Salif Belemvir v. the Republic of Moldova. Opinion of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) Dated November 24, 2017, Communication No. 57/2015.
In 2015, the author of the communication was assisted in preparing a complaint. Subsequently, the complaint was communicated to the Republic of Moldova.
The applicant claimed that since the courts refused to consider the existence of a motive for racial discrimination in the criminal case against the person who had committed violence against the applicant, his right to an effective remedy and the right to protection under article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination had been violated.
Legal positions of the Committee: The Committee notes that it is not within its competence to assess the interpretation of facts and national legislation by national authorities, except in cases where the decisions taken are manifestly arbitrary or otherwise amount to a denial of justice (See: Er v. Denmark (CERD/C/71/D/40/2007), paragraph 7.2.). However, the Committee has also previously stated: "in the presence of threats of violence... The State party has an obligation to conduct an investigation with due care and promptness" (paragraph 7.2 of the Opinion) (See: Davas and Shava v. Denmark (CERD/C/80/D/46/2009), paragraph 7.4.).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances: The question before the Committee was whether the State party had fulfilled its obligation to provide effective protection and remedies before competent national courts or other State institutions in the case of any acts of racial discrimination, as provided for in article 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 G. (hereinafter referred to as the Convention) (paragraph 7.2 of the Opinion).
The Committee noted that, although the State party's authorities had investigated the incident, they had classified it as an act of hooliganism and had not taken into account the discriminatory motive that the defendant could have used in committing the crime, despite the applicant's numerous requests at various levels and in various State institutions, including the judiciary. In its submissions, the State party appeared to agree that the country's authorities, in particular the Prosecutor's Office, should have addressed this discriminatory element. The Committee therefore considered that the State party's investigation of the crime was incomplete, as it did not take into account the discriminatory motive in the defendant's actions. The State party should have taken this aspect of the crime into account "since any racially motivated offences undermine social cohesion and society as a whole" and often cause serious harm to individuals and society. In addition, the State party's refusal to investigate a racial motive also deprived the applicant of the right to "effective protection and remedies against acts of racial discrimination" (paragraph 7.3 of the Views) (See: Davas and Shava v. Denmark, paragraph 7.5.).
The applicant stated that on November 14, 2013, at about 8 p.m., he boarded a public minibus. After getting into the minibus, he called one of his friends; during the phone conversation, he spoke in a foreign language. Someone who was later identified as S.I. began insulting the applicant, calling him, among other things, "gypsy", "monkey", "Hindu" and "Negro". Then S.I. physically assaulted the applicant, struck him several times in the face and torso. For his part, Mr. Belemvir did not commit any violent acts. As a result of the beatings, several bruises formed on his body, and his face swelled. S.I. was detained right at the scene of the crime, thanks to the help of persons who, being eyewitnesses to the attack and insults, called the police.
The Committee's conclusions: a violation of article 6 of the Convention has been established.