CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

GE.26-03192 (E) 230326 230326

Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination

Views adopted by the Committee under article 14 of the

Convention, regarding communication No. 71/2020*, **

Communication submitted by:

Senad Salim, Sevdije Salim, Kjani Ibrahim, Fata

Salim, Riza Salim, Salim Salim and Dzengiz

Ibrahim (represented by counsel, Dorde

Jovanovic and Adam Weiss, on behalf of the

European Roma Rights Centre)

Alleged victims:

The authors

State Party:

North Macedonia

Date of communication:

20 September 2018 (initial submission)

Date of adoption of Views:

3 December 2025

Subject matter:

Racial discrimination by law enforcement

officials

Procedural issues:

Admissibility; exhaustion of domestic remedies;

substantiation of claims

Substantive issue:

Discrimination on the grounds of national or

ethnic origin

Articles of the Convention:

2 (1) (a), (c) and (d), 5 (a) and (d) (ii) and 6

1.

The authors of the communication are Senad Salim, Sevdije Salim, Kjani Ibrahim,

Fata Salim, Riza Salim, Salim Salim1 and Dzengiz Ibrahim, all nationals of North Macedonia.

The authors claim that the confiscation of their passports by the authorities of North

Macedonia, and the failure of the authorities to return their confiscated passports following

a decision of the Constitutional Court on 25 June 2014, constitutes a violation of

articles 2 (1) (a), (c) and (d), 5 (a) and (d) (ii) and 6 of the International Convention on the

Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Convention entered into force on

4 January 1969 and North Macedonia ratified it on 18 January 1994. 2 The authors are

represented by counsel.

* Adopted by the Committee at its 116th session (17 November–5 December 2025).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Noureddine Amir, Michał Balcerzak, Pela Boker-Wilson, Chinsung Chung, Bakari Sidiki Diaby,

Régine Esseneme, Jian Guan, Ibrahima Guissé, Chrispine Gwalawala Sibande, Gün Kut,

Gay McDougall, Verene Shepherd, Stamatia Stavrinaki, Mazalo Tebie, Abderrahman Tlemçani and

Yeung Kam John Yeung Sik Yuen.

1 On 19 February 2016, the family changed their surname from Asan to Salim.

2 North Macedonia made a declaration in relation to article 14 of the Convention on 22 December

1999.

United Nations

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

International Convention on

the Elimination of All Forms

of Racial Discrimination

Distr.: General

23 March 2026

Original: English

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

2

GE.26-03192

Facts as submitted by the authors

2.1

The authors consist of two family groups: the first and second authors are a married

couple, joined by their three minor children (the third, fourth and fifth authors), while the

sixth and seventh authors are father and child. They are all citizens of North Macedonia of

Roma ethnic origin, residing in Skopje. On 3 April 2014, the sixth and seventh authors were

forcibly returned from Germany following the rejection of their asylum claims. Upon arrival

at Skopje International Airport, they were taken to the airport police station for questioning,

during which time their passports were confiscated in accordance with Ministry of Interior

telegram No. 169 and article 37 of the Law on Travel Documents, which authorizes a

one-year confiscation for citizens deported from abroad. They received written notification

of the confiscation, but no indication of its duration.

2.2

On 24 April 2014, the first five authors were similarly returned from Germany after

unsuccessful asylum claims. Upon arrival at Skopje International Airport, their passports

were confiscated in the same manner. Formal administrative decisions were later issued by

the Ministry of Interior: on 20 May 2014 for the sixth and seventh authors, on 3 June 2014

for the third, fourth and fifth authors, and on 4 June 2014 for the first and second authors.

These decisions cited the legal basis for confiscation but failed to specify the duration or the

procedures for reclaiming the passports. The first and second authors only became aware of

these decisions during subsequent court proceedings.

2.3

In addition to the passport confiscation, the first and second authors were subjected to

a travel ban preventing them from using their identity cards to travel to neighbouring

countries such as Serbia, where such travel is normally permitted. This restriction is the

subject of separate litigation currently pending before the Skopje Court of Appeal. The

authors argue that these measures disproportionately affected Roma citizens and were

implemented without adequate legal safeguards or notification.

2.4

On 25 June 2014, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia

declared the relevant provisions of the Law on Travel Documents unconstitutional. The Court

held that restricting the freedom of movement of citizens of North Macedonia to protect the

immigration policies of other countries was impermissible under the Constitution of North

Macedonia.3 The decision rendered the disputed provisions inoperative and came into force

on 14 July 2014.

2.5

On 31 July 2014, the Ministry of Interior issued a formal decision regarding the

confiscation of the sixth complainant’s wife’s passport. Subsequently, on 3 November 2014,

the Ministry issued telegram No. 36 instructing police departments to implement the

Constitutional Court’s decision. However, the directive stipulated that passports would only

be returned if the individuals affected initiated procedures themselves; no ex officio returns

were to be made. This administrative stance effectively delayed the restoration of rights

guaranteed by the Constitutional Court.

2.6

The sixth complainant’s wife received her passport on 6 April 2015, as indicated by a

handwritten note on the return document. The sixth and seventh authors received their

passports only after the one-year ban expired, with no acceleration resulting from the

Constitutional Court’s decision. Similarly, on 22 May 2015, the first complainant and his

family members retrieved their passports after the expiration of the ban. According to the

authors, these instances demonstrate that the Ministry of Interior did not proactively

implement the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

2.7

On 1 and 19 February 2016, the first five authors legally changed their surname from

Asan to Salim. This administrative update was formally recorded and is relevant to the

identification of the authors in subsequent legal proceedings. The change of surname did not

affect the substance of their claims or the legal issues arising from the passport confiscation.

3 The Constitutional Court also stated that the one-year limitation was unlawful. In its decision, the

Court referred to provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of

Racial Discrimination.

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

GE.26-03192

3

2.8

On 16 February 2017, the authors, joined by three other Roma plaintiffs and the

European Roma Rights Centre as co-plaintiff, filed a discrimination claim before Skopje

Basic Court 2 against the Ministry of Interior. They argued that the Ministry’s failure to

implement the Constitutional Court’s decision, to annul outstanding confiscation decisions

and to return passports ex officio constituted “ethnic discrimination”. The claim emphasized

that Roma citizens were disproportionately affected and that their freedom of movement had

been unjustifiably restricted.

2.9

The Ministry of Interior responded on 6 April 2017, disputing the discrimination claim

and asserting that the authors had not established a prima facie case. The Ministry maintained

that its actions were lawful and consistent with administrative procedures. On 5 July 2017,

the authors’ lawyer submitted additional evidence, including telegram No. 36, to demonstrate

that the Ministry had adopted a policy contrary to the Constitution and the procedural rules

of the Constitutional Court.

2.10

A preliminary hearing was held on 14 July 2017, during which the authors’ lawyer

reiterated the discrimination arguments and presented further evidence, including the

Ombudsman’s annual report and European Roma Rights Centre data on border

discrimination and passport revocations. On 24 October 2017, the authors testified, along

with a police official who stated that citizens were generally aware of the one-year restriction

and would retrieve their passports accordingly. However, the first and second authors

testified that they had not been notified and only learned of the expiration through personal

contacts.

2.11

On 31 October 2017, Skopje Basic Court 2 issued a judgment upholding the claim

only in respect of the sixth complainant’s wife, whose passport had been confiscated after

the Constitutional Court’s decision. The claims of the other authors were dismissed. The

authors’ lawyer received the decision on 29 January 2018. Appeals were filed by both parties

in early February 2018, with the authors arguing that Roma citizens faced less favourable

treatment due to the Ministry’s refusal to return passports ex officio.

2.12

On 8 February 2018, the authors’ lawyer supplemented the appeal, asserting that most

citizens of North Macedonia affected by passport confiscation were of Roma ethnicity. The

lawyer argued that the comparator group should be all citizens free to travel, and that the

Ministry’s administrative practice resulted in indirect discrimination. The Ministry’s failure

to return passports immediately and ex officio placed Roma citizens in a disadvantaged

position, despite the absence of legal restrictions following the Constitutional Court’s

decision.

2.13

On 22 March 2018, the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the authors’ appeal, upheld

the Ministry’s appeal, and ordered a retrial in respect of the sixth complainant’s wife. The

authors received the judgment on 24 April 2018. On 21 June 2018, they filed a constitutional

complaint under article 110 (1) (3) of the Constitution, which was pending at the time of the

submission of the present complaint. The sixth complainant’s wife is awaiting the outcome

of the retrial at the court of first instance.

2.14

The authors submitted evidence of widespread discriminatory practices by border

guards of North Macedonia targeted at Roma citizens. A third-party intervention by the

European Roma Rights Centre was attached, referencing related cases before the European

Court of Human Rights. The intervention included findings from the Council of Europe

Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations bodies and the domestic Ombudsman, all

indicating discrimination. The Minister of Interior publicly acknowledged the issue in

November 2016.

2.15

In 2014, the European Roma Rights Centre alerted the authorities of North Macedonia

to the problem. In a response dated 19 September 2014, the Ministry of Interior reported that

1,734 citizens of North Macedonia had had their passports confiscated under article 37 of the

Law on Travel Documents between 1 October 2011 and 1 July 2014. The Ministry was

unable to provide data on the ethnicity of those affected. The authors argue that the lack of

transparency and failure to act on known discriminatory practices further supports their claim

of ethnic discrimination.

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

4

GE.26-03192

Complaint

3.1

The authors submit that the practice of confiscating passports from citizens forcibly

returned to the country constituted indirect racial discrimination against Roma. Evidence

indicates that Roma were disproportionately affected by measures aimed at preventing travel

to the European Union’s Schengen area. The specific measure of passport confiscation lacked

lawful basis, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 25 June 2014. Despite

this ruling, authorities failed to end the practice or return confiscated passports ex officio,

thereby perpetuating a discriminatory policy. The authors argue that this failure amounted to

a separate act of discrimination, particularly given the authorities’ awareness of the

disproportionate impact on Roma. The definition of racial discrimination under article 1 of

the Convention includes indirect discrimination, which must be assessed in context. 4

Evidence of racial profiling by border guards further supports the claim that Roma were

targeted on the basis of stereotypes, such as being “false asylum-seekers”. The unlawful

confiscation and subsequent failure to return passports exacerbated the discriminatory effect.

The authors submit that these actions and inaction violated their rights under article 2 (1) (c)

of the Convention.

3.2

Under article 2 (1) (c) and (d) of the Convention, the State Party was obligated to take

effective measures to rescind and nullify the discriminatory passport confiscation policy

following the Constitutional Court’s judgment. This included proactively returning

confiscated passports. The judgment rendered the policy unjustifiable, and its

disproportionate impact on Roma was well known. The authorities’ passive stance violated

their duty to end a discriminatory practice. The failure to act perpetuated racial discrimination,

as highlighted in the case of Hagan v. Australia.5 Furthermore, the failure to return passports

breached national law, specifically article 112 (3) of the Constitution and article 80 of the

Constitutional Court’s rules of procedure, which mandate the execution or cancellation of

acts based on unconstitutional provisions. Ministry of Interior telegram No. 36, which

conditioned passport returns on individual requests, contravened these legal obligations and

failed to address the discrimination.

3.3

The authors argue that the right to equal treatment before tribunals as guaranteed by

article 5 (a) of the Convention, and the right to effective protection and remedies under

article 6 of the Convention, were violated in their case. Domestic courts failed to uphold

anti-discrimination principles and did not apply the burden-shifting framework mandated by

national law. Instead, they placed the burden of proof on the authors, contrary to established

jurisprudence and to the country’s Law on Prevention and Protection against Discrimination,

of 2010. This failure undermined the authors’ access to justice and effective remedies. The

case of V.S. v Slovakia6 illustrates that requiring proof of discriminatory intent contradicts

the Convention’s prohibition of discriminatory effects and the procedural safeguards

provided by national law. The courts’ refusal to acknowledge the indirect discrimination and

the systemic nature of the passport confiscation practice denied the authors appropriate

satisfaction and reparation for the harm suffered.

3.4

The confiscation of the authors’ passports, and in particular the failure to return those

passports ex officio after the Constitutional Court judgment, was specifically designed to

prevent the authors from leaving their own country. This measure, which disproportionately

affected Roma, was both unlawful and unjustifiable, as confirmed by the Constitutional

Court’s decision of 25 June 2014. The continued refusal to return the passports ex officio

after the judgment came into force on 14 July 2014 constituted a separate and aggravating

act of discrimination. Evidence submitted demonstrates that Roma were targeted through

racial profiling at border crossings, on the basis of the stereotype that they were likely to be

“false asylum-seekers” in the European Union. This administrative practice, which included

passport confiscation, was racially motivated and lacked legal justification. The authors argue

that the burden of proof should be shifted to the State Party to demonstrate that the

confiscation and the refusal to return passports were not racially discriminatory. Given the

context and the disproportionate impact on Roma, the Committee is invited to find that the

4 The authors refer to L.R. et al. v. Slovak Republic (CERD/C/66/D/31/2003), para. 10.4.

5 CERD/C/62/D/26/2002, para. 7.3.

6 CERD/C/88/D/56/2014.

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

GE.26-03192

5

authors’ right under article 5 (d) (ii) the Convention – to leave any country, including their

own – was violated through discriminatory and unlawful State practices.

State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits

4.1

The State Party submits that the present complaint was submitted to the Committee,

involving allegations against the State Party. The authors – Senad Salim, Sevdije Salim, Fata

Salim, Riza Salim, Salim Salim, Kjani Ibrahim and Digeniz Ibrahim – claim violations of

their rights to equality and non-discrimination due to their Roma ethnicity. The scope of the

complaint is based on the discriminatory treatment by State authorities, particularly in

relation to the authors’ ability to leave the country. The legal framework under which the

complaint is considered includes the Convention and the State Party’s obligations under it.

4.2

North Macedonia, upon ratifying the Convention, accepted the Committee’s authority

to receive individual complaints. However, it entered a reservation stating that if a complaint

is already under review by another international body or legal procedure, it cannot be

considered by the Committee. Two of the authors — Senad and Sevdije Salim — have

initiated proceedings both in domestic courts in Skopje and in international courts in

Strasbourg. These parallel legal actions raise questions about whether the Committee can

proceed with reviewing the complaint under its mandate, given the existing reservation.

4.3

Relevant legal decisions impacting the case include a ruling by the Skopje Court of

Appeals, dated 22 March 2018, and a judgment from the Skopje II First Instance Court on

31 October 2017. These decisions, along with legislative amendments concerning passport

regulations for individuals expelled from another country, are presented as evidence that the

actions taken against the plaintiffs were lawful. The State Party submits that the seizure of

passports was in accordance with legal provisions and not motivated by ethnic discrimination.

North Macedonia maintains that the authors were not targeted due to their Roma identity, but

rather due to compliance with immigration and legal standards.

4.4

The State Party maintains that the complaint should be rejected as inadmissible. It

argues that the authors Senad and Sevdije Salim have already initiated proceedings before

the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg (application No. 25782/19), invoking

article 1 of Protocol No. 12, and article 14, of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights), which prohibit

discrimination. The State Party emphasizes that it has recognized the Committee’s

competence to receive complaints under the Convention but also entered a reservation that

prevents the Committee from considering complaints already under review by another

international procedure. Additionally, the domestic legal process has been completed, with

decisions from the Skopje Court of Appeals on 22 March 2018 and the Skopje II First

Instance Court on 31 October 2017 confirming that the authorities did not act in a

discriminatory manner. The seizure of passports was deemed lawful and in accordance with

the Law on Passports, including amendments published in the Official Gazette of the

Republic of North Macedonia. These amendments stipulate that individuals expelled from

another country due to violations of entry or stay provisions may be denied passport issuance

or visa approval. The Skopje Unit for Administrative Affairs acted in compliance with these

legal provisions. Therefore, the State Party asserts that the actions taken were based on legal

grounds and not motivated by ethnic discrimination.

Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations

5.1

Responding to the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, the

authors submit that the proceedings that Mr. Senad Salim and Ms. Sevdije Salim have

instituted before the European Court of Human Rights do not concern the same matter as the

issue before the Committee. In the case before the European Court of Human Rights, the

subject matter of the complaint concerned the administrative ban against these two authors

using their identity cards to cross the border of North Macedonia. Normally, citizens can

travel to most neighbouring countries, using only their identity cards. The matter before the

Committee, on the other hand, concerns illegal confiscation of passports and the State Party’s

failure to return these passports to them. In addition, the case before the European Court of

Human Rights was the subject of separate domestic court proceedings, different from those

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

6

GE.26-03192

described in the present complaint. The authors therefore submit that their complaint and

claims are admissible for all authors.

5.2

Regarding the merits of the complaint, the authors submit that their complaint before

the domestic authorities was regarding their refusal to return their passports, not against the

initial confiscation. The Constitutional Court, in its decision of 25 June 2014, stated that the

confiscation of passports for a period of one year for nationals who had been forcibly returned

or deported from another country was unconstitutional. The Constitutional Court also stated

that restricting the freedom of movement of citizens in order to protect the immigration rules

of another country was unconstitutional. Later, in the case brought by the authors, the court

concluded, in its decision of 25 December 2018, that the Ministry of Interior had a duty to

return confiscated passports, so that citizens could freely exercise their right to freedom of

movement. However, the authors had to wait a further nine to ten months to have their

passports returned to them – until the unconstitutional one-year ban on travel had expired.

5.3

The authors submit that the civil courts and the Constitutional Court did not provide

effective protection against discrimination, as they failed to apply relevant domestic

legislation and provisions of the Convention. The authors argued before the domestic courts

that the seemingly neutral administrative practice of the Ministry of Interior of failing to

return confiscated documents ex officio following decision No. 189/2012 of 25 June 2014 of

the Constitutional Court placed citizens of Roma ethnicity, including the authors, at a

particular disadvantage. This practice appears neutral but is neutral only in cases where

citizens instigated the procedure themselves. In the case of a person who did not request that

his or her passport be returned, the passport would not be returned even after the one-year

ban had elapsed.

5.4

While neutral on the face of it, this practice has a disproportionate effect on Roma in

North Macedonia. The authors argue that the State Party failed to implement decision

No. 189/2012 of 25 June 2014 of the Constitutional Court. The authorities of the State Party

did not nullify outstanding passport confiscation orders, and did not return all passports

already in their possession. This affected the country’s Roma population disproportionately,

because most “failed asylum-seekers” who were returned to North Macedonia were of Roma

ethnicity, according to the Ministry of Interior. For example, in 2014, 139 nationals of North

Macedonia were returned, including 79 Roma (57%), 49 Albanians (35%), 7 Bosniaks (5%)

and 4 ethnic Macedonians (3%).

5.5

The domestic courts had erroneously taken as a comparator other non-Roma citizens

whose passports had been confiscated, concluding that the Ministry of Interior had treated all

of them, regardless of their ethnicity, in an equal manner. The authors indicate that the

comparator group was comprised entirely of citizens of North Macedonia who were free to

travel. At the moment when the Constitutional Court decision came into force and the legal

ground for confiscation of passports ceased to exist, all citizens who had had their passports

taken, including the authors, were in the same legal position as other citizens of North

Macedonia – formally, they faced no legal restrictions on moving freely. However, the

administrative practice of the Ministry of Interior which refused the returning of passports

ex officio resulted in less favourable treatment of the authors, due to their inability to leave

the country. The authors further claim that the domestic courts failed to apply the anti-

discrimination legislation with regard to shifting the burden of proof onto the State Party to

provide evidence that the Ministry of Interior did not place Roma at a particular disadvantage

in comparison with non-Roma nationals of North Macedonia.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, pursuant to article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention, whether domestic remedies have been

exhausted. The Committee takes note of the authors’ claims that they have exhausted all

effective domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State

Party in this connection, the Committee considers that the requirements of article 14 (7) (a)

of the Convention have been met.

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

GE.26-03192

7

6.2

The Committee must next examine the State Party’s contention that the complaint as

submitted falls under the reservations that it entered when recognizing the competence of the

Committee to accept and consider individual communications under the Convention. The

Committee notes the State Party’s submission that two of the authors submitted the same

claims before the European Court of Human Rights. The Committee notes, upon examination

of the materials before it, including the relevant decision of the European Court of Human

Rights in regard to application No. 25782/19, that the subject matter of the proceedings before

the Court concerned the administrative ban on the use of identity cards for cross-border travel,

whereas the present communication concerns the confiscation of passports and the failure of

the authorities to return them following the Constitutional Court’s decision. The Committee

considers that the two proceedings concern distinct factual and legal issues. Accordingly, the

Committee is satisfied that the present communication does not fall within the scope of the

reservation entered by the State Party and that the matter has not been, and is not being,

examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. The

Committee therefore finds the communication admissible, in accordance with

article 14 (7) (b) of the Convention.

6.3

The Committee notes the authors’ contention that their rights under article 2 (1) (d) of

the Convention were violated. In the absence of further detailed information and explanations,

however, the Committee finds that the authors failed to sufficiently substantiate their claims

under this provision of the Convention, as is required by rule 95 (1) (f) of the Committee’s

rules of procedure. Accordingly, it declares this part of the communication inadmissible

under article 14 (1) of the Convention.

6.4

The Committee finds no other obstacles to the admissibility of the remainder of the

present communication, declares it admissible insofar as it raises issues under

articles 2 (1) (a) and (c), 5 (a) and (d) (ii) and 6 of the Convention, and proceeds to consider

it on its merits.

Consideration of the merits

7.1

The Committee notes the authors’ claims under article 2 (1) (a) and (c) of the

Convention, which require States Parties to ensure that all public authorities act in

conformity with the obligation to eliminate racial discrimination, and to take effective

measures to review and rescind laws and policies that have the effect of creating or

perpetuating

racial

discrimination.

The

Committee

notes

that

Roma

were

disproportionately affected by the confiscation policy, as evidenced by statistical data and

third-party submissions in the authors’ constitutional complaint. The Committee observes

that the State Party has neither refuted the existence of such statistics nor demonstrated

that they were not correct. Moreover, in the constitutional proceedings, the authors

submitted evidence of widespread discriminatory practices by border guards of North

Macedonia, targeting Roma citizens, supported by findings from the Council of Europe

Commissioner for Human Rights, United Nations bodies and the domestic Ombudsman,

which indicated discrimination. The Committee also notes the authors’ allegation that the

Minister of Interior publicly acknowledged the issue in November 2016. Here again, the

State Party does not provide any comment or information to rebut these allegations. The

Committee observes that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of North Macedonia, in

its decision of 25 June 2014, declared the relevant provisions of the Law on Travel

Documents unconstitutional, thereby removing the legal basis for the passport confiscation

policy. This decision came into force on 14 July 2014 and rendered the discriminatory

provisions inoperative. The Committee considers that, although the Constitutional Court’s

decisions constituted a corrective measure consistent with the obligations under

articles 2 (1) (a) and (c), the State Party failed to implement this decision by returning ex

officio the authors’ passports. The Committee notes that the State Party did not explain

how the confiscation of the passports was objectively and reasonably justified. It also

observes that, after the Constitutional Court’s June 2014 decision, police departments were

instructed to return passports only where the individuals concerned had initiated the

necessary procedures themselves. The State Party failed to take all effective measures,

such as returning the confiscated passports ex officio, which prolonged and compounded

the discriminatory effects by imposing an unnecessary administrative burden on the

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

8

GE.26-03192

individuals affected. The Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it disclose a

violation of article 2 (1) (a) and (c) of the Convention.

7.2

The Committee notes the authors’ claim that their right to equal treatment before

tribunals and other organs administering justice, as guaranteed under article 5 (a) of the

Convention, was violated due to the domestic courts’ failure to apply anti-discrimination

principles and to shift the burden of proof. However, the Committee observes that the authors

were afforded access to judicial proceedings, were represented by counsel, and were able to

present their arguments and submit documentary evidence, including third party

interventions and statistical data. The Committee further notes that the hearings were held,

witnesses were examined and reasoned judgments were issued by both first-instance and

appellate courts. While the Committee acknowledges the authors’ dissatisfaction with the

substantive outcome and the courts’ interpretation of indirect discrimination, it considers that

the procedural safeguards were respected and that the authors were not denied access to

justice or treated unequally in the conduct of the proceedings. The Committee therefore

concludes that the facts and submissions before it do not disclose a violation of article 5 (a) of

the Convention.

7.3

The Committee notes the authors’ claim under article 5 (d) (ii) of the Convention –

concerning the right to leave any country, including one’s own – that their passports were

confiscated without legal basis and were not returned by the State authorities, thereby

unlawfully restricting their freedom of movement. The Committee recalls that, in its general

recommendation No. 20 (1996), it emphasized that any restriction imposed must be

non-discriminatory both in purpose and in effect. In the present case, although the

Constitutional Court declared the confiscation regime unconstitutional, the authorities refused

to return passports ex officio, compelling individuals – disproportionately Roma – to initiate

cumbersome procedures, which resulted in prolonged travel restrictions. 7 As a result, the

authors – Roma citizens – were, for an extended period, unable to travel freely, despite the

absence of any legal restriction. In the circumstances of the present communication, the

Committee therefore concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 5 (d) (ii) of

the Convention.

7.4

The Committee notes the authors’ claim under article 6 of the Convention, which

guarantees the right to effective protection and remedies through competent national tribunals

and other State institutions against acts of racial discrimination. It recalls that, under article 6,

States Parties must assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies

as well as the right to seek just and adequate reparation or satisfaction for any damage suffered.

It further recalls that article 6 guarantees full and effective reparation.8 The Committee observes

that although the authors were afforded procedural access – they presented evidence, and

argued their case before first-instance and appellate courts – the domestic judgments failed to

recognize the administrative passport policy as indirectly discriminatory and did not apply the

burden-shifting framework required under anti-discrimination law. As a result, they did not

receive their passports automatically, no compensation for travel restrictions or economic losses

was paid, and no satisfaction for the sustained prejudice was issued. Recalling its jurisprudence

in L.R. v. Slovak Republic,9 in which it found a breach of article 6 where discriminatory

resolutions had not been adequately remedied despite the availability of judicial review, and in

Yilmaz-Dogan v. Netherlands 10 where it held that failure by authorities to investigate or

prosecute discriminatory acts violated article 6 of the Convention, the Committee cannot

conclude that the State Party’s courts provided the authors with effective redress, restitution or

compensation for the discriminatory impact of the passport confiscation practice. Accordingly,

the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 6 of the

Convention.

7.5

The Committee, acting under article 14 (7) of the Convention, is of the view that the

facts before it disclose a violation of articles 2 (1) (a) and (c), 5 (d) (ii) and 6 of the Convention.

7 See also Memedova and Others v. North Macedonia (applications No. 42429/16 and two others),

judgment of 24 October 2023, paras. 98 and 99.

8 Kotor v. France (CERD/C/105/D/65/2018), para. 7.4.

9 CERD/C/66/D/31/2003.

10 CERD/C/36/D/1/1984.

CERD/C/116/D/71/2020

GE.26-03192

9

8.

The Committee recalls that, according to the rules of the responsibility of States under

international law, any violation of an international obligation that has resulted in harm entails a

duty to make full reparation for the injury caused.11 The Committee emphasizes that it is the

responsibility of the State Party to make reparation for the violation of its obligations under the

Convention and of the rights of the authors of the communication, which should include

granting them full reparation. Moreover, the Committee requests the State Party to take further

measures to ensure that the existing legislation is applied in an effective manner and with due

regard to the requirements under the Convention to prevent structural indirect discrimination

and to advance substantive equality. The State Party is also requested to give wide publicity to

the Committee’s Views, including in the State Party’s official language or languages and the

authors’ language.

9.

The Committee wishes to receive from the State Party, within 90 days, information on

the measures taken to give effect to the present Views.

11 Pérez Guartambel v. Ecuador (CERD/C/106/D/61/2017), para. 6.