A/HRC/14/43/Add.2 cases reach the higher level of the judiciary. In his meeting with the Constitutional Court, the Special Rapporteur received confirmation that there are very few cases on discrimination, and even fewer on racial discrimination, that reach that level of judicial review. The main consequence of this state of affairs is slow progress in the interpretation of the law by the higher levels of the judiciary, the lack of a victim-centred approach, and a greater degree of flexibility for lower-level judges to disregard anti-racism provisions that are not explicitly spelled out in the legislative framework. C. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency 19. An important component of the General Equal Treatment Act was the creation of a Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency within the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth. While the Agency is functionally dependent on the Ministry and its head is appointed by the Government, the Act describes the Agency as “independent in the execution of its duties and only subject to the law”. 20. The main mandate of the Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency is to receive complaints from any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against on the grounds provided in the General Equal Treatment Act. The Agency is then mandated to “give independent assistance” to such persons, in particular by (a) providing information on claims and possible legal action; (b) arranging for advice to be provided by another authority; and (c) endeavouring to achieve an out-of-court settlement. The Agency therefore does not work as a quasi-legal complaint mechanism, as it is not empowered to bring about formal discrimination complaints against persons or institutions thought to have engaged in discriminatory behaviour. Contrary to similar bodies in other European countries, the Agency has more of an information and counselling mandate than one of providing legal support. 21. The Agency has dealt with a limited number of cases of discrimination based on race or ethnicity. From August 2006 to December 2008, 26.2 per cent of cases addressed by the Agency were on discrimination based on disability, 24.8 per cent on discrimination on the grounds of gender and 19.7 on discrimination based on age. Only 14.5 per cent of cases involved discrimination on grounds of race or ethnicity and 2.8 per cent on grounds of religion or belief. 22. The Special Rapporteur met with the Head of the Agency, who emphasized that, of the 14.5 per cent of cases on racial discrimination, a large number are related to cases of mobbing at the workplace, discrimination in admission to night clubs and discrimination in the rental of housing. The Special Rapporteur was informed that the approach of the Agency is to rely on a mediation role between the alleged victim and the perpetrator of discrimination in order to find a mutually acceptable settlement. The Head of the Agency expressed satisfaction with this mandate, which in her view facilitates a successful resolution to many of the conflicts brought to its attention. 23. Civil society organizations underscored the fact that the Agency has a weak mandate, including the incapacity to take up cases, even for strategic litigation. Furthermore, the Agency lacks adequate human and financial resources to fully implement its mandate, employing around 20 full-time staff. The lack of regional or local structures, including field offices, is also seen as posing a major obstacle for victims of discrimination in relying on the Agency. Many organizations also pointed out that the Agency has not been proactive in fulfilling its role, such as by carrying out in-depth research on racism, collecting data or undertaking paired testing to assess discrimination in employment and housing. Finally, the issue of independence of the Agency was addressed by many interlocutors, who expressed discomfort with the fact that the Head of the Agency is GE.10-11624 7