CEDAW/C/77/D/143/2019 Background 1. The authors are S.B. and M.B., nationals of North Macedonia of Roma ethnicity, born in 1988 and 1985, respectively. Their complaint concerns denial of access to gynaecological services, notably a denial by a private health -care facility to register them as patients based on their ethnicity, and the lack of gynaecological services in the area in which they live as a form of discrimination against women. They claim that they are victims of a violation of their rights under articles 1, 2 (a), ( c) and (e) and 12 of the Convention owing to the State party’s failure to introduce positive measures in favour of the sexual and reproductive rights of Roma women, resulting in inequality in practice in the authors’ enjoyment of their right to health. The Convention and the Optional Protocol thereto entered into force for the State party on 17 February 1994 and 17 January 2004, respectively. The authors are represented by counsel, Natasha Boshkova. Facts as submitted by the authors 2.1 The authors both live with their partners, with whom they each have three children. They are Roma by ethnicity and live in the biggest Roma community in North Macedonia in the municipality of Šuto Orizari. They submit that Roma women in Šuto Orizari experience obstacles to exercising their right to access to high-quality gynaecological services, owing to the lack of such services in the municipality itself, even though more than 13,000 women of reproductive age live there. The difficulties that they face are also attributable to prejudices and discrimination against Roma by health-care professionals working in gynaecological practices in the city of Skopje. 2.2 Prior to the events described in the authors’ complaint, there had been several reported cases of similar discriminatory treatment of Roma women at the practice of a gynaecologist, Dr. L.K. In order to obtain evidence of the discriminatory behaviour of the gynaecologist, two civil society organizations, the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights and the Health Education and Research Association, developed a test scenario. The test, or simulation, was conducted at the health facility by female participants of Roma and non-Roma ethnicity (the authors of the present communication and control subjects), all of Macedonian nationality, who were of reproductive age and in need of gynaecological treatment. 2.3 On 16 December 2015, one of the authors (S.B., 28 years old on the day of the simulation) went to the private health facility of Dr. L.K. and asked to be enrolled as a patient and to have a regular gynaecological check-up. The nurse employed at the facility refused to register her, claiming that the doctor no longer accepted young patients. On the same day, a non-Roma control subject (23 years old on the day of the simulation), asked to be registered with the same gynaecologist. The nurse proceeded with the registration and, 20 minutes later, she was examined by the doctor. 2.4 On 18 December 2015, the second author (M.B., 30 years old on the day of the simulation) also requested to be enrolled as a patient, but she was rejected on the same grounds, namely that the doctor was no longer accepting young patients. On the same day, another control subject (25 years old on the day of the simulation) had her request for registration at the practice approved, and she was examined on the same day. 1 2.5 The authors submit that, although they were involved in a simulation, they were, in fact, looking for a gynaecologist closer to their municipality so that they could have access to gynaecological treatment without travelling to a more remote area, which entailed an additional financial burden for them. They further claim that they __________________ 1 2/10 It is to be noted that the simulation included another woman of Roma origin, who was re jected on the same grounds. The details of the case are not set out herein as no complaint has been filed on behalf of the third Roma individual, as she failed to pursue her claims before the national authorities. 20-16465