PART TWO: CONTENT OF COMPREHENSIVE ANTI-DISCRIMINATION LAW to individuals living in a “formal or an informal settlement”, individuals who are “internally displaced” and those leading a nomadic lifestyle.640 The obligation also extends to non-citizens residing within a State.641 PART TWO – III Changes may be required to the national legal system to ensure that the rights to equality and non-discrimination are enforceable in practice. As set out by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and discussed in further detail below, this includes the adaptation of rules regulating evidence and proof in discrimination cases;642 and the relaxation of legal standing requirements, to allow the participation of interested third parties.643 It also necessitates protection from victimization – measures necessary to protect individuals from any adverse treatment or adverse consequence as a reaction to a complaint or to proceedings aimed at enforcing compliance with non-discrimination provisions.644 This requirement was most recently confirmed at the international level by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in its general comment No. 6 (2018), which underlines that comprehensive anti-discrimination law must ensure that persons subjected to discrimination are not victimized when seeking redress and remedy.645 As set out in section I.A.2(f) of part two of the present guide, protection from victimization should also be integrated in comprehensive equality law as a form of prohibited conduct. Ensuring equality before the law and equal and effective access to justice for those exposed to discrimination requires States to abolish laws, procedures and practices that directly or indirectly discriminate in this area, including those that “accord inferior status” to the testimony of women or groups exposed to discrimination646 or deny those exposed to discrimination the capacity to testify on an equal basis with others. The Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has noted that States must “give the same weight to complaints and statements from persons with disabilities as they would to non-disabled persons”.647 Courts in some States are making progress in overturning discriminatory provisions in rules of evidence based on stereotypes; for example, in R. v. D.A.I., the Supreme Court of Canada overturned provisions of the Evidence Act, which excluded persons with intellectual disabilities from testifying if they could not explain the meaning of concepts such as promise, truth and falsehood, whereas no other category of witness was required to meet that standard.648 One problem sometimes identified in the functioning of anti-discrimination laws is that of an excess of procedures. For example, in some jurisdictions, it is necessary to complete processes related to fines or other forms of punishment before initiating a request for damages or other forms of financial compensation, and this second request may even have to be presented to an entirely different court or authority. Such procedures can constitute an obstacle to those seeking remedy and thus violate States’ obligations to ensure access to justice. To guarantee their effectiveness, legal procedures must be made meaningfully available and accessible to all. (b) Quality and accountability Justice systems must be accountable and of good quality.649 The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has noted that “all components of the system [should] adhere to international standards of competence [and] efficiency”. These systems should be “gender-sensitive”, “contextualized, dynamic, participatory”, responsive to the needs of users, and properly enforced and monitored to ensure that the 640 Ibid. 641 See, for instance, Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 15 (1986), paras. 1–2; Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, general recommendation No. 30 (2005), paras. 18–24; and Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 20 (2009), para. 30. See further section I.A.1(a) of part two of the present guide. 642 See, for instance, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 33 (2015), para. 15 (g). 643 Ibid., para. 15 (h). 644 Ibid, para. 18 (g). 645 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 6 (2018), para. 73 (i). 646 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 33 (2015), para. 25 (a) (iv). 647 Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, general comment No. 1 (2014), para. 39. 648 Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. D.A.I., 2012 SCC 5. 649 Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 33 (2015), paras. 14 (d) and (f), 18 and 20. 89