CERD/C/103/D/60/2016 observations published in 2011 and 2017 on the Republic of Moldova as well as in numerous reports of other international and regional human rights bodies. 20 8.10 The Committee reiterates that while a State party cannot reasonably be 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 the above considerations, the Committee finds in the current case that the petitioner presented such an arguable case, and that he was nonetheless left with a disproportionate burden to prove the respondent company’s discriminatory intent. The Committee considers that even though the national legislation provides for the procedure of shifted burden of proof, the State party’s response to the claims of racial discrimination was so ineffective that it failed to ensure appropriate protection and remedies, including appropriate satisfaction and reparation for the damage suffered, pursuant to its own laws and article 6 of the Convention. The Committee therefore concludes that the petitioner’s rights under article 6 of the Convention have been violated.21 8.11 In view of the foregoing, the Committee does not find it necessary to examine separately the petitioner’s claims in respect of article 5 (e) (i), and article 7 read in conjunction with article 2 (1) (d), of the Convention. 9. The Committee, acting pursuant to article 14 (7) (a) of the Convention, finds that the information before it, in the present case, discloses a violation of article 6 of the Convention by the State party. 10. The Committee recommends that the State party convey an apology to the petitioner and grant him adequate compensation for the damage caused by the above-mentioned violation of the Convention. The Committee also recommends that the State party fully enforce its anti-discrimination laws: (a) through the training of judges in anti-discrimination legislation, with a view to ensuring, inter alia, that the principle of shifting the burden of proof is fully observed; (b) through the provision of clear information about available domestic remedies in cases of racial discrimination; and (c) through strengthening of the monitoring of anti-discrimination labour standards. The State party is also requested to widely disseminate the present opinion of the Committee, including among judicial bodies, and to translate it into the official language of the State party. 11. The Committee requests the State party to provide, within 90 days, information on the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s opinion. 20 21 CERD/C/MDA/CO/10-11, paras. 20–21; CERD/C/MDA/CO/8-9, para. 15; E/C.12/MDA/CO/3, paras. 22–27; A/HRC/34/53/Add.2, paras. 105–107; and A/HRC/26/28/Add.2, para. 90 (a). See also European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, fourth report on the Republic of Moldova, adopted on 20 June 2013 and published on 15 October 2013, paras. 29–31, and fifth report on the Republic of Moldova, adopted on 20 June 2018 and published on 2 October 2018, paras. 83–84. See, for example, Habassi v. Denmark (case No. 10/1997), para. 9.3; Er v. Denmark, para. 7.4; and V.S. v. Slovakia, para. 7.4. 9