PART FOUR: DISCRIMINATORY VIOLENCE AND HATE CRIME At its most severe, discriminatory violence can amount to torture, or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.1119 This is clear on the face of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which lists discrimination as a recognized purpose under article 1 (1) of the Convention.1120 Both the Committee against Torture1121 and regional tribunals1122 have ruled on cases that they deemed sufficiently severe to meet this high standard, including cases involving racially motivated pogroms against minorities.1123 Discrimination may also form the basis of crimes prohibited under international humanitarian law and customary international law, such as genocide and crimes against humanity. Given the especially serious nature of these acts, they are subject to a dedicated international legal regime, which is beyond the scope of the present guide.1124 RIGHT TO RECOGNITION OF A BIAS MOTIVE IN DISCRIMINATORY VIOLENCE On 14 November 2013, Salifou Belemvire, originally from Burkina Faso, was the subject of an unprovoked attack by S.I. while riding on public transport in Chisinau. While Mr. Belemvire was talking on a mobile telephone, S.I. punched him without warning and proceeded to call him a number of racist epithets. Formal charges of hooliganism under article 287 (1) of the Criminal Code were subsequently filed against S.I. Under Moldovan law, “hooliganism” is defined as action carried out without any form of animus or motivation. PART FOUR Mr. Belemvire participated in the investigation and legal proceedings first as a victim and subsequently as a recognized injured party. Through his legal representative, he endeavoured repeatedly and at multiple stages of the proceedings to have the prosecutor’s office or courts reclassify the act as one of several crimes that would explicitly recognize the discriminatory character of the assault. He argued before domestic tribunals and before the prosecutor’s office that international law required that racially discriminatory acts be recognized as such. He argued that his right to effective remedy from racial discrimination would not be respected if the criminal conviction did not recognize explicitly that the assault he had suffered had been motivated by racial animus. He further argued, citing regional and international law, that violent racist acts were “particularly invidious” and thus that it was particularly important for society that the discriminatory character of the assault he had suffered be explicitly recognized. These arguments were systematically disregarded by courts and the prosecutor’s office, with the effect that the prosecution continued proceedings under article 287 (1). On 22 October 2014, the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova rendered the final domestic judgment upholding the lower court’s conviction of S.I. and his sentence of 18 months of imprisonment. Mr. Belemvire then submitted a complaint to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which he contended that the Moldovan authorities had violated a number of his rights under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, by refusing to classify the crime in a manner that would recognize its discriminatory character. Ruling on the case, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination held that article 6 of the relevant Convention on the right to an effective remedy had been violated. The Committee held that the investigation into the crime as conducted by the State party was incomplete without considering the discriminatory motive of the defendant: “The State party should have included that aspect of the crime, 1119 See, for instance, Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 35 (2017), para. 16. 1120 For further discussion on this point, see Equal Rights Trust, Shouting Through the Walls: Discriminatory Torture and Ill-Treatment – Case Studies from Jordan (London, 2017), pp. 9–27. 1121 Committee against Torture, Calfunao Paillalef v. Switzerland (CAT/C/68/D/882/2018), paras. 8.3–8.4 and 8.10. 1122 European Court of Human Rights, Aghdgomelashvili and Japaridze v. Georgia, Application No. 7224/11, Judgment, 8 October 2020, paras. 35 and 42–50; Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Azul Rojas Marín et al. v. Peru, Judgment, 12 March 2020, paras. 163–167; and African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, general comment No. 4 (2017), para. 13. 1123 Committee against Torture, Hajrizi Dzemajl et al. v. Yugoslavia (CAT/C/29/D/161/2000); and European Court of Human Rights, Moldovan and others v. Romania, Application Nos. 41138/98 and 64320/01, Judgment No. 2, 12 July 2005. 1124 United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, “Publications and resources”. Available at www.un.org/ en/genocideprevention/publications-and-resources.shtml. 169