CERD/C/71/D/40/2007 Page 8 delivered reasoned decisions and applied the rule of shared burden of proof. It recalls that this rule, recognised in section 7 of the Danish Act on Ethnic Equal Treatment, provides for a more favourable burden of proof for alleged victims of discrimination than the Convention. It provides that if a person presents facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination, it is incumbent on the other party to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment. By contrast, under the Convention, it is up to the applicant to provide prima facie evidence that he or she is a victim of a violation of the Convention.5 The State party concludes that the fact that the petitioner’s complaint under the Act invoked was unsuccessful does not imply that this instrument is ineffective. Petitioner’s comments 5.1 On 28 May 2007, the petitioner challenged the State party’s argument that because he did not prove that he was more qualified than the 14 students who obtained a traineeship in September 2003 he c victim. He notes that, when a traineeship was earmarked for “Danes”, the number of traineeships left to students of non-Danish origin was reduced accordingly, being discriminated de facto irrespective of whether they could in the end obtain one of the remaining internships or not. He claims that this fact was not taken into consideration by the High Court, which only decided on the issue of whether the petitioner was qualified and thus eligible for the traineeship in September 2003. He contends that, by not making any assessment on whether or not race discrimination took place, the Danish Court violated his right to an effective remedy guaranteed by articles 2 and 6, in relation to article 5 (e) (v), of the Convention. 5.2 The petitioner contends that the fact that the teacher at the Copenhagen Technical School admitted before the High Court that he chose not to send a student of non-Danish origin to the company shows that the principle of equal treatment was violated. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Decision on admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claims contained in a petition, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination must, in accordance with rule 91 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not it is admissible under the Convention. 6.2 The Committee notes the State party’s allegation that the communication is inadmissible ratione personae because the petitioner does not qualify as a victim under 14 of the Convention. It further notes the Human Rights Committee’s Views invoked by the State party with regard to the “victim status” and the State party’s contention that the petitioner 5 The State party invokes the Committee’s Views in C.P. v Denmark (Communication No. 5/1994), adopted on 15 March 1995, paras. 6.2 and 6.3; and K.R.C. v Denmark (Communication No. 23/2002, adopted on 14 August 2002, para. 6.2.