateless Minorities and Their Search for Citizenship’ (UNHCR 2017) 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="97">⁹⁷ David Gurnham, ‘Introduction: Marginalisation in Law, Policy and Society’ (2022) 18 Int J Law Context 1, 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="98">⁹⁸ Tunay Altay, Gökce Yurdakul and Anna Korteweg, ‘Crossing Borders: The Intersectional Marginalisation of Bulgarian Muslim Trans*immigrant Sex Workers in Berlin’ [2020] J. Ethn. Migr. Stud.; Peter Brooks, ‘Narrative in and of the Law’, *A Companion to Narrative Theory* (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd 2005).</footnote>
marginalisation therefore led to a focus on individuals experiences and fell back to other concepts such as inequality, poverty or vulnerability. Marginalisation and vulnerability are not exclusive yet their typically overlap. Both these concepts rely on intersecting factors, and both are prominent concept in human rights.<fnref n="99" /> However, while marginalisation has been analysed through the consequences on individuals, vulnerability has allowed to translate into legal terms individuals realities. This human rights legal awareness brought to light how vulnerabilities impact individuals, but some more than others.<fnref n="100" /> Furthermore, the reference to vulnerability by legal bodies, in particular the European context, has had a positive contribution to the qualification of the subjects of rights in concrete context. The international human rights jurisprudence went beyond the field minority protection and has embraced a vulnerability language.<fnref n="101" /> Yet, for both concepts stigmatisation and stereotypes of individuals may increase.<fnref n="102" /> However, they allow to understand that individuals position makes some groups vulnerable to State and private actors’ discriminatory practices and policies. These may range from outright denial of minorities, to insisting on their assimilation in order to enjoy equal citizenship rights with dominant groups, to accommodation.<fnref n="103" /> As the philosopher Kymlicka underlines, if assimilation leads to a progressive erosion of identities and cultures of minorities, the policy of accommodation can help preserve their distinctive culture, language, religion, or traditions.<fnref n="104" /> However, both require legal provisions that must be operatively binding, if minorities are to be protected. While there are various international legal instruments that have been ratified by States, their efficacy in dealing with the situation of minorities and preventing discrimination remains doubtful. Even though some of them are binding instruments, States often affirm their right to sovereignty, thus creating a situation where national laws could be violating international conventions and standards.

<footnote n="99">⁹⁹ Francesca Ippolito, *Understanding Vulnerability in International Human Rights Law* (Editoriale Scientifica).</footnote>

<footnote n="100">¹⁰⁰ Martha Fineman, ‘The Vulnerable Subject and the Responsive State’ (2010) 60 Emory Law Journal 251.</footnote>

<footnote n="101">¹⁰¹ Mary Neal, ‘Not Gods but Animals: Human Dignity and Vulnerable Subjecthood’ (2012) 23 Liverpool Law Review 177.</footnote>

<footnote n="102">¹⁰² Alexandra Timmer and others, ‘The Potential and Pitfalls of the Vulnerability Concept for Human Rights’ (2021) 39 Neth. Q. Hum. Rights 190; Martha Albertson Fineman, ‘Beyond Identities: The Limits of an Antidiscrimination Approach to Equality’ (2012) 92 Boston University Law Review 1713, 1750.</footnote>

<footnote n="103">¹⁰³ Minority accommodation varies in each country. In Canada for instance, for linguistic minorities, it is based on historical arrangements.</footnote>

<footnote n="104">¹⁰⁴ Will Kymlicka, *Liberalism, Community, and Culture* (OUP 1989); John Tomasi, ‘Kymlicka, Liberalism, and Respect for Cultural Minorities’ (1995) 105 Ethics 580, 580.</footnote>
**4. Conclusion**

Despite a sustained interest in the subject of minorities, and debates on the question, international law took its time to define the problem, and an exhaustive and universally accepted definition of the term ‘minority’ still eludes us. The internationalisation of the notion, far from establishing a consensus around legal provisions and practices, has multiplied the tensions between human rights principles, pitching States against groups and movements defending minority rights. From the States’ perspective, minority rights can, and are sacrificed at the altar of the nation, and are subordinated to concerns of development, political unity, and social cohesion. From the perspective of minority groups themselves, the degree of tolerance today with instituted equations of power or accepted forms of discrimination has diminished greatly. In this battle, between assimilation and accommodation international law can play a critical role and has established itself as a central actor.

As States fix their own approach and policy towards their minorities, international provisions prohibiting discrimination acquire greater importance. In fact, leaving the question entirely in the hands of States to resolve has proved insufficient, besides engendering violation of the fundamental rights of persons belonging to minorities. How nations look upon and act against discriminatory practices and policies within their own territories often depends upon the equations of power between different groups, electoral needs, economic logic, or the weight of social customs and historical traditions. Social or cultural understandings of the concept of minorities may thus vary from one country to another, leading to critical discussions of what constitutes a minority.<fnref n="105" /> Despite States obligation to recognise and protect minorities to enjoy their own culture through positive discrimination or establishing affirmative action,<fnref n="106" /> in practice this international right collides with State practice. For instance, in the Indian case, the Constitution does not define the term minority which is integrated in a broader category.<fnref n="107" /> It protects religious, linguistic and culturally distinctive groups. Thus, in October 1993, the

<footnote n="105">¹⁰⁵ Jennifer Preece Jackson, ‘National Minority Rights vs. State Sovereignty in Europe: Changing Norms in International Relations?’ (1997) 3 Nations Natl. 345, 351–354.</footnote>

<footnote n="106">¹⁰⁶ ‘General Comment No. 23: Article 27 (Rights of Minorities)’ (n 71) para 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="107">¹⁰⁷ Saroj Bohra, ‘Minority Rights under Indian Constitution: A Critical Analysis’ [2014] Bharati Law Review 11.</footnote>
Congress government recognized Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, and Zoroastrians as national religious minorities.<fnref n="108" />

<footnote n="108">¹⁰⁸ *The Gazette of India 1993* [REGD. NO. D.L-33004/93].</footnote>
**Chapter 2. Addressing the right to non-discrimination**

Discrimination is a fundamental concept and component of IHRL. Under this concept,
individual's human rights must be equally respected, and the application of this right must be
done without unreasonable exceptions which cannot be legally justified. For the IACtHR it is
a *jus cogens*,<fnref n="109" /> which implies that protection against discrimination is applied not only to
individuals but also to groups more vulnerable than others,<fnref n="110" /> and the International Court of
Justice (ICJ) considered it an *erga omnes* obligations.<fnref n="111" /> Furthermore, non-discrimination is
often used interchangeably with the concept of equality. Equality being often perceived as the
goal of non-discrimination, and non-discrimination establishes a legal frame or policy to
achieve equality.<fnref n="112" /> Strangely while international law does not establish a hierarchy between
violations, for Hilary Charlesworth, a hierarchy of forms exists, under which racial
discrimination is perceived as the most serious.<fnref n="113" />

Three dimensions of the principle of non-discrimination need to be highlighted to
understand how discrimination leads to invisibility of minorities in India, and, at the regional
level: (i) protection granted by international conventions;<fnref n="114" /> (ii) recognising discrimination; and
(iii) State’s obligation.

<footnote n="109">¹⁰⁹ *Juridical Condition and rights of the undocumented migrants* [2003] IACtHR Advisory Opinion OC-18/03, Series A, No. 18 [101]; *Norín Catrimán et al (Mapuche Indigenous People) v Chile* [2014] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 279 [197].</footnote>

<footnote n="110">¹¹⁰ Laurence Burgorgue-Larsen and Amaya Ubeda de Torres, *The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: Case Law and Commentary* (OUP 2011) para 20.30.</footnote>

<footnote n="111">¹¹¹ *Belgium v Spain: Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited* [1970] ICJ [1970] ICJ 1 [34].</footnote>

<footnote n="112">¹¹² Jarlath Clifford, ‘Equality’ in Stephanie Farrior (ed), *Equality and Non-Discrimination under International Law*, vol 2 (Ashgate 2015).</footnote>

<footnote n="113">¹¹³ Hilary Charlesworth, ‘Concept of Equality in International Law’ in Grant Huscroft and Paul Rishworth (eds), *Litigating Rights: perspective from domestic and international law* (Hart Publishing 2002) 143.</footnote>

<footnote n="114">¹¹⁴ Concerning the regional protection, see: Part 4 – *Chapters 7 and 8*.</footnote>
# 1. Protection against discrimination at the international level

Protecting individual's right to non-discrimination remained limited in scope before 1945 as it was only found in minority treaties.<fnref n="115" /> The adoption of the Charter – considered as the foundation of modern international law<fnref n="116" /> – contrary to the League Covenant, which excluded the reference to racial and religious equality, promoted equality and non-discrimination as a core right. In fact, the UN was perceived to be created to mainly combat discrimination.<fnref n="117" /> While the word discrimination is not found in the Charter, the expression “without distinction” occurs in four Articles: 1§3, 13§2, 55§3 and 76§3. The Charter referred to distinction of race, sex, language and religion. In comparison, the UDHR identifies more grounds of discrimination: “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status”.<fnref n="118" /> Prohibition of distinction based on these elements affirms that any kind of differences of treatment are not lawful, also known as formal equality. Article 2 of the UDHR, while being innovative in the right to equal treatment does not establish a right but a principle, as it only protects the rights and freedoms protected by the Declaration. Non-binding documents do not create legal and enforceable obligation for States, but it has been argued that the UDHR can be declared as *jus cogens*, hence all the rights enumerated within the Declaration have this character.<fnref n="119" /> Thus, despite States not ratifying the Declaration, the norms protected by the UDHR entail obligations for States.

The absence of a “binding instrument” against discrimination led to the twin Covenants: the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Both provided detailed provisions on the right to non-discrimination, equality before the law, and equal protection of the law without any discrimination. Their purpose was to codify the universal human rights established in the UDHR in the form of a treaty.<fnref n="120" />

<footnote n="115">¹¹⁵ For instance, between the Allies and Poland: Minorities treaty between the principal allied and associated powers (the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan and the United States) and Poland signed at Versailles 1919.</footnote>

<footnote n="116">¹¹⁶ See: Louis B Sohn, 'The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather Than States' (1982) 32 Am. Univ. Law Rev. 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="117">¹¹⁷ 'Draft International Declaration of Human Rights (E/800)' (UN 1948) Hundredth Meeting A/C.3/SR.100 129.</footnote>

<footnote n="118">¹¹⁸ Article 2 UDHR.</footnote>

<footnote n="119">¹¹⁹ Li Weiwei, 'Equality and Non-Discrimination Under International Human Rights Law' (2004) Research Notes 03/2004 *The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights* 19; John P Humphrey, 'The Implementation of International Human Rights Law' (1978) 24 N. Y. L. Sch. L. Rev. 31, 32.</footnote>

<footnote n="120">¹²⁰ 'General Comment No. 26: Continuity of Obligations' (HRC 1997) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.8/Rev.1 para 3.</footnote>
The ICCPR established more legally binding rights and obligations. Article 26 of the ICCPR prohibits discrimination not only in law, but also protects individuals from public authorities, putting the focus on State obligations regarding their legislation.<fnref n="121" /> Consequently, States’ legislation should comply with Article 26 (equality before the law), and therefore, must not be discriminatory.<fnref n="122" /> However, the ICCPR still does not provide a clear definition of discrimination. It was only in 1989 that the HRC filled this gap in the ICCPR, and provided a definition, arguing that discrimination is based on distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on “race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all rights and freedoms.”<fnref n="123" /> The general expression “other status” refers to a non-exhaustive list of protected characteristics. In *Gueye v. France* (1989), the HRC found that discrimination on the grounds of nationality was an element of “other status”.<fnref n="124" />

The ICESCR protects the right to non-discrimination at a general as well as specific level. Like the ICCPR, the ICESCR mentions the roots of discrimination in social customs (Article 5§2), recognised as cultural discrimination.<fnref n="125" /> Such discrimination is rooted in traditions, dominant values<fnref n="126" /> or stereotypes, and while today States question some of these practices, they still operate especially concerning women.<fnref n="127" /> This element of practice is a core aspect of the right to non-discrimination in the ICESCR. In fact, the Covenant protects formal, de jure equality,

<footnote n="121">¹²¹ Mpoki Mwakagali, ‘International Human Rights Law and Discrimination Protections: A Comparison of Regional and National Responses’ in Holning Lau, *Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Discrimination* (Brill 2021) 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="122">¹²² ‘General Comment No. 18: Non-Discrimination’ (HRC 1989) INT/CCPR/GEC/6622 para 12.</footnote>

<footnote n="123">¹²³ ibid 7.</footnote>

<footnote n="124">¹²⁴ *Ibrahim Gueye v France* [1989] HRC CCPR/C/35/D/196/1985 [9.4].</footnote>

<footnote n="125">¹²⁵ Mwakagali ‘International Human Rights Law and Discrimination Protections: A Comparison of Regional and National Responses’ 14; Hélène Tigroudja, ‘Droits Des Femmes et Élimination Des Discriminations’; Barbara Wilson, ‘VIII. The Principle of Non-Discrimination in the International Covenant On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights’ in Walter Kälin and others (eds), *International Law, Conflict and Development: The emergence of a Holistic Approach in International Affairs* (Brill | Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010).</footnote>

<footnote n="126">¹²⁶ The CESCR mentioned this type of discrimination in: ‘General Comment No. 16: Article 3 (the Equal Right of Men and Women to the Enjoyment of All Economic, Social and Cultural Rights)’ (CESCR 2005) E/C.12/2005/3 para 5.</footnote>

<footnote n="127">¹²⁷ In Nepal, the practice of the chhaupadi while still being practiced, was in 2004 declared illegal by the Nepalese Supreme Court (*Dil Bahadur Bishwokarma v HMG* [2004] SC of Nepal 2062-1-19 BS.) and on 9 August 2017 the Nepalese Parliament unanimously approved a law criminalising this practice (Section 168(3) of the Penal Code). Despite this ruling and legislation, women force themselves to conform to this practice according to the Nepali communist politician, Krishna Bhakta Pokhrel (see: ‘Le Népal interdit « l’exil menstruel »’ *Le Monde.fr* (9 August 2017)).</footnote>
related to legislation and policy, as well as substantive, de facto equality, linked to practices,
effects of laws, policies and practices of discrimination.<fnref n="128" /> As in the ICCPR, no definition of
discrimination is provided. However, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(CESCR) adopted the HRC's approach. Thus, in the General Comment No. 20, the CESCR
argued that discrimination consists of:

distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference or other differential treatment that
is directly or indirectly based on the prohibited grounds of discrimination and which
has the intention or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment
or exercise, on an equal footing, of Covenant rights. Discrimination also includes
incitement to discriminate and harassment.<fnref n="129" />

Despite its closeness to the HRC, the CESCR definition differs. Interestingly, it nearly copies
the language of Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of
Racial Discrimination (ICERD), it only misses the mentions to “fundamental freedoms in the
political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life”.<fnref n="130" /> In parallel to these core
conventions, specific international human rights conventions refer to discrimination. They
focus on practices (e.g. torture, racial discrimination<fnref n="131" />) and social groups: women,<fnref n="132" />
children,<fnref n="133" /> person with disabilities,<fnref n="134" /> and minorities.<fnref n="135" /> In fact, the ICERD is the first treaty
on non-discrimination adopted by the UN. Discrimination here only concerns race, colour,
descent, national or ethnic origin. Consequently, the elements found in the other Human Rights
instruments (sex, religion, social origin, political opinion) do not fall into the scope of the

<footnote n="128">¹²⁸ Mwakagali, ‘International Human Rights Law and Discrimination Protections: A Comparison of Regional and National Responses’ (n 129) 14; ‘General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art.2, Para. 2, of the ICESCR)’ (CESCR 2009) E/C.12/GC/20 para 8.</footnote>

<footnote n="129">¹²⁹ ‘General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art.2, Para. 2, of the ICESCR)’ (n 136) para 7. The elements underlined are similar with the HRC definition.</footnote>

<footnote n="130">¹³⁰ Article 1 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination 1969.</footnote>

<footnote n="131">¹³¹ ibid; Egon Schwelb, ‘The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’ (1966) 15 ICLQ 996, 997; Natan Lerner, *The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination* (Nijohoff 2015) 35.</footnote>

<footnote n="132">¹³² Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women 1979; Diana Zoelle, *Globalising Concern for Women's Human Rights: The Failure of the American Model* (St Martin's Press 2000) 5.</footnote>

<footnote n="133">¹³³ Article 2 Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989.</footnote>

<footnote n="134">¹³⁴ None of the international human rights convention refers to the rights of disabled individuals, leading to a degree of their invisibility in human rights discourse. Discrimination of persons with disabilities is linked to social structures, along with their segregation or exclusion from society. Preamble and Article 5 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006; Mwakagali, 'International Human Rights Law and Discrimination Protections: A Comparison of Regional and National Responses' (n 129) 27; Marianne Schulze, *Understanding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities* (Handicap International 2009) 10.</footnote>

<footnote n="135">¹³⁵ Articles 2, 3 and 4 Declaration on Minorities.</footnote>
convention. Furthermore, Article 1§2 establishes a clear cut between citizens and non-citizens which is not found in other international conventions. State parties can put in practice a “distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference” on the basis of citizenship.<fnref n="136" /> It was only in 2004 that the CERD finally took into consideration discrimination against non-citizens and argued that difference of treatment based on citizenship was considered discriminatory practices.<fnref n="137" />

Prohibiting discrimination is addressed in two different ways by international conventions. Firstly, by establishing a broad guarantee of equality. Secondly, by providing a list of grounds of discrimination, which is not exhaustive, and is often followed by the expression “and other status”. This approach provides national and regional judges with a margin of manoeuvre to adopt new standards and extend the lists.<fnref n="138" />

## 2. When is there discrimination?

### 2.1. Qualifications

Discriminatory legislation, practices and policies' targets can be direct or indirect.

**Direct discrimination** – This consists of practices where “there must be a difference in the treatment of persons in relevantly similar situations”,<fnref n="139" /> targeting a precise group or a person and treating them less favourably on the basis of their protected characteristics such as racial or ethnic origin.<fnref n="140" /> The difference of treatment that may potentially constitute direct

<footnote n="136">¹³⁶ Article 1§2 ICERD.</footnote>

<footnote n="137">¹³⁷ ‘General Recommendation No. 30: Discrimination against Non-Citizens’ (CERD 2004) CERD/C/64/Misc.11/rev.3.</footnote>

<footnote n="138">¹³⁸ Sandra Fredman, *Discrimination Law* (OUP 2011) 68.</footnote>

<footnote n="139">¹³⁹ *Burden v the United Kingdom* [2008] ECtHR [GC] 13378/05 [60]; *DH v the Czech Republic* [2007] ECtHR [GC] 57325/00 [175]; *Willis v the United Kingdom* [2002] ECtHR 36042/97 [48]; *Okpisz v Germany* [2005] ECtHR 59140/00 [33]; *Zhdanov v Russia* [2019] ECtHR 12200/08 [178].</footnote>

<footnote n="140">¹⁴⁰ Council Directive: Implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin 2000 (2000/43/EC); ‘General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art.2, Para. 2, of the ICESCR)’ (n 136) para 10(a).</footnote>
discrimination has three essential elements: a less favourable treatment; an analogous relationship with a specific treatment; and a pattern based on a protected characteristic.<fnref n="141" />

**Indirect discrimination** – In Griggs v. Duke Power Co (1971) the United States (U.S) SC recognised indirect discrimination, also known as disparate impact.<fnref n="142" /> Since then, liberal democracies have used this concept more frequently.<fnref n="143" />

Its source lies in the principle of egalitarianism, and consists of applying a law to all individuals without considering their specificities, which could result in a different, and less favourable treatment.<fnref n="144" /> Indirect discrimination needs to combine three elements: a disposition, a criterion or practice that is neutral in appearance; the application needs to produce an adverse effect or prejudice to an identifiable group; and finally, an element of comparability, as in the case of direct discrimination.<fnref n="145" /> Furthermore, indirect discrimination does not require a discriminatory intent.<fnref n="146" /> It may arise from a neutral rule<fnref n="147" /> or from a de jure or de facto situation.<fnref n="148" />

Different definitions of indirect discrimination can be found at the regional and international level. A comparison can be made concerning the evocation of specific groups. At the European level, the different directives refer to specific elements such as racial or ethnic origin,<fnref n="149" /> “religion or belief, disability, age, sexual orientation”,<fnref n="150" /> and “colour, language, religion, nationality”.<fnref n="151" /> On the contrary, Article 1§2 of the Inter-American Convention Against all Forms of Discrimination does not refer to a particular group but uses the following expression:

<footnote n="141">¹⁴¹ Ludovic Hennebel and Hélène Tigroudja, *Traité de Droit International Des Droits de l'homme* (A Pedone 2018) 762.</footnote>

<footnote n="142">¹⁴² Griggs v Duke Power Co [1971] SC of the US 401 US 424.</footnote>

<footnote n="143">¹⁴³ Hugh Collins and Tarunabh Khaitan, *Foundations of Indirect Discrimination Law* (Hart Publishing 2018) 1.</footnote>

<footnote n="144">¹⁴⁴ Hennebel and Tigroudja, *Traité* (n 149) 762.</footnote>

<footnote n="145">¹⁴⁵ ibid.</footnote>

<footnote n="146">¹⁴⁶ Biao v Denmark [2016] ECtHR [GC] 38590/10 [103]; DH v the Czech Republic (n 147) para 184.</footnote>

<footnote n="147">¹⁴⁷ Hoogendijk v the Netherlands [2005] ECtHR 58641/00.</footnote>

<footnote n="148">¹⁴⁸ Zarb Adami v Malta [2006] ECtHR 17209/02; Xákmok Kásek Indigenous Community v Paraguay [2010] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 214 [271]; Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile [2012] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 239 [80]; Pavez Pavez v Chile [2022] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 449 [67].</footnote>

<footnote n="149">¹⁴⁹ Article 2§2(b) Council Directive 2000/43/EC.</footnote>

<footnote n="150">¹⁵⁰ Article 2§2(b) Directive du Conseil portant création d'un cadre général en faveur de l'égalité de traitement en matière d'emploi et de travail 2000 (2000/78/CE).</footnote>

<footnote n="151">¹⁵¹ ECRI General Policy Recommendation No. 7: National Legislation to Combat Racism and Racial Discrimination 2002.</footnote>
"persons belonging to a specific group". The ECtHR and the IACtHR describe the specific impact of this discrimination on certain groups through their jurisprudence.<fnref n="152" /> Even if the policy or measure may not target a particular group, it may still discriminate against them in an indirect way.<fnref n="153" />

It is noteworthy that the CESCR adopted a definition similar to those mentioned above, in its General Observation No. 20. While not referring to a specific group, it mentions ethnic minorities and non-nationals.

At the international level, the Conventions do not refer explicitly to direct and indirect discrimination. However, both the General Recommendation XXXII of the CERD<fnref n="154" /> and General Recommendation No. 28 of the Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW)<fnref n="155" /> mention these two concepts. Despite recognising discrimination, the CERD does not often label indirect discrimination as such,<fnref n="156" /> but labels indirect discrimination explicitly in cases of legislation.<fnref n="157" /> In its recommendation, the CEDAW argues that direct discrimination against women "constitute different treatment explicitly based on grounds of sex and gender differences".<fnref n="158" /> On the contrary, "indirect discrimination can exacerbate existing inequalities owing to failure to recognize structural and historical patterns of discrimination and unequal power relationships between women and men."<fnref n="159" />

<footnote n="152">152 Biao v Denmark (n 154) para 103; DH v the Czech Republic (n 147) para 184; Sampanis v Greece [2012] ECtHR 59608/09 "a difference in treatment may take the form of disproportionately prejudicial effects of a general policy or measure which, though couched in neutral terms, discriminates against a group"; 'General Comment No. 20: Non-Discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Art.2, Para. 2, of the ICESCR)' (n 136) para 10(b).</footnote>

<footnote n="153">153 Hoogendijk (n 155); Hugh Jordan v the United Kingdom [2001] ECtHR 24746/94 [154].</footnote>

<footnote n="154">154 'General Recommendation No. 32: The Meaning and Scope of Special Measures in the ICERD' (CERD 2009) CERD/C/GC/32 3.</footnote>

<footnote n="155">155 'General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of the ICEDAW' (CEDAW 2010) CEDAW/C/2010/47/GC.2 3;4;5;8.</footnote>

<footnote n="156">156 'Concluding Observations of the CERD: Brazil' (CERD 2004) CERD/C/64/CO/2 para 20.</footnote>

<footnote n="157">157 'Observations Finales Du CERD: Suède' (CERD 2004) CERD/C/64/CO/8 para 9.</footnote>

<footnote n="158">158 'General Recommendation No. 28 on the Core Obligations of States Parties under Article 2 of the ICEDAW' (n 163) para 16.</footnote>

<footnote n="159">159 ibid.</footnote>
In addition to these two main qualifiers, two other discriminations require mention: multiple and intersectional. Multiple discrimination is based on more than one ground of discrimination, often based on gender and another factor.<fnref n="160" /> In 2001, in a case concerning women belonging to ethnic minorities the CERD underlined the multiple discrimination based on gender and ethnicity.<fnref n="161" /> Multiple discrimination differs from intersectional discrimination, which also bases itself on multiple factors of discrimination, but culminates in a new type of discrimination. In intersectional discrimination, there are not only overt identifiable features that make the individuals liable to discrimination, for instant being Dalit, poor, and dark skinned are overt features, but there is a specific aspect that converges in a person, consisting of existing prejudices that are not openly admitted.<fnref n="162" /> A recent analysis of Cagots – individuals suspected of leprosy – demonstrates this point. Victims of segregation, marginalised and discriminated from the XIII<sup>th</sup> till XIX<sup>th</sup> century in Southwest France, they were forced to work only in wood-related craft professions and use distinctive surnames.<fnref n="163" /> Furthermore, discriminations are multiple when the different elements operate separately. On the contrary, intersectionality, refers to interconnections between different factors to produce an overall discrimination. In fact, intersectionality enables identification of the scope and depth of discrimination.

## 2.2. Violation of the principle of equality

Direct and indirect discrimination is analysed through a comparation between litigious treatment with another type of treatment. The purpose is either to demonstrate that there is a difference of treatment despite a similarity in the situation, or on the contrary, to highlight that there is no difference, and therefore it produces an unfavourable impact on a group that is not in a similar situation due to a *de facto* inequality.

Analogous analysis is crucial to determining whether individuals are being discriminated. However, interpretation and appreciation often rely on the inclusion of subjective elements, and

<footnote n="160">160 Wouter Vandenhole, *Non-Discrimination and Equality in the View of the UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies* (Intersentia 2005); Ludovic Hennebel and Hélène Tigroudja, *The American Convention on Human Rights: A Commentary* (OUP 2022) 73–74.</footnote>

<footnote n="161">161 ‘Concluding Observations of the CERD: Uruguay’ (CERD 2001) CERD/C/304/Add.78 para 10.</footnote>

<footnote n="162">162 Kimberle Crenshaw, ‘Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color’ (1991) 43 SLR 1241.</footnote>

<footnote n="163">163 Jacques Fonlupt, ‘De La Race à La Lèpre : Les Derniers Cagots. Histoire de La Disparition Au XIXe Siècle d’un Phénomène Discriminatoire Français’ (Université Paris-Saclay; Université Paris 1 Sorbonne 2021).</footnote>
involve positions and assumptions on the treatment of certain categories of people.<fnref n="164" /> Comparing situations remains a factual test, and therefore criteria cannot be the object of a definitive typology.<fnref n="165" /> Nevertheless, examples of regional jurisdictions and UN treaty bodies can be cited to demonstrate difference of treatment between: national and foreign citizens;<fnref n="166" /> couples or homosexual and heterosexual individuals;<fnref n="167" /> adopted and biological children;<fnref n="168" /> Romani students and others.<fnref n="169" />

### 2.3. Justifications of discrimination

In principle, when difference or indifference of treatment is established, the State has to justify it. According to the ECtHR, difference of treatment leads to discrimination when it has “no objective and reasonable justification”, if “it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought”.<fnref n="170" /> The HRC follows the same position, in *G v. Australia* (2017), where it recalls that difference of treatments when reasonable and based on objective criteria and pursuing an aim that is legitimate under the Covenant, is not discriminatory.<fnref n="171" />

However, the State has a margin of appreciation (MOA) according to European jurisprudence, “in assessing whether and to what extent differences in otherwise similar

<footnote n="164">¹⁶⁴ Hennebel and Tigroudja, *Traité* (n 149) 764.</footnote>

<footnote n="165">¹⁶⁵ Müimtaz Karakurt v Austria [2002] HRC CCPR/C/74/D/965/2000 [8.4]: ‘ [...] it is necessary to judge every case on its own facts.’</footnote>

<footnote n="166">¹⁶⁶ Moustaquim v Belgium [1991] ECtHR 12313/86; *Karakurt* (n 173) para 8.4.</footnote>

<footnote n="167">¹⁶⁷ *Young v Australia* [2003] HRC CCPR/C/78/D/941/2000 (discrimination in matters of allowances owed to war veterans); *Atala Riffo and Daughters v Chile* (n 156) (discrimination based on the mother sexual orientation).</footnote>

<footnote n="168">¹⁶⁸ *Pla and Puncernau v Andorra* [2004] ECtHR 69498/01.</footnote>

<footnote n="169">¹⁶⁹ *DH v the Czech Republic* (n 147) (discrimination due to the placement in special schools of Romani children); *Oršuš v Croatia* [2010] ECtHR 15766/03; *Sampanis (2012)* (n 160); *DH and others v the Czech Republic* [2007] European Court of Human Rights 57325/00; *Sampanis and others v Greece* [2008] European Court of Human Rights 32526/05.</footnote>

<footnote n="170">¹⁷⁰ *Burden v the United Kingdom* (n 147) para 60.</footnote>

<footnote n="171">¹⁷¹ *G v Australia* [2017] HRC CCPR/C/119/D/2172/2012 [7.12]; *Muller and Engelhard v Namibia* [2002] HRC CCPR/C/74/D/919/2000 [6.7]; ‘General Comment No. 18: Non-Discrimination’ (n 130) para 13; *Jacob and Jantina Hendrika Van Oord v Netherlands* [1997] HRC CCPR/C/60/D/658/1995 (the difference of treatment was based on treaty arrangements); *Case ‘relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium’ (merits)* [1968] ECtHR 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64.</footnote>
situations justify a different treatment”.<fnref n="172" /> As explained in *Biao v. Denmark* (2016), the MOA is narrower for cases of allegations of racial discrimination.<fnref n="173" /> On the contrary, a wider margin exists for “general measures concerning economic or social strategy”.<fnref n="174" /> This MOA allowed the ECtHR, more than the IACtHR, to establish a strategy aimed at avoiding discriminatory questions.<fnref n="175" />

### 3. States’ obligations

Like any right protected by international human rights convention, non-discrimination places a duty on the State. Each international and regional human rights instrument develops its own obligation. However, a general negative and positive dichotomy in obligation can be found:

**Negative obligation** – It corresponds to the State’s duty to not deny the enjoyment and exercise of individual rights. In terms of discrimination, this implies that the State cannot discriminate against individuals placed under its jurisdictions.<fnref n="176" />

<footnote n="172">¹⁷² *Burden v the United Kingdom* (n 147) para 60; *Van Raalte v Netherlands* [1997] ECtHR 20060/92 [39]; *Stec v the United Kingdom* [2006] ECtHR [GC] 65731/01, 65900/01 [51].</footnote>

<footnote n="173">¹⁷³ *Biao v Denmark* (n 154) para 118; *Hode and Abdi v the United Kingdom* [2012] ECtHR 22341/09 [53].</footnote>

<footnote n="174">¹⁷⁴ *Burden Burden v the United Kingdom* (n 147) para 60; *Stec v the United Kingdom* (n 180) para 52; *National & Provincial Building Society, Leeds Permanent Building Society and Yorkshire Building Society v the United Kingdom* [1997] ECtHR 21319/93; 21449/93; 21675/93 [80].</footnote>

<footnote n="175">¹⁷⁵ Hennebel and Tigoudja, *Traité* (n 149) 766. For more information on the difference between the ECtHR and IACtHR see *Part 4 – Chapter 8*.</footnote>

<footnote n="176">¹⁷⁶ Dinah Shelton and Ariel Gould, ‘Positive and Negative Obligations’ in Dinah Shelton (ed), *The Oxford Handbook of International Human Rights Law* (OUP 2013).</footnote>
**Positive obligations** – States have the obligation to prevent, investigate,<fnref n="177" /> punish¹⁷⁸ and repair or fulfil substantive equality,¹⁷⁹ establish provision of effective remedies,<fnref n="180" /> prosecute,<fnref n="181" /> and compensate for damages suffered because of discrimination.<fnref n="182" /> Concretely this implies that States must adopt a series of behaviour that varies according to the vulnerability of individuals.<fnref n="183" />

The obligation to investigate, punish and repair results from a need to combat, and put an end to impunity.¹⁸⁴ In situations of extrajudicial executions or forced disappearances,<fnref n="185" /> States have the obligation to establish an impartial and effective investigation¹⁸⁶ through independent and impartial investigation authorities.<fnref n="187" /> The investigation has to follow several criteria: to be conducted with due diligence,¹⁸⁸ take place within the jurisdiction courts;<fnref n="189" /> the State has an

<footnote n="177">¹⁷⁷ Véliz Franco v Guatemala [2014] IACtHR Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 277 [B.4]; Abdu v Bulgaria [2014] ECtHR 26827/08 [28]; Mahali Dawas and Yousef Shava v Denmark [2012] CERD CERD/C/80/D/46/2009 [7.4]; Vicky Hernández v Honduras [2021] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 422 [174]. Vicky Hernández death reflects the violence and systematic discrimination faced by LGBTI community in Latin America. It is the first time that a member State of the Court has been found guilty of violence against the LGBTI community. This turning point in the jurisprudence marks an important step towards better protection of the LGBTI minority in Honduras.</footnote>

<footnote n="180">¹⁸⁰ Digna Ochoa y familiares v México [2021] IACtHR Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 447 [99]; Sales Pimenta v Brasil [2022] IACtHR Excepciones Preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Sentencia, Series C, No. 454 [84].</footnote>

<footnote n="181">¹⁸¹ It corresponds to not only the respect of the right to non-discrimination but also States obligation to achieve equality in practice, through affirmative action. Juridical Condition and rights of the undocumented migrants (n 117) para 88.</footnote>

<footnote n="182">¹⁸² LR v Slovak Republic [2005] CERD CERD/CC/66/D/31/2003 [10.2-10.10]; Calvelli and Ciglio v Italy [2002] ECtHR 32967/96 [51]; Tysiac v Poland [2007] ECtHR 5410/03 [117]; Rotaru v Romania [2000] ECtHR 28341/95 [55-63]; Mina Cuero v Ecuador [2022] IACtHR Excepción Preliminar, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 464 [116].</footnote>

<footnote n="183">¹⁸³ MC v Bulgaria [2003] ECtHR 39272/98; SVP v Bulgaria [2012] CEDAW CEDAW/C/53/D/31/2011.</footnote>

<footnote n="185">¹⁸⁵ Fernández Ortega v Mexico [2010] IACtHR Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 215 [183].</footnote>

<footnote n="187">¹⁸⁷ Hennebel and Tigroudja, A Commentary (n 168) 28.</footnote>

<footnote n="189">¹⁸⁹ 'White Van' (Paniagua Morales et al) v Guatemala [1998] IACtHR Merits, Series C, No. 37 [173].</footnote>

<footnote n="189">¹⁸⁹ Serrano Cruz Sisters v El Salvador [2005] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 120 [65]; Leguizamón Zaván v Paragua [2022] IACtHR Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 473 [72;97];.</footnote>

<footnote n="180">¹⁸⁰ Giulani and Gaggio v Italy [2011] ECtHR 23458/02 [298.29]; El-Masri v the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [2012] ECtHR 39630/09 [182].</footnote>

<footnote n="180">¹⁸⁰ Cantoral Huamaní and García Santa Cruz v Peru [2007] IACtHR Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 167 [133].</footnote>

<footnote n="181">¹⁸¹ Serrano Cruz Sisters v El Salvador [2005] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 120 [65]; Leguizamón Zaván v Paragua [2022] IACtHR Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 473 [72;97];.</footnote>

<footnote n="182">¹⁸² Rochela Massacre v Colombia [2007] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 163.</footnote>
obligation to coordinate different institutions,<fnref n="190" /> and authorities have an obligation to collaborate during the investigation.<fnref n="191" />

Protecting human rights requires the State to take steps towards the prevention of human rights violation. While this is a general obligation found across international human rights conventions, certain national systems still stay attached to the notion of equality. However, the IACtHR and the ECtHR abandoned this idea.<fnref n="192" /> In fact, the IACtHR rapidly used the positive obligation theory to order States to implement regulations guaranteeing actual equality, and thus avoid situations of formal equality leading to discrimination, particularly, in cases concerning indigenous groups.<fnref n="193" /> At the European level, the concept of vulnerability and positive obligation used together prompted the ECtHR to require States to introduce measures of positive discrimination for these vulnerable groups. Consequently, more cases related to racism were brought before the Court.<fnref n="194" />

This obligation includes legal, political, administrative, and cultural<fnref n="195" /> factors, and aims to promote human rights protection.<fnref n="196" /> In Velasquez-Rodriguez v. Honduras (1988), the Court argued that no detailed list could be established, as it considers the laws and conditions of each State. However, an obligation to protect needs is general.<fnref n="197" /> State agents and private actors must

<footnote n="190">¹⁹⁰ Cepeda Vargas v Colombia [2010] IACtHR Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 213 [216]; Omeara Carrascal v Colombia [2018] IACtHR Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas, Series C, No. 368 [293].</footnote>

<footnote n="191">¹⁹¹ Myrna Mack Chang v Guatemala [2003] IACtHR Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 101; Río Negro Massacres v Guatemala [2012] IACtHR Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 250 [209].</footnote>

<footnote n="192">¹⁹² Thlimmenos v Greece [2000] ECtHR [GC] 34369/97 [44]; Chapman v the United Kingdom [2001] ECtHR [GC] 27238/95 [94].</footnote>

<footnote n="193">¹⁹³ Yatama Case v Nicaragua [2005] IACtHR Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations and Costs [201].</footnote>

<footnote n="194">¹⁹⁴ Nachova v Bulgaria [2005] ECtHR 43577/98; 43579/98; Moldovan v Romania (no 2) [2005] ECtHR 41138/98; 64320/01; Bekos and Koutropoulos v Greece [2005] ECtHR 15250/02; Timishev v Russia [2005] ECtHR 55762/00; 55974/00; DH v the Czech Republic (n 147).</footnote>

<footnote n="195">¹⁹⁵ Escher v Brazil [2009] IACtHR Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 200 [172] (facilitate human rights defenders work); Perozo v Venezuela [2009] IACtHR Preliminary Objections, Merits, Reparations, and Costs, Series C, No. 195 [117] (freedom of expression through establishing informative pluralism).</footnote>

<footnote n="196">¹⁹⁶ Velasquez Rodriguez v Honduras [1988] IACtHR Merits, Series C, No. 4 [175].</footnote>

<footnote n="197">¹⁹⁷ Juan Humberto Sánchez v Honduras [2003] IACtHR Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 99 [110]; Montero Aranguren et al (Detention Center of Catia) v Venezuela [2006] IACtHR Preliminary Objection, Merits, Reparations and Costs, Series C, No. 150 [75] (State agents); Juridical Condition and rights of the undocumented migrants (n 117) para 140 (private actors).</footnote>