A/HRC/43/47/Add.2 8. As mentioned in paragraph 11 of the Report, Spain is a State party to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. It is important to clarify in this regard that the content of the reports prepared by Spain with respect to the Convention refers exclusively to the “comunidad gitana” (roma, gipsies) which, while not constituting a “national minority”, is the only group that falls within the spirit of the Framework Convention. 9. Spain regrets the lack of rigour applied in preparing the Report, which contains subjective judgements and claims not supported by any data, evidence-based information or arguments, all of which detracts from its conclusions. By way of example, we refer to the following paragraphs: 10. As explained above and as mentioned in the Report, article 14 of the Spanish Constitution of 1978 and article 23 of Organic Law 4/2000 contain an open-ended, nonexhaustive list of possible grounds of discrimination. Despite this fact, paragraphs 17 and 36 of the Report claim that the omission of language as a ground of discrimination in said provisions “is potentially inconsistent with a number of international treaty obligations”. This claim is neither explained nor supported elsewhere in the Report. It is not correct that, as the Report claims, “it has been suggested by Spanish officials that these provisions are ‘openended’; rather, as reflected in the exact wording of article 14 of the Spanish Constitution,1 this provision actually contains an open-ended clause which includes any personal or social condition or circumstance, in addition to the grounds expressly mentioned. Established constitutional case law endorses this interpretation (most definitively, Constitutional Court Ruling 75/1983 of 3 August, Legal Basis 3), which is binding for all public authorities. Furthermore, it must be stressed that article 10.2 of the Spanish Constitution requires that the fundamental rights recognized therein be interpreted in accordance with the international treaties on human rights signed by Spain. As a result of this obligation, constitutional and ordinary case law reflects this interpretation of article 14 of the Constitution in recognizing the prohibition of discrimination on different grounds than those specifically mentioned (Constitutional Court Ruling 41/2006 of 13 February is one of many such examples). And, of course, this case law firmly and repeatedly maintains that the use of the term “Spaniards” must not be interpreted as stripping non-Spaniards of their rights. Consequently, it is not possible, as the Special Rapporteur claims, for judicial and other authorities to interpret the aforementioned provisions “liberally” in a manner “inconsistent with a number of international treaty obligations”. Any such interpretation would be immediately reversed by the Constitutional Court or, if applicable, the European Court of Human Rights, whose case law is also crystal clear in this regard. The Report’s own incoherence in this regard should be noted; an incoherence which becomes clear when comparing paragraphs 36 and 37, on the one hand, with 38, on the other. The Rapporteur concludes paragraph 38 by recommending that Spain amend its legislation to include all possible grounds of discrimination. This recommendation proves paradoxical, as not even the Report itself is capable of specifying all the possible grounds of discrimination and avails itself of an “open-ended” provision, ending its list with the formula “or other status”. 11. In a certain number of paragraphs, the Rapporteur offers subjective judgements, not supported by data or evidence-based information. Thus, paragraph 33 conveys the suspicion that the police forces and the judiciary, institutions which are obliged to protect the most vulnerable, ridicule and harass these people and even commit acts of violence against them. To support such sweeping statements as are included in the Report, the Special Rapporteur should provide objective data—such as statistics, official complaints or reports—that properly reflect the existence of such serious conduct. 12. Contrary to the claims in paragraph 34, the mere filming of police officers, or processing of their data, does not constitute an infraction in Spain. In keeping with Constitutional Court case law, which determines that administrative infractions cannot be interpreted in a manner that is prejudicial to fundamental rights, Instruction 13/2018 of the State Secretariat for Security of 13 October 2018 (subsequent to the visit of the Working 1 “Spaniards are equal before the law and may not be discriminated against in any way on the grounds of birth, race, sex, religion, opinion or any other personal or social condition or circumstance” (article 14 of the Spanish Constitution). 3