E/CN.4/2000/16/Add.1 page 24 coexistence between minorities and the majority, but there are many Hungarians with a racist mentality, whether or not they are aware of it, particularly with regard to the Roma. The average person has a negative view of the Gypsies, who are seen as “dirty”, “violent” and “lazy” and as “criminals” and “cheats”. The mostly large Gypsy families are considered noisier than others and their lifestyle as a group is frowned upon by the rest of the population. The social benefits paid to many families, which are their only source of income because of the unemployment that affects the majority of the Roma, exacerbates anti-Roma sentiment in some places. An opinion poll carried out in 1997 by the Hungarian polling institute KFT revealed that 60 per cent of the population would refuse to live next to a Gypsy. Racism against Gypsies is insidious: in fact, only a small minority of supporters of the far right, police officers and local officials give violent expression to it. 107. With regard to housing, Gypsies and non-Gypsies have in effect been separated because of the impoverishment of the Gypsy minority, but there have also been attempts by local authorities, under pressure from local people, to isolate Gypsy communities from the majority or to evict them. The refusal to live side by side with Gypsies has sometimes led to violence, especially in rural areas, as revealed by the data collected by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities (the “Parliamentary Commissioner”). 108. According to the 1998 report of the Parliamentary Commissioner, most complaints were filed against local councils: altogether, 409 complaints were submitted to him, of which 241 fell into his sphere of competence. Out of these complaints, 77 were filed against local councils (as opposed to the 37 complaints concerning the police), which was almost one third of the cases with respect to which the Parliamentary Commissioner was entitled to take action. 109. The most problematic aspect of such cases is that most of them include indirect discrimination, which is very difficult to prove. However, in some of the cases the discriminatory nature of the complaint was self-evident and the Parliamentary Commissioner was able to take the necessary measures. The so-called “Zámoly case” is one example: in the village of Zámoly, the roof of the building in which the Roma families lived was severely damaged. Seeing a good chance to get rid of the Roma families, who were imposing a serious burden on the social budget of the local council, the mayor suggested that they should move temporarily to the community centre and “ordered” the notary (who is in charge of building affairs in the Hungarian system) to classify the Roma building as “unfit for accommodation” and to order the owners to pull it down. 110. Another attempt to evict Roma families from their home occurred on 29 August 1999 in the village of Újferhértó, in eastern Hungary. Allegedly, a group of about 25 to 30 persons attacked a Gypsy family. Young people armed with iron rods and baseball bats beat up the male members of the family. Eight victims were taken to hospital. The attackers continued to threaten the Gypsies when the police arrived. Two suspects were arrested and interrogated but refused to make a statement. 2. Discrimination in education and employment 111. In Hungary, as in the Czech Republic, where pre-school education is concerned, there is a practice of placing Gypsy children in special schools for “mentally retarded” children. This