- 20 - 32. It however recalls that the Appendix to the Charter states that: “1. Without prejudice to Article 12, paragraph 4, and Article 13, paragraph 4, the persons covered by Articles 1 to 17 and 20 to 31 include foreigners only in so far as they are nationals of other Parties lawfully resident or working regularly within the territory of the Party concerned, subject to the understanding that these articles are to be interpreted in the light of the provisions of Articles 18 and 19.” 33. The Committee follows the same reasoning as in its decision in the complaint on Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Italy (Complaint No. 58/2009, decision on the merits of 25 June 2010, §33) and notes that it is extremely complex, in the circumstances of the present complaint, to distinguish to whom the protection guaranteed by the Charter and its Appendix applies without restrictions. The Committee considers that the lack of identification possibilities should not lead to depriving persons fully protected by the Charter of their rights under it. The Committee notes that the Government does not raise any argument on the scope of the complaint in the light of the Appendix to the Charter. 34. The Committee also reiterates that those who do not fall within the definition in the Appendix cannot be deprived of their rights linked to life and dignity under the Charter (International Federation of Human Rights Leagues, FIDH v. France, Complaint No. 14/2003, decision on the merits of 8 September 2004, § 32; Defence for Children International (DCI) v. the Netherlands, Complaint No. 47/2008, decision on the merits of 20 October 2009, §37, and Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Italy, Complaint No. 58/2009, decision on the merits of 25 June 2010, §33). In fact, it reiterates that the restriction in paragraph 1 of the Appendix attaches to a wide variety of social rights and impacts on them differently and that such a restriction should not end up having unreasonably detrimental effects where the protection of vulnerable groups of persons is at stake (Defence for Children International (DCI) v. the Netherlands, Complaint No. 47/2008, decision on the merits of 20 October 2009, §37). 35. The Committee also recalls that special attention is to be given to the specific situation of children (Defence for Children International (DCI) v. the Netherlands, Complaint No. 47/2008, decision on the merits of 20 October 2009, §§23-29). Prohibition of discrimination (Article E) 36. The Committee recalls that Article E not only prohibits direct discrimination but also all forms of indirect discrimination. It also recalls that discrimination may arise either in situations where people in the same situation are treated differently or where people in different situations are treated identically. Discrimination may also arise by failing to take due and positive account of all relevant differences or by failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the rights and collective advantages that are open to all are genuinely accessible by and to all (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Italy, Complaint No. 58/2009, decision on the merits of 25 June 2010, §35).