Citizenship, Constitutions and Peoples on the Margins term be extended to residents? However, going further empirically, the question is actually whether all citizens have access to drinking water. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the European Court of Human Rights (‘ECtHR’) decided on the case of Hudorović v Slovenia (‘Hudorović’), where two Romani communities were suing Slovenia for not granting them access to drinking water. 3 As previous reports from nongovernmental organisations (‘NGOs’) have shown, a great number of Romani communities in Europe (including Slovenia) have no access to drinking water. 4 The individuals from the Romani communities in Hudorović demanded their constitutional right as citizens from the Slovenian government. However, the government replied that they had done their utmost to provide access to drinking water for the two communities and that connecting an informal Romani settlement (that they claimed was built without permits) to the water system would represent discrimination against the majority of citizens in Slovenia: The Government pointed out that illegally constructed buildings were not allowed to be connected to public utility infrastructure facilities such as drinking-water supply and the discharge of wastewater, emphasising in this regard that the applicable laws applied uniformly to everyone and further arguing that any provisions to the contrary would amount to discrimination against the majority visà-vis the Roma community. 5 While the ECtHR decided that there had been no violation of the right to private life under art 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 6 the NGOs representing the two communities have argued that the decision further discriminated an already marginalised group of citizens, especially in context of the global pandemic: how can a minority population stay safe from COVID-19 when they have no facilities to wash their hands? 7 The argument of the Slovenian Government — that providing equal rights to a minority would be discriminatory towards the majority — was not the first time a government has argued in such a manner. Similar arguments have been previously made in other contexts. For example, in 2007 the United Nations passed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (‘UNDRIP’). 8 There were four countries that initially voted against UNDRIP: Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States of America, all of them settler-colonial states. Among the principles that UNDRIP introduced was an obligation for governments to gain the informed consent of indigenous people in matters that concern them 3 4 5 6 7 8 Hudorović v Slovenia (European Court of Human Rights, Second Section, Application Nos 24816/14 and 25140/14, 10 March 2020) (‘Hudorović’). Thirsting for Justice: Europe’s Roma Denied Access to Clean Water and Sanitation (Report, European Roma Rights Centre 2017) 8; Marek Szilvasi, ‘Parallel Claims to the Human Rights to Water: The Case of Roma in Slovenia’ in Daniele Archibugi and Ali Emre Benli (eds), Claiming Citizenship Rights in Europe: Emerging Challenges and Political Agents (Routledge 2017) 148. Hudorović (n 3) [127]. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, ETS No.005 (entered into force 3 September 1953). Julija Sardelić, ‘“Protecting Our Own People” in the Pandemic Politics?’, Discover Society (Blog Post, 17 April 2020) <https://discoversociety.org/2020/04/17/protecting-our-ownpeople-in-the-pandemic-politics/>. United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, UN Doc A/RES/61/295 (2 October 2007) (‘UNDRIP’). 385