Decision on merits; Subjects: CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS, NORTH MACEDONIA; [CCPR: UNO-Pakt II, Internationaler Pakt über bürgerliche und politische Rechte; Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques; Patto II]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-13420 (E) 031125 041125
Human Rights Committee
Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the
Optional Protocol, concerning communications
No. 3613/2019 and No. 3616/2019*, **, ***
Communications submitted by:
Senija Kjazimova and Alajdin Abdulovski
(represented by counsel, the European Roma
Rights Centre)
Alleged victims:
The authors
State Party:
North Macedonia
Dates of communications:
6 April and 18 May 2018 (initial submissions)
Document references:
Decisions taken pursuant to rule 92 of the
Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to
the State Party on 24 and 27 May 2019 (not
issued in document form)
Date of adoption of Views:
9 July 2025
Subject matter:
Refusal of border officials to permit Roma
persons to leave their country
Procedural issues:
Exhaustion of domestic remedies; inadmissibility
ratione materiae; same matter – another
procedure of international investigation or
settlement
Substantive issues:
Equality before the law; fair trial; freedom of
movement; discrimination; discrimination on the
basis of ethnic origin; discrimination on the basis
of race; discrimination on other grounds
Articles of the Covenant:
2 (1), 12 (2), 14 (1) and 26
Articles of the Optional Protocol:
1, 3 and 5 (2) (b)
1.1
The authors of the communications are Senija Kjazimova and Alajdin Abdulovski,
nationals of North Macedonia born in 1968 and 1966, respectively. They claim that the State
Party has violated their rights under articles 2 (1), 12 (2) and 26 of the Covenant. In addition,
* Adopted by the Committee at its 144th session (23 June–17 July 2025).
** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the present
communication: Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Carlos
Ramón Fernández Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia Leinarte, Bacre Waly
Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Teraya Koji,
Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.
*** Individual opinions by Committee members Rodrigo A. Carazo (concurring) and Laurence R. Helfer
(concurring) are annexed to the present Views.
United Nations
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights
Distr.: General
16 October 2025
Original: English
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
2
GE.25-13420
Mr. Abdulovski alleges that the State Party has violated his rights under article 14 (1) of the
Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 12 March 1995.
The authors are represented by counsel.
1.2
On 9 July 2025, pursuant to rule 97 (3) of its rules of procedure, the Committee
decided to join communications No. 3613/2019 and No. 3616/2019, which had been
submitted separately, for consideration and the issuance of a joint decision thereon in view
of their substantial factual and legal similarity.
Facts as submitted by the authors
Communication No. 3613/2019
2.1
Ms. Kjazimova and her family members are of Roma ethnicity and are immediately
identifiable as such by others in North Macedonia because of their dark skin colour.
2.2
On 18 March 2015, Ms. Kjazimova, her husband and their 16-year-old daughter were
travelling by bus from North Macedonia to France. The purpose of their journey was to visit
the couple’s son, who lived in France, and to attend their grandson’s birthday party. They
were carrying their biometric passports, €1,450 in cash, their travel insurance documents and
a letter of guarantee in French, with a certified translation into Macedonian. The letter was
signed by a national of France who had guaranteed to cover the family’s living expenses from
25 January to 25 April 2015.
2.3
Ms. Kjazimova and her family were the only persons of Roma ethnicity on the bus.
When the bus arrived at the Tabanovce checkpoint, at the border between North Macedonia
and Serbia, the State Party’s border guards conducted a routine passport control. One border
guard entered the bus and collected all the passengers’ passports. Shortly thereafter, the bus
driver asked for Ms. Kjazimova’s husband by name. The latter exited the bus while
Ms. Kjazimova and her daughter stayed on the bus. A border guard in a booth asked
Ms. Kjazimova’s husband about his final destination and if he was carrying any money. Her
husband declared the amount of currency that he was carrying. The guard informed him that
in order to enter France, he was required to carry approximately €3,000. Ms. Kjazimova’s
husband disagreed, indicating that the family’s living expenses would be paid by their host
and showing the guard the letter of guarantee. The guard left the booth but quickly returned
and informed Ms. Kjazimova’s husband that the family could not continue their onward
journey. The guard asked him to request that Ms. Kjazimova and the couple’s daughter exit
the bus. After they had disembarked, the guard gave them back their passports, which had
been stamped with an exit stamp. No other passengers were questioned or ordered to exit the
bus. The remaining passengers continued their journey. Owing to that unexpected situation,
Ms. Kjazimova and her family had to find transportation to return from the border to their
home town. They felt that they had been victims of racial discrimination and had been
offended and shamed in front of the other bus passengers for being the only ones who were
not permitted to leave the country. They were also ashamed when they returned home and
had to explain their situation to the people they knew. Ms. Kjazimova and her husband have
not attempted to leave the country since then, although their daughter has since travelled to
Germany.
2.4
On 23 September 2015, Ms. Kjazimova filed a civil claim with the Basic Court of
Bitola against the Ministry of the Interior. She asserted, inter alia, that by refusing to allow
her to leave North Macedonia on 18 March 2015, the authorities had subjected her to
discrimination based on her ethnicity and had violated her right to leave her own country.
She requested compensation for moral damages in an amount equivalent to €2,900. She
argued that the Ministry of the Interior applied a discriminatory policy to prevent Roma
persons from travelling to the member States of the European Union.
2.5
On 16 March 2016, the Basic Court of Bitola ruled partially in favour of
Ms. Kjazimova. It found that the Ministry of the Interior had violated her freedom of
movement and her right to leave her own country, awarding her €650 in compensation for
non-pecuniary damage. It found that there was no reason for the Ministry of the Interior to
deny Ms. Kjazimova and her family the right to leave North Macedonia as suspected
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
GE.25-13420
3
asylum-seekers or for lack of the necessary documents, as Ms. Kjazimova had a valid
biometric passport and documentary evidence explaining the purpose of her trip. Nonetheless,
the operative text of the court judgment did not contain any conclusion on Ms. Kjazimova’s
claim of discrimination, although the court did state that Ms. Kjazimova had been treated
unequally compared to other passengers who were on the bus that day and who had been able
to continue their journey.
2.6
On 13 April 2016, the Ministry of the Interior lodged an appeal against the decision
of the Basic Court of Bitola.
2.7
On 6 October 2016, the Bitola Court of Appeal rejected most of the grounds in the
appeal of the Ministry of the Interior and confirmed the judgment of the Basic Court of Bitola.
However, it reduced the amount of compensation awarded to €490. While the Court of
Appeal did not mention discrimination in its judgment, it noted that the Ministry of the
Interior had failed to submit any evidence that could prove that there were justified reasons,
prescribed by regulations, for which Ms. Kjazimova had not been permitted to leave North
Macedonia and that could prove that she had not been subjected to discrimination.
2.8
Ms. Kjazimova maintains that she has exhausted domestic remedies. The
Constitutional Court is ineffective for both human rights violations generally and in
Ms. Kjazimova’s
circumstances.
Between
2011
and
2015,
inclusive,
all
the
discrimination-related cases brought before the Constitutional Court were rejected.
2.9
On 9 March 2017, Ms. Kjazimova lodged an application concerning the same matter
before the European Court of Human Rights.1 On 18 May 2017, in a single-judge decision,
the European Court declared the application inadmissible on the ground that it did not meet
the admissibility criteria set forth in articles 34 and 35 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights). The
European Court did not provide further details regarding its reasoning.
Communication No. 3616/2019
2.10
Mr. Abdulovski is of Roma ethnicity. On 5 July 2014, he was travelling by bus to
Austria to visit his children and help his son move house. He was aware of the practice of
border guards stopping Roma persons at the border, so he carried on his person his bus ticket,
his travel insurance documents and a notarized letter of guarantee signed by his
daughter-in-law’s father, who promised to cover all the costs of his stay.
2.11 At the Tabanovce checkpoint, a border guard stopped the bus to inspect the passengers’
passports. Only Mr. Abdulovski and one other Roma person were told that they needed to be
checked further. The guard asked Mr. Abdulovski for a letter of guarantee for his stay in
Austria and asked how much money he was carrying. After some time, the guard returned
the passports to both individuals, marked with a stamp struck through with two parallel lines,
meaning that they had been refused permission to leave North Macedonia. The other
passengers continued their bus journey and, at around 1 a.m., Mr. Abdulovski was left on the
side of the road with his luggage and had to make his own way home. The border guards told
him and the other Roma individual to move away from the border crossing point quickly and
did not let them sit inside while waiting for their transportation to arrive. One border official
made an official record in which he stated that Mr. Abdulovski had been refused permission
to leave North Macedonia because, with only €500, he lacked sufficient funds to support his
20-day stay in Austria. Mr. Abdulovski was informed about that official record only during
the subsequent court proceedings.
2.12
On 17 February 2016, Mr. Abdulovski lodged a civil claim before the Basic Court of
Skopje 2 against the Ministry of the Interior. He alleged that he had been subjected to
discrimination and requested that the court prohibit the Ministry of the Interior from engaging
in further discriminatory acts and award him compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary
damages. He provided a certificate to the court showing that he was a registered tobacco
producer, to establish that he did not have an economic reason for travelling to Austria.
1 Application No. 20780/17.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
4
GE.25-13420
2.13
In 2016 and 2017, the Basic Court of Skopje 2 held several hearings on the matter.
On 23 March 2017, the court dismissed Mr. Abdulovski’s claim as unfounded. It considered
that Mr. Abdulovski had not been prevented from leaving the country based on a
discriminatory ground such as his Roma identity. The court stated, inter alia, that
Mr. Abdulovski had been denied permission to leave the country because of his insufficient
financial means to travel and because, based on a risk assessment, he fitted the profile of an
unfounded asylum claimant. The court also noted that the Ministry of the Interior’s internal
instructions on strengthening border controls did not explicitly mention Roma and that the
border guards treated all nationals wishing to cross the border equally. The court observed
that the stamp in Mr. Abdulovski’s passport indicated only an immediate, temporary ban on
leaving the country. The court found that, while the Ministry of the Interior had violated
Mr. Abdulovski’s right to leave the country, that was not the subject of his claim and the
court could not therefore make a separate finding on that issue. The court considered that the
refusal to allow Mr. Abdulovski to leave the country was not discriminatory.
2.14
On 6 July 2017, the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal filed by
Mr. Abdulovski and confirmed the lower court decision.2
2.15
Mr. Abdulovski maintains that he has exhausted domestic remedies and invokes the
same arguments cited in paragraph 2.8 above. He adds that in 2016, the Constitutional Court
rejected all eight discrimination-related cases that came before it. He states that he has not
submitted the same matter to another procedure of international investigation or settlement.
Complaint
3.1
The authors claim that the State Party violated their rights under articles 2 (1), 12 (2)
and 26 of the Covenant when border guards subjected them to racial profiling and prevented
them from leaving North Macedonia because of their Roma ethnicity. The authors and the
other Roma persons on the buses were the only persons who were questioned and prevented
from leaving the country. That fact alone shifts the burden of proof onto the State Party to
demonstrate that there was no discrimination.3
3.2
In addition, the domestic courts did not, as required, make a clear finding as to whether
Ms. Kjazimova had suffered discrimination. While the judgments included vague obiter dicta
suggesting that Ms. Kjazimova had been discriminated against, the operative parts of the
judgments addressed only her right to leave her own country.
3.3
In violation of article 14 (1), read in conjunction with article 26, of the Covenant, the
State Party violated Mr. Abdulovski’s right to a fair procedure. When a State Party’s courts
have adopted a policy of shifting the burden of proof in discrimination cases, the courts’
failure to shift that burden onto the defendant following a prima facie showing of
discrimination by a plaintiff violates the Covenant.4 Article 38 of the law on the prevention
of and protection from discrimination requires such shifting of the burden of proof. However,
in Mr. Abdulovski’s case, the courts placed the burden on him to prove that he had faced
discrimination. They did not consider the relevant facts that he had adduced regarding his
personal circumstances and a pattern of discrimination. Furthermore, the courts based their
conclusion that no discrimination had taken place on the fact that Mr. Abdulovski fitted the
profile of a potential asylum-seeker, despite the ample evidence that such profiling is
contaminated by racial discrimination.
3.4
On 25 June 2014, the Constitutional Court declared that articles 37 (1) (6) and 38 (4)
of the law on travel documents were incompatible with the constitutional right to freedom of
movement. Those provisions allowed the authorities to impose severe restrictions on the
freedom of movement of nationals of North Macedonia. The Constitutional Court noted that
protecting the State Party’s reputation or another State or upholding the immigration laws
2 The Court of Appeal upheld the finding that pursuant, inter alia, to article 12 (2) of the Covenant, the
Ministry of the Interior had violated Mr. Abdulovski’s right to leave the country. However, it
considered that because that claim had not been presented to the lower court, it could not render a
decision beyond what had been asked of it.
3 Williams Lecraft v. Spain (CCPR/C/96/D/1493/2006), para. 7.4.
4 The authors cite V.S. v. Slovakia (CERD/C/88/D/56/2014), para. 7.4.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
GE.25-13420
5
did not fall within any of the permissible grounds for restricting the right to leave the country.
The Constitutional Court also stated that such a blanket measure was not proportionate
because it imposed excessive limitations on the freedom of movement.
3.5
The State Party’s border officials have engaged in a clear pattern of racial profiling of
Roma persons. Since 2011, the authors’ counsel, the European Roma Rights Centre, has
documented 145 cases involving 442 Roma persons (322 adults and 120 children) who were
denied permission to leave North Macedonia. In 14 per cent of those cases, the border guards
expressly referred to the Roma ethnic origin of the persons concerned as part of the
explanation for refusing to permit them to leave the country. In 68 per cent of the cases,
border officials asked Roma persons to demonstrate that they fulfilled the requirements of
Regulation (EC) No 562/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March
2006 (Schengen Borders Code) for entering the European Union. In 12 per cent of the cases,
the Roma persons prevented from leaving were not asked any questions and were simply
prevented from leaving the country.
3.6
In 2013, after his visit to North Macedonia, the Commissioner for Human Rights of
the Council of Europe noted that, “even though the authorities have argued that [border exit]
controls are not aimed at any particular ethnic group, there are clear indications that Roma
are disproportionately affected by the exit control measures in question. At the same time, it
is clear that the Macedonian authorities have developed a profile of a potential ‘unfounded’
or ‘false’ asylum seeker on the basis of information they receive from [European Union]
countries”.5 On 20 July 2015, the Human Rights Committee, in its concluding observations
on the third periodic report of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (now North
Macedonia), expressed concern that between 2011 and the end of 2014, thousands of
nationals had been denied exit from the territory of the country. It also expressed concern
about allegations of ethnic profiling, particularly of Roma, limiting freedom of movement
across the State Party’s borders.6
3.7
In its report of March 2016, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance
confirmed that racial profiling of members of the Roma community was used at the border
of North Macedonia in order to ensure strict adherence to the European Union travel and
immigration rules. Although border police officials had received training, they did not seem
to be aware of the discriminatory impact of racial profiling and did not intend to stop
engaging in it.7
3.8
The national Office of the Ombudsperson, in its reports of 2012, 2013 and 2014, stated
that it had received a significant number of complaints from Roma persons about ethnic
discrimination in relation to their freedom of movement. The Ombudsperson concluded that
the Ministry of the Interior discriminated against nationals of North Macedonia of Roma
ethnicity by preventing them from leaving the country.8
State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
4.1
In its submissions of 18 November 2019, concerning Ms. Kjazimova, and of 25 July
and 17 September 2019, concerning Mr. Abdulovski, the State Party considers that the
communications are inadmissible on the grounds described below. The State Party also
maintains that it is possible that the authors have submitted applications to the European
Court of Human Rights which have yet to be communicated to the State Party.
Communication No. 3613/2019
4.2
Ms. Kjazimova did not exhaust all domestic legal remedies as she did not file a motion
for retrial. The Bitola Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal of her request to prevent the
State Party from taking any future measures to violate her right to freedom of movement and
5 See https://rm.coe.int/16806db8a1, para. 101.
6 CCPR/C/MKD/CO/3, para. 16.
7 European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, “ECRI report on ‘the former Yugoslav
Republic of Macedonia’ (fifth monitoring cycle) – adopted on 18 March 2016”, para. 83.
8 For example, https://www.theioi.org/downloads/8f1rm/GI%202014-Ang.pdf, p. 12.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
6
GE.25-13420
exit the country. Against that finding, Ms. Kjazimova has the right, under articles 392 to 399
of the law on civil procedure, to file a motion for a retrial. She has not done so. Pursuant to
article 392 (9) of that law, a motion for retrial may be filed within 30 days from the date on
which the party could have presented new evidence.
4.3
In addition, Ms. Kjazimova could have filed an application to the Constitutional Court
but did not do so. The Constitutional Court protects human rights and freedoms, including
the right to non-discrimination. Citizens may file an application to the Constitutional Court
within two months from the date on which they learn of the alleged violation of their rights
or freedoms.
4.4
Given that the individual application filed by Ms. Kjazimova was not transmitted to
the State Party, it cannot present its position on the allegations she made therein.9
Communication No. 3616/2019
4.5
Mr. Abdulovski failed to exhaust domestic remedies because, like Ms. Kjazimova, he
filed neither a motion for retrial to contest his unsuccessful domestic claim nor an application
to the Constitutional Court to invoke the alleged violations of his rights.
4.6
In addition, Mr. Abdulovski’s communication is inadmissible because it is manifestly
ill-founded. As he noted, in its decision of 2017, the Skopje Court of Appeal found that he
had not invoked before the lower court the right to freedom of movement and that the Court
of Appeal was barred from deciding on issues not raised in lower court claims.
4.7
The Basic Court of Skopje 2 correctly found that Mr. Abdulovski had not been
prevented from leaving North Macedonia or subjected to discrimination because of his race,
skin colour or Roma ethnicity (i.e. on a discriminatory ground). The Basic Court examined
the evidence presented and heard witness testimony before determining that the border police
officer had not violated Mr. Abdulovski’s right to equal treatment. In addition, he left the
country on 8 July 2014, only three days after the event in question. His claims are thus without
merit.
Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
Communication No. 3613/2019
5.1
In her comments of 7 January 2020, Ms. Kjazimova reiterates that she was not
required to apply to the Constitutional Court to exhaust domestic remedies for the reasons
previously stated. She was also not required to file a motion for a retrial because such a
motion must be based on new facts or evidence, which she did not have.
Communication No. 3616/2019
5.2
Mr. Abdulovski reiterates that he was not required to file a motion for retrial or an
application to the Constitutional Court, which continued its pattern of rejecting
discrimination-related complaints in 2017 and 2018.
5.3
The fact that Mr. Abdulovski was permitted to leave North Macedonia three days after
the incident in question does not weaken his claim. He and other Roma persons have never
alleged that all Roma persons have been prevented from leaving the country at all times. That
is not how racial profiling works.
5.4
Rather, Mr. Abdulovski claims that border guards disproportionately targeted Roma
persons, stopped them as part of a pattern and often prevented them from leaving. Therefore
Roma persons had to anticipate that they would be targeted and stopped more frequently than
non-Roma persons and thus had to ensure that they could present evidence that would never
be expected of non-Roma persons travelling abroad. That constitutes discrimination.
5.5
In 2016, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of
National Minorities of the Council of Europe issued an opinion in which it stated that there
9 Ms. Kjazimova’s submission was transmitted to the State Party twice.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
GE.25-13420
7
had been documented incidents of ethnic profiling at external borders directed primarily at
persons belonging to the Roma minority. It also stated that repeated independent surveys
indicated an established practice of not allowing Roma persons to leave the country, despite
having valid travel documents.10
State Party’s additional observations
6.1
In its additional observations of 13 January 2025 concerning communication
No. 3613/2019, the State Party maintains that Ms. Kjazimova has been provided with
effective legal remedies, in accordance with domestic legislation and in line with the
Committee’s jurisprudence.11 In particular, in 2016, the Basic Court of Bitola established that
the Ministry of the Interior had violated Ms. Kjazimova’s rights to freedom of movement and
to leave the country. Accordingly, the Court ordered the Ministry to pay her a fair amount of
compensation for non-material damages, in addition to statutory default interest accruing
from 16 March 2016 until the date of payment. The appellate court upheld that judgment and
merely amended the amount of compensation awarded. The Ministry of the Interior paid
Ms. Kjazimova in accordance with the court judgment and the relevant enforcement order,
thus providing effective reparation.
6.2
The State Party also took measures to prevent similar violations in the future.
Specifically, on 25 June 2014, the Constitutional Court adopted decision No. U 189/2012, in
which it rendered null and void two provisions of the law on travel documents of citizens of
North Macedonia. Article 37 (1) of the law required that passport or visa applications be
rejected where the applicant had been forcibly returned or expelled from another State
because of actions contrary to regulations on the entry and stay in that State. Article 38 (4)
specified a time limit of one year for the reason for rejection.
6.3
The Constitutional Court declared that those provisions were unconstitutional, finding
that the restriction imposed was disproportionate and excessively limited the right to freedom
of movement, specifically the right to travel abroad. According to the Constitutional Court,
for a State to restrict the right or freedom of its own citizens who are in possession of a valid
travel document to leave their own country, there must be truly serious and exceptional
circumstances, such as those expressly outlined in article 27 (3) of the Constitution
(protecting State security or public health or conducting criminal proceedings). Protecting
the country’s reputation and other countries’ entry and stay regimes (e.g. in the Schengen
area) did not meet the criteria in article 27 (3) of the Constitution. In view of the above, the
communication submitted by Ms. Kjazimova is inadmissible and unfounded.
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Consideration of admissibility
7.1
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must
decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is
admissible under the Optional Protocol.
7.2
The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional
Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under any other procedure of
international investigation or settlement.
7.3
The Committee notes the State Party’s position that the authors did not avail
themselves of all domestic remedies, as required by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol,
insofar as such remedies appear to be effective in the given case and are de facto available to
the author.12 The Committee notes that Mr. Abdulovski did not invoke the right to freedom
of movement before the Basic Court of Skopje 2. The Committee also notes that it is not clear
10 Council of Europe, Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
Minorities, “Fourth opinion on ‘the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia’, adopted on 24
February 2016” (ACFC/OP/IV(2016)001), para. 27.
11 Achabal Puertas v. Spain (CCPR/C/107/D/1945/2010), para. 10.
12 For example, M.A.S. and I.E.J. v. Italy (CCPR/C/134/D/3589/2019), para. 8.4.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
8
GE.25-13420
from the communication whether Mr. Abdulovski raised in his appeal the substance of his
claim under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considers that it has not
been demonstrated that Mr. Abdulovski exhausted domestic remedies with respect to his
claims under articles 12 (2) and 14 (1) of the Covenant. Accordingly, those claims are
inadmissible under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.
7.4
Regarding the State Party’s position that the authors were required to file motions for
retrial, the Committee considers that in view of the authors’ assertion that they had no new
facts or evidence upon which to base a motion for retrial, that remedy was unavailable in
their circumstances and that they were therefore not required to exhaust it.
7.5
The Committee notes the State Party’s position that the authors did not exhaust
domestic remedies because they did not file applications to the Constitutional Court, which
examines violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The Committee recalls its
jurisprudence that, although there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies if they have
objectively no prospect of success, authors of communications must exercise due diligence
in the pursuit of available remedies and mere doubts or assumptions about their effectiveness
do not absolve the authors from exhausting them. 13 The Committee also recalls that in
situations where a State Party circumscribes rights of appeal with certain procedural
requirements, such as time limits or other technical requirements, an author is required to
comply with those requirements before he or she can be said to have exhausted domestic
remedies.14 Nonetheless, there is no obligation to exhaust domestic remedies where, for
example, under applicable domestic laws, the claim would inevitably be dismissed, or where
established jurisprudence of the highest domestic tribunals would preclude a positive result.15
In the present case, the authors do not assert that they could not access the Constitutional
Court, which has the competence to examine, inter alia, issues of discrimination.
7.6
Nonetheless, the Committee notes that the State Party has not disputed the authors’
assertion that the Constitutional Court was not effective because it had not found any
instances of discrimination against the Roma community between 2011 and the time when
they could have filed constitutional complaints (2016 for Ms. Kjazimova and 2017 for
Mr. Abdulovski). The State Party did not cite any judgments in which the Constitutional
Court had found discrimination to have occurred. The Committee further notes that in 2014
and 2015, the Constitutional Court reportedly dismissed complaints filed by several persons
who claimed that they had not been permitted to cross the State border owing to their Roma
origin.16 The Constitutional Court declared those complaints inadmissible on the ground that
the claimants had not provided sufficient evidence in support of their discrimination claims,
meaning that there was no evidence that the actions of the border police officers were linked
to the claimants’ ethnic origin.17
7.7
Since the State Party did not respond to the statistical data provided by the authors
with information that could establish that the Constitutional Court represented an effective
remedy for discrimination-related complaints, the Committee considers that the authors were
not required to exhaust that remedy with respect to their claims relating to article 26 of the
Covenant. Accordingly, the Committee finds that article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol
does not constitute an obstacle to the examination of those claims.
7.8
With respect to the authors’ claims under article 2 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee
recalls that the provisions of article 2 lay down general obligations for States Parties and
cannot, by themselves, give rise to a separate claim under the Optional Protocol, as they can
13 For example, Nabhari v. Australia (CCPR/C/142/D/3663/2019), para. 7.3; F.C.S. v. Spain
(CCPR/C/140/D/4063/2021), para. 6.4; W.L.W. v. South Africa (CCPR/C/140/D/3237/2018),
para. 6.4; and M.O. v. Germany (CCPR/C/140/D/3232/2018), para. 7.4.
14 V.G. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/139/D/2824/2016), para. 8.6.
15 For example, Länsman et al. v. Finland (CCPR/C/52/D/511/1992), para. 6.2; S.A. et al. v. Greece
(CCPR/C/121/D/2868/2016), para. 6.4; and B.G.V. v. Spain (CCPR/C/84/D/1095/2002/Rev.1),
para. 6.4.
16 European Court of Human Rights, Memedova and Others v. North Macedonia, Applications
No. 42429/16, No. 8934/18 and No. 9886/18, Judgment, 24 October 2023, para. 29.
17 Ibid.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
GE.25-13420
9
be invoked only in conjunction with other substantive articles of the Covenant. 18 The
Committee thus declares those claims inadmissible ratione materiae under article 3 of the
Optional Protocol.
7.9
The Committee considers that both the authors have sufficiently substantiated their
claims under article 26 of the Covenant and that Ms. Kjazimova has sufficiently substantiated
her claim under article 12 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee thus declares those claims
admissible and proceeds to examine them on the merits.
Consideration of the merits
8.1
The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information
made available to it by the parties, as provided for under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.
8.2
The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the State Party discriminated against
them based on their Roma ethnicity when it prevented them from leaving North Macedonia.
The Committee notes that the State Party did not respond to the substance of
Ms. Kjazimova’s specific claim in relation to article 26 of the Covenant and took the position
that Mr. Abdulovski had not been denied permission to leave the country on a discriminatory
ground and had been granted permission to leave a few days later.
8.3
The Committee recalls that, according to its general comment No. 18 (1989) on
non-discrimination, the term “discrimination” as used in the Covenant should be understood
to imply any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference which is based on any ground
such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, property, birth or other status, and which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or
impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by all persons, on an equal footing, of all
rights and freedoms (para. 7). However, differentiation of treatment based on the grounds
listed in article 26 does not constitute discrimination if it is based on reasonable and objective
criteria and if the aim is to achieve a purpose which is legitimate under the Covenant
(para. 13).
8.4
The Committee notes the following uncontested statements by the authors. They are
Roma and are immediately identifiable as such based on their appearance. They, along with
Ms. Kjazimova’s family and one other Roma person, were the only persons singled out by
the State Party’s border officials for checks when they attempted to leave the country. They
were the only persons on their respective buses who were not permitted to do so. The purpose
of their trips was to visit family and they were each carrying passports, proof of travel
insurance and letters of guarantee in which their family members agreed to cover the cost of
their expenses while abroad.
8.5
The Committee considers that the State Party did not present any evidence capable of
refuting the authors’ allegations and of showing that they had not been treated differently
because of their ethnic origin, or that such treatment was justified based on a legitimate aim.19
The Committee takes note of the information provided by the authors regarding a pattern of
ethnic profiling of Roma persons by the State Party’s officials when those persons were
attempting to leave the country (paras. 3.6–3.8 and 5.5). While the Basic Court of Skopje 2
reasoned that Mr. Abdulovski had been temporarily denied permission to leave based on his
profile as an unfounded asylum claimant and on his lack of financial means, the court did not
address the issue of the letter of guarantee which Mr. Abdulovski alleges he presented to the
border official, and did not explain why only he and the one other Roma person on the bus
were selected for checks by the border official. The Committee considers that the treatment
that Mr. Abdulovski encountered during the incident in question is not altered by the fact that
he was permitted to leave the country a few days later. Furthermore, the Committee takes
note of Ms. Kjazimova’s uncontested assertion that the statements in the domestic court
18 For example, Taylor et al. v. New Zealand (CCPR/C/138/D/3666/2019), para. 6.5; Billy et al. v.
Australia (CCPR/C/135/D/3624/2019), para. 7.4; D.Č. v. Lithuania (CCPR/C/134/D/3327/2019),
para. 8.5; Nepal v. Nepal (CCPR/C/132/D/2615/2015), para. 6.6; and X v. Australia
(CCPR/C/126/D/3580/2019), para. 4.3.
19 Williams Lecraft v. Spain, para. 7.4.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
10
GE.25-13420
decisions to the effect that she had been subjected to discrimination were not operative. In
the absence of convincing explanations from the State Party, the Committee considers it
reasonable to infer that the differentiation of treatment to which the authors were subjected –
namely, the denial of permission to leave their country – was based on their Roma identity,
not on reasonable and objective criteria. Accordingly, the Committee considers that such
treatment constituted discrimination against the authors on the ground of ethnic origin, in
violation of article 26 of the Covenant.
8.6
Regarding article 12 (2) of the Covenant, concerning Ms. Kjazimova’s right to leave
her own country, the Committee recalls that in its general comment No. 27 (1999), it stated
that freedom to leave the territory of a State may not be made dependent on any specific
purpose (para. 8). The Committee notes that the State Party’s authorities recognized that
Ms. Kjazimova’s rights under that provision had been violated and awarded her
compensation of approximately €650, which was reduced on appeal to approximately €490
without sufficient explanation. On appeal, the court reasoned that the initial amount had been
unjustified because it was disproportionate to the trauma caused to Ms. Kjazimova. Taking
into account the degree of emotional distress caused to Ms. Kjazimova during the incident in
question, the Committee considers that the reduced amount of compensation does not suffice
as an adequate remedy for the violation of her right to leave her country. Accordingly, owing
to the restrictions on her freedom of movement and the manifestly insufficient remedy
provided, the Committee concludes that the State Party violated her rights under article 12 (2)
of the Covenant.
9.
The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that
the facts before it disclose a violation by the State Party of articles 12 (2) and 26 of the
Covenant in the case of Ms. Kjazimova and of article 26 of the Covenant in the case of
Mr. Abdulovski.
10.
Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State Party is under an obligation to
provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to
individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State Party is
obligated, inter alia, to take appropriate steps to provide the authors with adequate
compensation. The State Party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to
prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.
11.
Bearing in mind that, by becoming a Party to the Optional Protocol, the State Party
has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a
violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State Party has
undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the
rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when
it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from
the State Party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the
Committee’s Views. The State Party is also requested to publish the present Views and to
have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State Party.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
GE.25-13420
11
Annex I
[Original: Spanish]
Individual opinion of Committee member Rodrigo A. Carazo
(concurring)
1.
I reiterate my approach as expressed in previous communications.1 Although it has
been invoked by the authors in the communications already considered, the Committee insists
that it cannot find a violation of article 26 of the Covenant and considers only those
communications that deal with authors’ individual rights (and it does this adequately). It is
wrong to do so. Once again, it is a matter of conduct by a State Party that discriminates
against the country’s Roma community.
2.
The facts of the case demonstrate a clear pattern of discrimination, through racial
profiling, against Roma in North Macedonia. The authors, identifiable as Roma, were the
only passengers on their respective buses to be questioned and prevented from leaving the
country. This was not simply a violation of the authors’ freedom of movement, but evidence
of a broader policy of discrimination. The European Roma Rights Centre itself, which
represented the authors, has documented 145 cases involving 442 Roma persons who have
been denied exit from North Macedonia since 2011.
3.
In its 2025 concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of North Macedonia,2
the Committee reproaches the State Party for its ethnic profiling practices, which limit the
freedom of movement of Roma within the State’s borders. In addition, the Commissioner for
Human Rights of the Council of Europe and the European Commission against Racism and
Intolerance have indicated that Roma are disproportionately affected by exit control measures.
The Ombudsman Institution also found that the Ministry of Internal Affairs discriminated
against Roma citizens by preventing them from leaving the country.
4.
Despite the overwhelming evidence, the majority of the Committee fails to recognize,
in the present Views, the systemic nature of the discrimination faced by the Roma. By failing
to do so, it misses the opportunity to send a strong message about the need to address the root
causes of such structural discrimination as proposed by the Committee itself in its concluding
observations. 3 The Views should have emphasized that these actions are not isolated
incidents, but part of an institutionalized practice of discrimination against the Roma
community.
5.
Therefore, I cannot endorse the reasoning of the majority of the Committee in these
Views.
1 See Akhmedov v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/143/D/3098/2018); and Maksutova et al. v. Uzbekistan
(CCPR/C/142/D/3157/2018, 3159/2018, 3166/2018 and 3185/2018).
2 CCPR/C/MKD/CO/4.
3 Ibid.
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
12
GE.25-13420
Annex II
Individual opinion of Committee member Laurence R. Helfer
(concurring)
1.
I fully agree with the Committee’s conclusion that the border control policies adopted
by the State Party violate articles 12 and 26 of the Covenant. I write separately to situate the
Committee’s Views within the wider societal discrimination against Roma communities and
ongoing efforts to combat it.
2.
The attempted border crossings by Mr. Abdulovski and Ms. Kjazimova occurred in
2014 and 2015, respectively (see paras. 2.2 and 2.10 of the Committee’s Views). The ethnic
profiling described by the authors originated in a 2009 policy allowing citizens of North
Macedonia holding biometric passports to travel into the Schengen area without visas. In
2011, the Ministry of the Interior received reports of a large increase in nationals of North
Macedonia applying for asylum in Schengen countries. 1 In response, the Ministry
strengthened the controls on citizens exiting North Macedonia. Border officials implemented
this policy by demanding documents from Roma individuals that were neither required under
domestic law nor requested of other travellers, and by refusing to allow them to leave the
State Party even when they satisfied the conditions for travelling to the Schengen area.2
3.
These practices attracted the scrutiny of numerous human rights institutions. Reports
adopted between 2013 and 2016 – including by the Office of the Ombudsman of North
Macedonia, the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, the European
Commission against Racism and Intolerance, the Advisory Committee on the Framework
Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Human Rights Committee and the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination – documented systemic ethnic
profiling at the border of North Macedonia.3
4.
Roma individuals who have been prevented from leaving the State Party have also
filed lawsuits challenging the policy. In 2014, the Constitutional Court of North Macedonia
found violations of the right to freedom of movement but rejected claims of ethnic
discrimination (paras. 3.4, 6.2 and 7.6). Several individuals later filed applications with the
European Court of Human Rights. In its 2023 judgment in Memedova and Others v. North
Macedonia, the European Court – relying on the reports referenced above, including the
Committee’s 2015 concluding observations4 – found violations of the right to leave one’s
own country, both alone and in conjunction with the right to non-discrimination on the basis
of ethnicity.5
5.
In the present cases, the Committee cites Memedova and Others (in a footnote to
para. 7.6) and the authors reference several of the reports cited above in which concerns are
expressed about ethnic profiling (paras. 3.5 to 3.8). Seen from this perspective, the
Committee’s Views form a part of ongoing efforts by multiple human rights institutions and
civil society organizations to challenge discrimination against Roma communities in several
European countries.6
1 European Stability Initiative, “New facts and figures on Western Balkan asylum seekers”, 6 April
2015, p. 2.
2 See, e.g., Jonathan Lee, “Roma resistance: end ethnic profiling & travel bans in Macedonia”,
European Roma Rights Centre, 16 May 2018.
3 For excerpts of these sources, see European Court of Human Rights, Memedova and Others v. North
Macedonia, Applications No. 42429/16, No. 8934/18 and No. 9886/18, Judgment, 24 October 2023,
paras. 32–43.
4 CCPR/C/MKD/CO/3, para. 16.
5 European Court of Human Rights, Memedova and Others v. North Macedonia, paras. 72–75 and
90–100.
6 For recent examples, see European Roma Rights Centre, “ERRC annual report 2024” (16 June 2025).
For a discussion of human rights litigation strategies pursued by Roma advocacy organizations in
CCPR/C/144/D/3613/2019
CCPR/C/144/D/3616/2019
GE.25-13420
13
6.
The review of State Party reports provides another opportunity to address these
concerns. By happenstance, the Committee’s consideration of these joined cases coincided
with its consideration of the fourth periodic report of North Macedonia, which took place in
June and July 2025. In its concluding observations, the Committee urged the State Party to
“strengthen the measures to address discrimination and marginalization against the Roma
community, including by … taking all measures necessary to ensure that no one is arbitrarily
deprived of their right to leave the State Party’s territory and that any allegation of ethnic
profiling by border officials is promptly, thoroughly and independently investigated”.7 The
exercise of the Committee’s two mandates highlights the synergies that can arise between the
fact-specific review of individual communications under the first Optional Protocol and the
systemic practices assessed during the reporting process under the Covenant.
7.
The violations that the Committee finds in these cases, and the concerns it identifies
in the concluding observations, indicate that discrimination against Roma communities
persists in North Macedonia. However, the State Party has made significant progress with
regard to ethnic profiling at the border. In July 2024, North Macedonia submitted a report to
the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, which monitors compliance with
judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. In the report, the State describes the just
satisfaction paid to the applicants in Memedova and Others as well as general measures,
which include legislative changes, training and awareness-raising, and the adoption of
national non-discrimination strategies. 8 The report also includes statistics showing the
number of people who were not allowed to leave the country and the reasons for their refusal
and assertions that ethnic profiling at the border has ceased. The Committee of Ministers
concluded that North Macedonia had complied with the judgment and closed its examination
of the case in October 2024.9
8.
Taken together, the developments reviewed above illustrate that the protection of
human rights can sometimes be enhanced when domestic, regional and global institutions
address the same concerns under their respective mandates in complementary ways. When
claimants, lawyers and non-governmental organizations pursue such multi-pronged advocacy
strategies, they may enable these institutions to increase the pressure on States to comply
with their international human rights obligations.
Europe, see Zoltán I. Búzás, Evading International Norms: Race and Rights in the Shadow of Legality
(Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2021).
7 CCPR/C/MKD/CO/4, paras. 17 and 18 (a).
8 See also CCPR/C/MKD/CO/4, para. 17 (welcoming the adoption of the Strategy for the Inclusion of
Roma 2022–2030 and the progress achieved in addressing ethnic discrimination in several areas); and
European Commission, North Macedonia 2024 Report, SWD(2024) 693 final (30 October 2024),
p. 40.
9 See https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/?i=001-238227. The State Party also supported recommendations to
combat ethnic discrimination during the fourth cycle of the universal periodic review (see
A/HRC/57/11 and A/HRC/57/11/Add.1).