The obligation on States to enable minorities to develop their culture is not absolute. There are two limitations: where specific practices are in "violation of national law" and where they are "contrary to international standards" (UNDM, article 4). Any prohibitions on cultural practices must be based on reasonable and objective grounds. 'Contrary to international standards' means that States are free to (and should) prohibit practices that violate international human rights standards. This clause responds to criticisms sometimes made against minorities when cultural traditions violate the human rights of individual members. This argument is often made in relation to the rights of women.¹⁰ States may not use this clause to prohibit whole cultures on the grounds that a specific practice violates human rights norms; the restrictions must concern the practice in question. Legislation in itself will not usually be sufficient to end these practices. At a minimum, education programmes will be needed. The most effective methods of eradicating harmful practices require the cooperation of all sections of the affected group.

Sometimes a group that has experienced discrimination or marginalisation could perceive legitimate state concern over specific cultural practices that violate human rights norms as a further attack on the group. In this instance, there may be a negative reaction from the group (or from the group's leaders) to state interference. On the other hand, cultures are not homogeneous and there may be those within a community who are not in favour of harmful practices and who are working to eradicate them.¹¹ States could work with the group to eradicate harmful practices in a way that does not threaten the overall identity of the group.

Practices within minority communities that violate the human rights of individual members should be prohibited. Prohibiting specific practices does not permit prohibition of whole cultural identities.