CERD/C/112/D/74/2021 re-examination is an extraordinary appeal and has no automatic suspensive effect.31 Since the application for re-examination was not an effective remedy, the petitioners were not obliged to use it before bringing their case before the Committee. They therefore request the Committee to declare their communication admissible under article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention and to take due account of the medical reports of 6 November and 9 December 2020. 5.5 The petitioners reject the State party’s arguments that they would not be at risk of torture and ill-treatment because of their ethnicity if returned to North Macedonia. 5.6 The petitioners point out that in their comments on the protection measures available to Roma people in North Macedonia, the State party refers to general facts that do not reflect their personal situation. They also point out that the examples reported by the State party concerning the measures taken by North Macedonia to combat gender-based violence do not take into account G.I.’s membership of the Roma ethnic group and therefore the intersectionality of the discrimination she faces as a Roma woman. The petitioners argue that a full assessment of the protection afforded by the North Macedonian authorities on the issue of discrimination against Roma people should be based not on a list of legal measures adopted, but on the implementation of such measures. 5.7 With regard to the State party’s argument that the petitioners did not provide documentary evidence that they had taken steps to obtain protection in their country of origin, the petitioners reiterate that the police systematically refused to register their complaints of threats, violence and rape. They point out that country-of-origin information confirms that perpetrators of violence against women and Roma people often go unpunished. The petitioners therefore argue that, for objective reasons, they have no documentary evidence of the violence and threats to which they were subjected and which they reported to the police. 5.8 The petitioners refute the State party’s arguments about contradictions in their statements to the asylum authorities. Regarding their residence, they clarify that they had no permanent place of residence in their country of origin, including during their residence in that country prior to 2011, i.e. before their first entry into Switzerland. They also state that they lived in a rented house in Kocani, where they stayed until their second departure for Switzerland in 2017. They add that when they did not have sufficient resources to pay rent they lived on the streets but always returned to the same rented house when it was financially possible for them to do so. 5.9 Regarding the information on U.I.’s membership of the Social-Democratic Union of Macedonia, which was deemed contradictory by the State party, the petitioners point out that the national representative of the party sent U.I.’s membership card to the Federal Administrative Court in a letter dated 23 November 2017 and the Court acknowledged receipt of this letter in its decision of 30 July 2020. Consequently, U.I.’s membership of the Social-Democratic Union of Macedonia has been established. 5.10 With regard to the assailants’ visit to their home, the petitioners dispute the contradiction alleged by the State party. They claim that during the interview, U.I. specified that he was alone the first time the assailants came to his house; the second time they came, he was already on the run and his assailants abducted and raped his wife, who had stayed at home. The petitioners further state that G.I., in her interview of 22 May 2017, indicated that she had been visited by M.M.’s supporters more than 10 times while she was alone with her children. When U.I. indicated that supporters came to his home on a regular basis, he was referring to visits to their home in his absence. Accordingly, the petitioners maintain that this difference in their statements does not constitute a contradiction. 5.11 The petitioners do not dispute the contradictions noted by the State party concerning the periods during which G.I. attempted suicide or the presence or absence of the children at the time of her rape and suicide attempt. Nevertheless, they recall that the Committee against Torture has recognized that, following acts of torture, States parties must be sensitive to the 31 GE.24-07887 Switzerland, State Secretariat for Migration, “Article H2 - Les voies de droit extraordinaires et les demandes multiples (y c. frais de procédure)”, in Manuel asile et retour, available at https://www.sem.admin.ch/sem/fr/home/asyl/asylverfahren/nationale-verfahren/handbuch-asylrueckkehr.html. 9