Committee reiterated that the definition of racial discrimination in article 1 expressly extends to measures that are discriminatory in face and effect (i.e. indirect discrimination). The Committee found the State party in violation of its obligations under article 2, paragraph 1 (a) of CERD, which obliges States parties to engage in no act of racial discrimination and to ensure that all public authorities act in conformity with this obligation. The Committee also found that Slovakia failed in its obligation to guarantee the right of everyone to equality before the law in the enjoyment of the right to housing (article 5, paragraph (e) (iii)). Finally, it held that the failure of the Slovak courts to provide an effective remedy disclosed a violation of article 6 of CERD. Several communications concerning the ill-treatment of members of ethnic minorities, such as the Roma, while in police custody have been examined by the CAT Committee. Persons belonging to minorities who face refusal of their refugee claim, expulsion to their country of origin and the risk of death, torture or ill-treatment upon return, have filed complaints under the Convention invoking article 3 of CAT. The CAT Committee also has examined communications concerning attacks against persons of Roma ethnic origin and their property. For example, Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Serbia and Montenegro (communication No. 161/2000) concerned attacks against the residents and the houses of a Roma settlement in the Danilovgrad village, and the subsequent demolition and 188 destruction of the houses by a mob of non-Roma residents. While police authorities were present, they failed to act and did nothing to protect the Roma residents or their property. The Committee found that the burning and destruction of the Roma houses constituted acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. It also underlined that the nature of those acts was further aggravated by the fact that some of the complainants were still hidden in the settlement when the houses were burnt and destroyed and the fact that those acts were committed with a significant level of racial motivation. It held that the acts referred to by the complainants were committed with the acquiescence of public officials and constituted a violation of article 16, paragraph 1, of the Convention. It was also held that the investigation conducted by the authorities failed to satisfy the requirements of article 12 because, despite the participation of several hundred of non-Roma residents in the events and the presence of the police forces during the events, no person nor any member of the police forces had been tried by the domestic courts. The Committee held that the investigation conducted by the authorities did not satisfy the requirements of article 12. It also found that the absence of an investigation and the authorities’ failure to inform the complainants of the results of the investigation constituted a violation of article 13. Finally, it held that the failure of the State party to enable the complainants to obtain redress and to provide them with a fair and adequate compensation violated article 16. M A R G I N A L I S E D M I N O R I T I E S I N D E V E LO P M E N T P R O G R A M M I N g