PROTECTING MINORITY RIGHTS – A Practical Guide to Developing Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Legislation published and made publicly available.779 Decisions should be made on the basis of national law and should follow established procedural rules applicable in discrimination cases, including rules regulating the shift in the burden of proof.780 In situations in which equality bodies are assigned this type of enforcement function, they are required to meet the stringent standards established for such bodies under international law, which are set out in section III.A.1(a) of part two of the present guide,781 and should be subject to appeal to the courts. To avoid any conflicts of interest that may result in denial of justice, in situations in which the enforcement functions of an equality body sit alongside powers to investigate and litigate cases on discrimination, it is important that “each function is provided by a different unit or by different staff”.782 These units must each meet the institutional guarantees necessary to discharge their mandates.783 In particular, they must be functionally independent and provided with adequate human and financial resourcing.784 CASEWORK: AN EXAMPLE FROM THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA In their casework, equality bodies have been instrumental in ensuring that victims of discrimination receive due legal remedy. They have also been key in ending systematic discriminatory practices. For example, in its decision of 9 September 2014, the Council on Preventing and Combating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality of the Republic of Moldova ruled on Case 110/2014, in which a woman had been refused enrolment in a vocational retraining programme to learn manicure and pedicure skills, on grounds that her status as a person with a disability precluded her from carrying out such work. Such an approach was not in accordance with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the Republic of Moldova had recently ratified, and in particular the guarantee of equality and non-discrimination for persons with disabilities, including in the field of work. The Council ruled that excluding a person from vocational training on grounds of disability was discriminatory. The decision brought about a heightened understanding of the legal requirement to ensure the right to non-discrimination for persons with disabilities and thus has been crucial for advancing positive reform at the national level. In situations in which the decisions of equality bodies are non-binding in nature, it is particularly important that victims retain a judicial avenue to enforce their legal rights.785 National legal frameworks should never preclude the possibility for individuals to bring a claim before a court, irrespective of the availability of an equality body with decision-making powers.786 Additionally, mechanisms must be in place to ensure that recommendations are duly considered and implemented by government and other relevant duty bearers.787 112 779 Ibid., para. 17 (d). 780 Ibid, para. 17 (a). 781 See section III.A.1(a) of part two of the present guide. 782 Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, “ECRI general policy recommendation No. 2”, para. 11. 783 Ibid. See further section IV.B of this part. 784 Ibid. See, in particular, sections IV.B.1 and IV.B.2. 785 See, broadly, section III.A of part two of the present guide. 786 Indeed, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has noted that “there are some obligations, such as (but by no means limited to) those concerning non-discrimination, in relation to which the provision of some form of judicial remedy would seem indispensable in order to satisfy the requirements of the Covenant” (footnote omitted). See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 9 (1998), para. 9. 787 Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, “ECRI general policy recommendation No. 2”, para. 36.