the facts of the case, the authorities failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into racist statements made by law enforcement officers,102 the Chamber shifted the burden of proof onto the respondent state; that is, it was up to Bulgaria to provide a plausible explanation regarding a lack of investigation.103 Because the state did not offer any further explanation, and taking into consideration other cases where Bulgarian ‘law enforcement officers had subjected Roma to violence resulting in death’,104 the Chamber found a violation of Article 14 taken together with Article 2 ECHR in its substantive aspect. Unlike the Chamber, the Grand Chamber considered that the alleged failure of the authorities to carry out an effective investigation into the supposedly racist motive for the killing should not shift the burden of proof to the government with regard to the breach of Article 14 taken together with the substantive aspect of Article 2 ECHR. The Grand Chamber reiterated that, in certain circumstances, where events leading to a death of a person were within the exclusive knowledge of the authorities, the burden of proof may rest on the authorities; neither did it exclude the possibility that, in certain circumstances, a government may be required to disprove an alleged discrimination. However, in the present case, ‘such an approach would amount to requiring the respondent Government to prove the absence of a particular subjective attitude on the part of the person concerned’.105 In explaining its approach, the Grand Chamber drew the distinction between violent and non-violent acts. While the burden of proof may shift onto the government in cases alleging discrimination in non-violent acts, for example, employment, ‘that approach is difficult to transpose to a case where it is alleged that an act of violence was racially motivated’.106 Considering all the circumstances of the case, the Grand Chamber departed from the Chamber’s approach and ruled that racist attitudes did not play a role in Mr Angelov’s and Mr Petkov’s deaths.107 Nevertheless, where the procedural aspect of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 ECHR is concerned, the Grand Chamber considered that: ‘any evidence of racist verbal abuse being uttered by law enforcement agents in connection with an operation involving the use of force against persons from an ethnic or other minority is highly relevant to the question whether or not unlawful, hatred-induced violence has taken place …’ 108 and renders necessary a careful examination. Failure of the authorities to take all possible steps to investigate whether or not discrimination may have played a role in the events breached Article 14 ECHR taken in conjunction with Article 2 in its procedural aspect. 12 The Grand Chamber’s finding of a procedural as opposed to a substantive violation demonstrates that the ECtHR was cautious in its approach in Nachova. Nevertheless, even though the Grand Chamber’s ruling was less forceful than the Chamber’s decision, it strongly affirmed the duty of authorities to investigate the cases of discrimination against Roma. Furthermore, the Grand Chamber accepted that, in certain situations, the burden of proof may, in principle, shift to the authorities. In addition, the case laid the foundation for the ECtHR’s case law where the Court found that Roma were subjected to discriminatory treatment in other contexts. Thus, in the case of Moldovan and others v Romania,109 the applicants claimed that they had been discriminated against based on their ethnicity as Roma by state officials and judicial bodies contrary to Article 14 ECHR in conjunction with Articles 6 and 8 ECHR. Based on the facts of the case, the ECtHR established that the applicants’ Roma ethnicity appeared to have been ‘decisive for the length and the result of the domestic proceedings…’.110 Moreover, the applicants were repeatedly subjected to discriminatory remarks made by the authorities while their claims were being considered by domestic authorities. Accordingly, there was a violation of Article 14 together with Articles 6 and 8 ECHR. Equally, in D.H. and Others v The Czech Republic,111 the Grand Chamber took into account that the applicants, who were placed in special schools, were subjected to differential treatment based on their Roma ethnic origin. The placement in special schools was based on parental consent. However, because it appeared that parents of Roma children were not fully informed and often signed a pre-completed form, the Grand Chamber was not persuaded that ‘members of a disadvantaged community and often poorly educated, [Roma parents] were capable of weighting up all the aspects of the situation and the consequences of giving their consent’.112 The Grand Chamber concluded that even assuming that Roma parents gave their ‘informed consent’ for their children to be placed in special schools, ‘no waiver of the right not to be subjected to racial discrimination can be accepted’.113 The ECtHR placed similarly strong emphasis on the prohibition of discrimination based on racial and ethnic origin in Timishev v Russia.114 The applicant claimed that his right to liberty of movement was restricted based on his Chechen ethnic origin. The authorities who did not allow him to pass through the checkpoint on the administrative border between Ingushetia and KabardinoBalkaria, referred to an oral instruction from the Ministry of the Interior of Kabardino-Balkaria not to admit persons of Chechen ethnic origin. He claimed that he was discriminated against contrary to Article 14 read together with Article 2 of Protocol 4 ECHR. MINORITY GROUPS AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENTS IN INTERNATIONAL AND REGIONAL JURISPRUDENCE