CERD/C/103/D/60/2016 considers that the remedy in question, even supposing that it is effective, was not available in the petitioner’s case for the purposes of article 14 (7) of the Convention. 7.5 As the Committee finds no obstacles to the admissibility of the present communication, it declares it admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the submissions and documentary evidence produced by the parties, as required under article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention and rule 95 of its rules of procedure. 8.2 The Committee notes that the first issue to consider is whether with regard to the rejection of the petitioner’s application the State party violated its obligation to protect the petitioner from discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin under article 5 (e) (i) of the Convention. The second issue to consider is whether the review by the tribunals amounted to a violation of article 6 of the Convention. 8.3 According to article 5 (e) (i) of the Convention, States parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, the enjoyment of the right to work. The Committee recalls its general recommendation No. 27 (2000) and notes that effective legislation prohibiting discrimination in employment and all discriminatory practices in the labour market affecting members of Roma communities, including recruitment processes, is required, in conjunction with effective protection of potential victims against such practices. In this regard, the Committee notes with concern the State party’s observation that the selection process was governed by a regulation, adopted at the company level, that established clear and non-discriminatory recruitment criteria, and that consequently, the outcome of the selection process should be considered to have been based on legitimate grounds. The Committee clarifies that the obligations arising from article 5 (e) (i) are not fulfilled merely by providing for a legislative and regulatory framework against racial discrimination in access to employment, but include the obligation to provide for effective monitoring of the implementation of non-discriminatory recruitment policies in practice. However, the claims brought and substantiated before the Committee raise mainly issues related to effective protection and remedies against racial discrimination and will therefore be examined under article 6 of the Convention only. 8.4 According to article 6, “States parties shall assure to everyone within their jurisdiction effective protection and remedies, through the competent national tribunals and other State institutions, against any acts of racial discrimination which violate his human rights and fundamental freedoms contrary to this Convention.” Although on a literal reading of the provision it would appear that an act of racial discrimination would have to be established before a petitioner would be entitled to protection and a remedy, the Committee notes that the State party must provide for the determination of this right through the national tribunals and other institutions, a guarantee which would be void were it unavailable in circumstances where a violation had not yet been established. While a State party cannot be reasonably required to provide for the determination of rights under the Convention no matter how unmeritorious such claims may be, article 6 provides protection to alleged victims if their claims are arguable under the Convention. In view of these considerations, the Committee proceeds to examine the petitioner’s claims under article 6 of the Convention. 8.5 In this context, the Committee notes the uncontested information brought before it by the petitioner, who is of Roma origin, that his application for a position as a waiter was rejected by a restaurant chain in 2012. The Committee notes, in particular, the petitioner’s claim that on the basis of this incident, he brought a prima facie case of racial discrimination to the attention of the domestic courts, and it was therefore for the respondent company to provide reasonable and convincing arguments to justify the unequal treatment he had been subjected to. On the other hand, the Committee notes the State party’s position contesting the petitioner’s claims primarily on the basis that the domestic courts had examined the case and decided that the petitioner was not able to sufficiently substantiate his claim that he had been discriminated against. Regarding the effectiveness of the judicial remedies in particular, 7