CERD/C/103/D/60/2016 extraordinary appeal the State party refers to was not a viable option for the petitioner, as it is a remedy available only in criminal cases. 5.3 Regarding the merits of his case, the petitioner submits that the domestic courts have misinterpreted the definition of a “genuine and determining occupational requirement” that in certain scenarios could serve as lawful justification for non-hiring, should the applicant not fulfil this requirement. In this respect, he reiterates that he applied for a position as a waiter and that no such requirement was indicated in the job description, nor did the respondent company point to such a requirement in the course of the court proceedings. It was therefore erroneous for Centru District Court in Chisinau to conclude that Andy’s Pizza had refused to hire the petitioner because he had failed to meet such a requirement. Furthermore, the petitioner reiterates that the mechanisms established to implement the relevant anti-discrimination laws are not effective. This is clearly demonstrated by the court proceedings themselves, in which the respondent company was not required to justify the differential treatment of the petitioner, contrary to what should have followed from the requirement to reverse the burden of proof once a prima facie case of discrimination had been established. Moreover, Centru District Court in Chisinau held it against the petitioner that he did not provide any documentation to prove his Roma ethnicity. The petitioner further contests the Ministry’s argument that he was not discriminated against because the recruitment process was conducted in compliance with the company’s internal nondiscriminatory regulations. In this respect, the petitioner notes that such regulations have never been adduced as evidence by the respondent company before the domestic courts. Third-party submission 6.1 On 9 March 2018, the Working Group on Communications, acting on behalf of the Committee, decided to admit a submission from the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, provided that it was submitted through either of the parties. 6.2 On 7 August 2018, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova, through the petitioner’s counsel, submitted its intervention to the Committee. In its submission, it describes its main activities, provides some information concerning the deficiencies of judges’ training in the Republic of Moldova, and explains the importance of the direction of the evolving court practice in the State party, underlining that non-discrimination laws applied by judicial authorities have only been recently adopted. Regarding the specificities of the present complaint, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova submits that the domestic court’s assessment of the evidence indicates a systemic failure regarding the understanding of how the burden of proof should apply in discrimination cases. In this respect, the third party emphasizes that the first instance court held it against the petitioner that he did not provide evidence regarding his ethnic origin, other than his own statement, even though such a request runs counter to international standards. Moreover, the courts failed to rely on the presumption of discrimination that could have been inferred from the respondent company’s failure to submit as evidence the petitioner’s employment application form/questionnaire. Although the petitioner did have a copy of the questionnaire, it was not admitted as evidence because he had missed a procedural deadline. In addition, unreasonable inferences were made by the courts on the basis of the fact that the petitioner did not turn to the Council on Preventing and Eliminating Discrimination and Ensuring Equality, and also on the grounds that he did not request the courts to order the company to employ him, but rather to be awarded damages. Furthermore, the Legal Resources Centre from Moldova finds it problematic that the courts relied heavily on witness testimonies of other employees of the same company and failed to recognize the intersectionality of ethnicity, age and gender, and the particular vulnerability of a young Roma man seeking an entry-level position involving direct service to clients. In addition, the courts failed to ask the respondent company to justify the candidates’ differential treatment, which led to an immediate job offer in the case of the non-Roma candidate and to no follow-up in the case of the Roma candidate. 6.3 On 20 November 2018, the Committee transmitted the third-party submission of 7 August 2018 to the State party, which did not submit any observations in response. 5