A/HRC/10/62 page 12 (b) In Brazil, testimonies pointed to existing discriminatory practices against people affected by Hansen’s disease which were mostly subtle and silent, such as social rejection. Nevertheless, there were also overt practices such as dismissal from work, verbal abuse and eviction from rented flats; (c) In China, the Regulation on the Prevention and Control of Leprosy (chapter IV, article 16) issued by the Ministry of Health in September 1988 clearly prohibited discrimination against people affected by leprosy and their families in terms of education, employment, army service and marriage. However, social discrimination against people affected by leprosy and their families was still being witnessed by medical staff and the general public, especially in areas surrounding villages historically related to the disease; (d) Testimonies stated that such discrimination may lead to medical staff failing to provide treatment in time or to even enter specific villages where there was knowledge of persons affected by leprosy, even if already cured. Similarly, separation from the family was particularly felt by older villagers cut off from their family for decades. Reference was also made to children of persons affected by leprosy who were still facing restrictions in education, employment and other areas of life; (e) Testimonies from Ethiopia referred to laws and practices that discriminated against persons affected by leprosy. It was noted that there were no legal frameworks to protect them and to promote their rights. The lack of such legislation had a serious impact on the right to housing and the right to work. During the establishment of the Organization of African Union in the 1960s, people affected by leprosy and their families were relocated from Addis Ababa to the remote villages of Shashemene and Addis Tesfa Hiwot. Financial support secured from the Canadian International Development Agency and the technical assistance provided by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs enabled these people to support themselves through agriculture until 1991. However, when the newly established regional governments in these areas devised new policies, it was decided that those affected by leprosy and their family members should move and their land was given away to investors without any compensation. Many individuals who lost their land were reported to have serious disabilities or were elderly. Reference was also made to the lack of awareness-raising campaigns about the disease, and to misguided religious attitudes, according to which leprosy was a curse for sins committed. According to testimonies, this attitude has had also a significant impact on the social status and benefits of persons affected by leprosy and their families, for instance in relation to marriage; (f) Testimonies from Ghana referred to obstacles linked to marriage and employment. Social rejection remained part of daily life. There was a belief that a person affected by leprosy would bring bad luck; (g) In India, testimonies referred to existing discriminatory laws relating to leprosy, such as the recently publicized Orissa Municipal Act, which disqualified persons affected by leprosy from contesting elections or holding the post of councillor of a municipality. The Supreme Court upheld this law in September 2008, when a man who had been disqualified from holding a post brought his case before the Court. There were also discriminatory provisions relating to marriage and divorce, juvenile justice, transportation, life insurance and industrial disputes for persons affected by leprosy in existing laws;