E/C.12/HUN/CO/3 page 2 3. The Committee welcomes the open and constructive dialogue with the delegation of the State party, which included many experts from various government departments, as well as its frank answers to the questions asked by the Committee. B. Positive aspects 4. The Committee notes with appreciation the recent adoption of legislative and other measures to combat discrimination and promote equal opportunities for disadvantaged and marginalized individuals and groups in the area of economic, social and cultural rights, in particular: (a) Act No. 125 of 2003 on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities establishing an Equal Treatment Authority, which investigates and decides on individual complaints about discrimination; (b) The establishment of a Women’s Representation Council to coordinate the implementation of Government programmes promoting equal opportunities for women and to review and comment on draft legislation and other measures promoting gender equality; (c) The National Strategy Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion for 2006-2008 aimed at eliminating poverty and social exclusion and enhancing the sustainability of the pension system; (d) The Roma Integration Decade Programme Strategy Plan for the period 2007 to 2015; 5. The Committee welcomes the favourable position that the State party is taking concerning the elaboration of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. C. Factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Covenant 6. The Committee notes the absence of any significant factors or difficulties impeding the effective implementation of the Covenant in the State party. D. Principal subjects of concern 7. The Committee notes that, although the Covenant has been incorporated into the domestic law of the State party, most of the rights recognized in the Covenant are not directly applicable in the courts of the State party. 8. The Committee is concerned that the shared burden of proof under the Equal Treatment Act, requiring the victim merely to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, whereupon the burden of proof shifts to the alleged discriminator, is reportedly rarely applied by the courts. It is also concerned that the low level of resources provided to the Equal Treatment Authority since its inception and the recent reduction in its funding and the number of staff may adversely affect its capacity to deal with an increasing caseload.