CERD/C/103/D/60/2016 and non-discriminatory recruitment criteria. Consequently, the outcome of the selection process should be considered to have been based on legitimate grounds. 4.3 The Ombudsman’s Office of the Republic of Moldova restates the relevant national legislation 9 and various human rights instruments, including several articles of the Convention.10 The Ombudsman’s Office submits that it does not contest the admissibility of the complaint. It notes that even though the petitioner has failed to bring his case before the Council on Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality, the latter nonetheless provided the domestic courts with an advisory opinion drawing the courts’ attention to the need for reversal of the burden of proof in discrimination cases and giving some guidance as to the interpretation of the term “essential occupational requirements”,11 for which there had been no jurisprudence at the domestic level. Subsequently, the Ombudsman’s Office adds that it appears from the facts of the case as submitted by the petitioner that he presented a prima facie case for discrimination and that the respondent company failed to demonstrate that the petitioner had not been discriminated against on the ground of his ethnicity. At the same time, the Ombudsman’s Office argues that it appears from the decision of the Court of Appeal of Chisinau that several employees of different ethnicities have confirmed the friendly and tolerant attitude of the company’s administration toward its employees. The Ombudsman’s Office then restates some general principles concerning discrimination cases as established in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights.12 It further recalls the need for codifying the requirement to inform applicants about the outcome of recruitment processes and notes that information on ethnicity should be excluded from employment questionnaires. 4.4 In addition, the State party 13 recalls the requirement for exhaustion of domestic remedies and notes that even though it appears from the case file that the Criminal Panel of the Supreme Court of Justice ruled on the case, the petitioner failed to submit an extraordinary appeal against this decision as provided for by labour law. Lastly, the State reiterates that its authorities support the position of international bodies that racially motivated violence violates human dignity, which would require greater vigilance and actions. Petitioner’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 On 19 March 2018, the petitioner submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the admissibility and the merits of his communication. He welcomes the State party’s efforts to engage different national authorities in the dialogue relating to his case, but notes with concern that whereas the Council on Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality, the most competent authority in discrimination matters, was not invited to express its views concerning his case, the General Prosecution Office was given the opportunity to submit its observations, even though his complaint had no criminal law aspect. 5.2 Regarding the admissibility of the complaint, the petitioner first underlines that contrary to what the State party asserts, the Criminal Panel of the Supreme Court of Justice did not rule on his case. In view of the fact that he initiated civil proceedings, the 9 10 11 12 13 4 Arts. 1 and 2 of Act No. 382 on the rights of persons belonging to national minorities and the legal status of their organizations; and arts. 7 and 19 of Act No. 121 on equality. Art. 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights); arts. 2 (1), 5, 6 and 7 of the Convention; and art. 6 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Art. 7, para. 5, of Law No.121 on ensuring equality provides that any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference regarding a particular job does not constitute discrimination provided that the specific nature of the activity or the conditions in which it is being carried out requires certain “determined professional requirements”, on condition that the aim is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate. European Court of Human Rights, D.H. and others v. Czech Republic. The reference here is presumed to be to the Bureau of Interethnic Relations, which submitted the observations and which is responsible for enforcing the provisions of the Convention at the domestic level.