it to “any right set forth by law” (article 1.1) and to any act by a public authority. However, only 17 States have ratified Protocol 12, in contrast to the 47 States that are party to the ECHR. The European Court of Human Rights examines cases of alleged violations of the European Convention on Human Rights. Rulings of the Court are enforced by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE. The Committee receives a report of each ruling and responds with a resolution indicating the type of reform required to change domestic law to satisfy the Court’s judgment. At future meetings of the Committee, the State will need to report on the measures it is taking. Should a State fail to act, the Committee will adopt interim resolutions outlining the State’s failings. Minorities have taken cases to the European Court of Human Rights. A recent landmark case on indirect discrimination concerned segregation of Romani children in schools in the Czech Republic.88 In D.H. and Others v the Czech Republic, the applicants were Roma from the town of Ostrava where a disproportionate number of Romani children were placed in ‘special schools’ for persons with psychosocial disabilities. More than half of Roma children were sent to ‘special schools’ compared to 1.8% of non-Romani children and a Romani child was 27 times more likely to be sent to a ‘special school’ than a non-Romani child. The Court ruled that it is not necessary to prove discriminatory intent on the part of the government to find that the effects of an official policy are unlawfully discriminatory. Where a policy appears neutral, it is very difficult to prove discrimination and the court clarified that “when it comes to assessing the impact of a measure or practice on an individual or group, statistics which appear on critical examination to be reliable and significant will be sufficient to constitute… prima facie evidence” of indirect discrimination.89 In the case of Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria,90 the applicants were family members of two Roma who had been killed by the authorities who were trying to re-arrest them after they escaped. The Court found that excessive force had been used since neither man was armed nor had ever committed a violent act. The Court stated: When investigating violent incidents and, in particular, deaths at the hands of state agents, state authorities have the additional duty to take all reasonable steps to unmask any racist motive and to establish whether or not ethnic hatred or prejudice may have played a role in the events. Failing to do so and treating racially induced violence and brutality on an equal footing with cases that have no racist overtones would be to turn a blind eye to the specific nature of acts that are particularly destructive of fundamental rights.91 In this case, the Court found that the authorities had failed to investigate whether racial dimensions played a part in the shootings as was claimed by eyewitnesses. The Government informed the Committee of Ministers that it had notified the Ministry of Defence and the military authorities that Bulgaria’s obligations under the Convention could be met by drawing up “instructions for the attention of prosecution authorities indicating their obligation to investigate possible racist motives in similar cases” and that instructions had been given to the military police to prevent future similar violations. These two cases reflect the capacity of the Court to make judgements that impact positively on minority rights. Although the two cases noted here pertain to Romani minorities, the principles DH & Others v. Czech Republic, Application no. 57325/00, Judgement 13 November 2007. 88 Further details on the significance of the case can be found at European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC): http://www.errc.org/cikk.php?cikk=2945 (accessed 9 August 2009). 89 Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, Applications nos. 43577/98 and 43579/98, Judgement of 26 February 2004 90 Nachova and others v. Bulgaria, paragraph 158. 91 Chapter 12: Regional Issues, Standards and Mechanisms 173