CERD/C/103/D/60/2016 and asked to fill in a questionnaire, in which the petitioner indicated that he spoke Romani among other languages. He allegedly confirmed his Roma origin during his interview. The meeting took about 15 minutes and the petitioner was told that he would be notified of the outcome of the selection process towards the end of that week, but he was never contacted again. On the same day, immediately after the petitioner, B.V. was also interviewed. At the end of that interview, he was informed that his job application had been successful and he was invited to take part in a training session.2 Eventually, B.V. decided not to accept the job offer because of the discriminatory treatment that his friend had been subjected to. 2.2 On 24 January 2013, the petitioner initiated civil proceedings based on the Equality Law and the Labour Code requesting the court to establish that he had been discriminated against on the ground of his Roma ethnicity and that his right to work had also been violated. The petitioner asked the court to award him damages for the violation of his rights. On 27 June 2014, Centru District Court in Chisinau dismissed the petitioner’s case for lack of sufficient substantiation. On 22 January 2015, the Court of Appeal of Chisinau, aligning itself with the position of the lower court, upheld the first instance decision. On 16 September 2015, the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the petitioner’s appeal. He was informed of that decision on 22 January 2016. Complaint 3.1 The petitioner claims to be the victim of a violation by the Republic of Moldova of articles 1 (1), 5 (e) (i), 6, and 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (d), of the Convention. Relying on article 1 (1) of the Convention, he claims to be a victim of racial discrimination. In this respect, he argues that he and B.V. applied for the same position, for which they were interviewed on the same day. Since their appearance is similar, they speak the same language and have identical work experience, the only visible difference between the two of them that could possibly explain the rejection of his job application is his ethnic origin. 3.2 Relying on article 7 read in conjunction with article (2) (1) (d) of the Convention, the petitioner submits that on the basis of the relevant anti-discrimination laws being adopted at the national level, it may appear that the State party has complied with the requirements stemming from the cited articles of the Convention, in particular because the domestic laws prohibit racial discrimination. At the same time, he argues that, as demonstrated in his own case and that of many others, no effective measures have been put in place to implement the applicable laws and national policies to ensure that Roma are not discriminated against, especially in employment matters.3 3.3 Regarding the alleged violation of article 5 (e) (i) of the Convention, the petitioner submits that the State party did not ensure the right to work free from discrimination, and that even though he brought his claims to the attention of the domestic authorities, they failed to acknowledge the violation of his rights and to provide redress for the grievances he had suffered. 3.4 Relying on article 6 of the Convention, the petitioner claims that the State party was to provide him with an effective remedy for the violation of his rights. In this respect, he argues that in cases of allegation of discrimination, the State party should act proactively and combat unlawfulness to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future. The petitioner asserts that he was nonetheless deprived of his fair trial rights in the assessment of his complaint, especially because the domestic courts, once he had established a prima facie case of discrimination, failed to shift the burden of proof to the respondent company as required under domestic as well as international laws. With regard to the latter, the petitioner recalls that the concept of shifted burden of proof appears in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, which states that once the applicant establishes “a rebuttable presumption that the effect of a measure or practice is discriminatory, the burden then shifts 2 3 2 It appears from the court documents that B.V. was informed of his successful application on the same day but not at the end of the interview. The petitioner mentions that concerns relating to access to employment of persons of Roma ethnicity in the Republic of Moldova have been expressed by the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance.