ÿWPC5 ]ôìÛœŒ(’$O¹n i.í©ÁÕÓë¾êó0¨·)ûýöܦÚVM£õ‘q”ç˜è#¥àºÆ9¦–ÇñM”ƪ…_hu¿åL®‡â/­`¦eQÜÙ·š[š?£= Zú½Ý(ñ~t¨ð#O+”fa3íì‰J¶Î&Næ…¬¡á‚`Ñ=i—éû¹©ŽîœÎ]´vír·J^ƒ^uà‹Ù[q³ül•£ê,*g]¢#Rî9eS<‡TQ96—Ñ_¶d²(âÜLf¹/'à ’ºnî1¤ØþälÖ ºT¯ÏÉëã}èì!ãC”—¥Àl4Ÿ@aÎe >xY›óùmWÌ/ë?³ª¸ 'ÈQ—½´J3|™1~ÓWYî[m‡ˆŒÊ ¢(¤‹ ?x=0ÿöòô9™ë8^÷ÐшLÅD@ÇòT°OƒÞЮҴÀTA½×`w-óî¨ødò%˜'õ£¡ô€˜Í3è21"Àk›€(˜€Lcœ?½_‰f³PO„î]ü ØDËuøÈ>üØQ„mü=õ·T‡Ã«Sòý²ÊÎjµ±S÷;x'žÁp\ž~›…¥VÂX{Zjýà$ˆz¯ý¬ì5•M&ê: #ÁšUN[ %© 0:¯^ éwõ4ù  m˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard,ä,,,,,ä0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ûœ$¡¡ÔUKUS.,Ô´¦ú* Äpì* R¢3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒûœ!ÝÔUKUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔKoptovaÔ_Ô€v.€Slovak€RepublicóóÐ à ÐÌCommunication€No€13/1998Ð pÀ ÐÌ8€August€2000Ð P   ÐÌÔ_ÔCERDÔ_Ô/C/57/D/13/1998Ð 0 € ÐÌÌVIEWSÐ P  Ðó óÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Anna€Ô_ÔKoptovaÔ_Ô€(represented€by€counsel)€Ð Ð  ÐÌòòAlleged€victimóó:€The€author€Ð ° ÐÌòòState€party€concernedóó:€Slovak€Republic€Ð à ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€15€December€1998€(initial€submission)€óóÐ pÀ ÐÌÌòòThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€established€under€article€8€of€theÐ @ ÐInternational€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€Ð 0€ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€8€August€2000,€Ð ` ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€13/1998,€submitted€to€the€CommitteeÐ ð@ Ðunder€article€14€of€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€RacialÐ à0 ÐDiscrimination,€Ð Ð  ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€considerationóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€author€and€theÐ °"  ÐState€party,€Ð  #ð! ÐÌòòBearing€in€mindóó€rule€95€of€its€rules€of€procedure€requiring€it€to€formulate€its€opinion€on€theÐ €%Ð # Ðcommunication€before€it,€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ð P( #& ÐÌÌò òòòÓ  ÓOpinionóóó óÐ  +p&) ÐÓ”ÓÌÌ1.€The€author€of€the€communication€is€Anna€Ô_ÔKoptovaÔ_Ô,€a€Slovak€citizen€of€Romany€ethnicity.€She€isÐ ð-@), Ðthe€director€of€the€Legal€Defence€Bureau€for€Ethnic€Minorities€of€the€Good€Romany€Fairy€Ô_ÔKesajÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐFoundation€in€Ô_ÔKosiceÔ_Ô€and€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€the€Slovak€Republic€of€articles€2,Ð  ð Ð3,€4,€5€and€6€of€the€Convention.€She€is€represented€by€the€European€Roma€Rights€Ô_ÔCenterÔ_Ô,€aÐ à Ðnon-governmental€organization€based€in€Budapest.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ1.2€In€conformity€with€article€14,€paragraph€6€(a)€of€the€Convention,€the€Committee€transmitted€theÐ ` ° Ðcommunication€to€the€State€party€on€25€March€1999.€Ð P   ÐÌòòThe€facts€as€submitted€by€the€authoróóÐ 0 € ÐÌ2.1€The€author€reports€that€in€1981€seven€Romany€families€from€the€villages€of€Ô_ÔRovneÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔZbudskeÔ_ÔÐ `  ÐÔ_ÔDlheÔ_Ô,€Slovak€Republic,€came€to€work€in€an€agricultural€cooperative€located€in€the€municipality€ofÐ P  ÐKrasny€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô.€Shortly€after€their€arrival€each€of€the€families€sought€and€received€permanent€residenceÐ ð@  Ðunder€Slovak€Law€(135/1982€Act)€in€what€are€today€the€municipalities€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€(atÐ à0  Ðthe€time€part€of€Krasny€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô).€When,€at€the€end€of€1989,€the€agricultural€cooperative€ceasedÐ Ð  Ðoperations€the€Romany€families€lost€their€jobs.€Insofar€as€their€living€quarters€at€the€cooperative€wereÐ À Ðlinked€to€their€employment,€they€were€compelled€to€leave€the€cooperative.€Upon€their€departure,€theÐ ° Ðauthorities€demolished€the€stables€which€they€had€occupied.€Ð  ð ÐÌ2.2€In€May€1991€the€Romany€families€returned€to€the€municipalities€where€they€were€legallyÐ €Ð Ðregistered,€i.e.€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô.€For€various€periods€over€the€following€six€years,€they€livedÐ pÀ Ðin€temporary€housing€provided€reluctantly€by€local€authorities€in€the€county€of€Ô_ÔMedzilaborceÔ_Ô.€OnÐ `° Ðmore€than€one€occasion€during€that€period,€however,€anti-Roma€hostility€on€the€part€of€local€officialsÐ P  Ðand/or€non-Romany€residents€forced€the€Romany€families€to€flee.€Thus,€between€May€and€DecemberÐ @ Ð1991€the€Ô_ÔMedzilaborceÔ_Ô€County€Department€of€Social€Affairs€reserved€a€trailer€for€the€families€toÐ 0€ Ðrent.€Although€the€families€raised€the€money€no€village€(Krasny€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔCabinyÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔSukovÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,Ð  p ÐÔ_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€or€Ô_ÔCabalovceÔ_Ô)€allowed€them€to€place€the€trailer€on€its€territory.€In€1993,€after€they€had€builtÐ ` Ðtemporary€dwellings€in€the€village€of€Ô_ÔCabinyÔ_Ô,€the€dwellings€were€torn€down€by€non-RomanyÐ P Ðresidents.€Throughout€this€period€the€Romany€families€were€moving€frequently€from€one€town€toÐ ð@ Ðanother,€in€search€of€a€permanent€and€secure€home.€Ð à0 ÐÌ2.3€In€spring€1997€the€families€again€established€temporary€dwellings€on€agricultural€land€locatedÐ À! Ðin€Ô_ÔCabinyÔ_Ô.€Local€authorities€from€neighbouring€villages€met€to€discuss€the€situation.€The€mayor€ofÐ °"  ÐÔ_ÔCabinyÔ_Ô€characterized€as€illegal€the€movement€of€Roma€to€Ô_ÔCabinyÔ_Ô€and€warned€of€a€possible€negativeÐ  #ð! Ðreaction€from€the€rest€of€the€population.€The€mayors€of€Ô_ÔCabalovceÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€agreed€toÐ $à" Ðaccommodate€the€homeless€Roma.€On€8€June€1997€the€Municipal€Council€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€whoseÐ €%Ð # Ðmayor€had€not€been€present€at€the€above-mentioned€meeting,€enacted€a€resolution€which€expresslyÐ p&À!$ Ðforbade€the€Romany€families€from€settling€in€the€village€and€threatened€them€with€expulsion€shouldÐ `'°"% Ðthey€try€to€settle€there.€The€resolution€also€declared€that€they€were€not€native€inhabitants€ofÐ P( #& ÐÔ_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€since€after€the€separation€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€and€Krasny€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô€in€1990€they€had€neitherÐ @)$' Ðresided€in€the€village€nor€claimed€their€permanent€residence€there.€On€16€July€1997€the€MunicipalityÐ 0*€%( Ðof€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€adopted€resolution€No.€22€which€also€forbade€Roma€citizens€to€enter€the€village€or€to€settleÐ  +p&) Ðin€shelters€in€the€village€district.€The€resolution€explicitly€provided€that€its€effect€was€of€permanentÐ ,`'* Ðduration.€Ð -P(+ ÐÐ ð-@), Ї2.4€On€21€July€1997€the€dwellings€built€and€occupied€by€the€Romany€families€in€the€municipalityÐ ° Ðof€Ô_ÔCabinyÔ_Ô€were€set€on€fire.€To€date€no€perpetrator€has€been€identified€and€there€is€no€record€of€what,Ð  ð Ðif€any,€steps€the€prosecution€authorities€have€taken€to€investigate€the€facts.€Ð à ÐÌ2.5€The€Ô_ÔKosiceÔ_Ô€Legal€Defence€Foundation€sent€a€letter€to€the€General€Prosecutor's€Office€inÐ pÀ ÐBratislava€requesting€an€investigation€into€the€legality€of€Resolution€No.€21€of€the€MunicipalÐ ` ° ÐCouncil€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€and€resolution€No.€22€of€the€Municipal€Council€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô.€The€letter€assertedÐ P   Ðthat€the€Resolutions€were€acts€of€"public€discrimination"€against€Roma€which€infringed€their€rightsÐ @  Ðto€freedom€of€movement€and€residence€and€to€protection€against€discrimination.€On€19€SeptemberÐ 0 € Ð1997€the€General€Prosecutor's€Office€informed€the€Foundation€that€the€investigation€had€beenÐ  p  Ðassigned€to€the€County€Prosecutor€in€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô.€Ð `  ÐÌ2.6€On€24€November€1997€the€Ô_ÔKosiceÔ_Ô€Legal€Defence€Foundation€submitted€an€application€to€theÐ ð@  ÐConstitutional€Court€of€the€Slovak€Republic€requesting€annulment€of€both€resolutions.€TheÐ à0  Ðsubmission€stated€that€these€resolutions€violated€the€human€rights€and€fundamental€freedoms€notÐ Ð  Ðonly€of€Romany€citizens€with€permanent€residence€in€the€respective€towns€but€of€all€RomanyÐ À Ðcitizens,€as€well€as€of€the€Foundation€itself,€which€could€not€carry€out€its€work€on€behalf€of€RomaÐ ° Ðin€the€affected€towns.€It€also€stated€that€nine€Romany€families€with€permanent€residence€in€the€twoÐ  ð Ðvillages€in€question€had€been€forced€to€leave€and€that€the€resolutions€constituted€a€general€banÐ à Ðagainst€Romany€citizens,€pursuant€to€which€no€citizen€of€Romany€origin€was€allowed€to€enter€theseÐ €Ð Ðvillages.€It€requested€the€annulment€of€both€resolutions€on€the€grounds€that€they€violated€the€rightsÐ pÀ Ðof€non-discrimination€and€freedom€of€movement€and€residence,€as€well€as€the€particular€rights€ofÐ `° Ðethnic€minorities€protected€by€the€Slovak€Constitution.€Ð P  ÐÌ2.7€In€its€decision€of€18€December€1997€the€Constitutional€Court€dismissed€the€submission€on€theÐ 0€ Ðground€that,€as€a€legal€person,€the€Ô_ÔKosiceÔ_Ô€Legal€Defence€Foundation€could€not€suffer€an€infringementÐ  p Ðof€the€constitutional€rights€set€forth€in€its€application,€since€those€rights€were€designed€to€protect€onlyÐ ` Ðnatural€persons.€On€29€December€1997€the€District€Prosecutor's€Office€in€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô€notified€theÐ P ÐFoundation€that,€in€view€of€the€Constitutional€Court's€ruling,€it€had€suspended€its€investigationÐ ð@ Ðconcerning€the€challenged€resolutions.€Ð à0 ÐÌ2.8€On€5€May€1998€Ms.€Ô_ÔKoptovaÔ_Ô,€together€with€Ô_ÔMiroslavÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLackoÔ_Ô€(another€employee€of€the€Ô_ÔKosiceÔ_ÔÐ À! ÐLegal€Defence€Foundation)€and€Jan€Ô_ÔLackoÔ_Ô,€one€of€the€Romany€citizens€whose€dwellings€wereÐ °"  Ðdestroyed€on€21€July€1997,€filed€another€submission€before€the€Constitutional€Court.€ThisÐ  #ð! Ðsubmission€challenged€the€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€resolution€on€the€grounds€that€it€unlawfully€restricted€the€freedomÐ $à" Ðof€movement€and€residence€of€a€group€of€people€solely€because€they€were€Roma.€The€submissionÐ €%Ð # Ðargued€that€not€only€Jan€Ô_ÔLackoÔ_Ô,€a€permanent€resident€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô,€but€all€Roma€in€Slovakia,€includingÐ p&À!$ ÐMs.€Ô_ÔKoptovaÔ_Ô,€suffered€infringements€of€their€rights€under€the€Slovak€Constitution€to€freedom€ofÐ `'°"% Ðmovement€and€residence,€freedom€from€racial€and€ethnic€discrimination€and€freedom€in€the€choiceÐ P( #& Ðof€nationality.€On€the€same€date€Julia€Ô_ÔDemeterovaÔ_Ô,€a€permanent€resident€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€and€anotherÐ @)$' Ðof€the€Romany€citizens€whose€dwellings€had€been€destroyed,€filed€a€submission€with€theÐ 0*€%( ÐConstitutional€Court€challenging€the€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€resolution€on€the€same€grounds.€Ð  +p&) ÐÌ2.9€On€16€June€1998€the€Constitutional€Court€issued€two€written€opinions€dismissing€both€petitionsÐ -P(+ Ðon€similar€grounds.€In€response€to€Jan€Ô_ÔLackoÔ_Ô's€submission€the€Court€reasoned€that,€as€a€permanentÐ ð-@), Ðresident€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô,€he€had€not€provided€any€evidence€to€show€that€the€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€resolution€had€in€factÐ ° Ðbeen€applied€in€a€manner€which€would€infringe€his€rights.€As€to€Ô_ÔMiroslavÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔLackoÔ_Ô€and€Ms.€Ô_ÔKoptovaÔ_Ô,Ð  ð Ðboth€of€whom€had€permanent€residence€outside€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô,€the€Court€found€no€evidence€that€either€hadÐ à Ðtried€to€enter€or€move€into€the€community€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô,€or€that€the€community€had€tried€to€stop€them.Ð €Ð ÐAccordingly,€the€Court€found,€their€rights€had€not€been€violated.€With€respect€to€Ô_ÔDemeterovaÔ_Ô'sÐ pÀ Ðsubmission€the€Court€found€that,€as€a€permanent€resident€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€she€had€provided€noÐ ` ° Ðevidence€that€the€resolution€had€in€fact€been€applied€in€a€manner€which€infringed€her€rights.€Ð P   ÐÌ2.10€Since€the€adoption€of€both€resolutions€at€issue€Anna€Ô_ÔKoptovaÔ_Ô€has€not€gone€to€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€orÐ 0 € ÐÔ_ÔNagovÔ_Ô.€She€fears€that,€as€a€Slovak€citizen€of€Romany€ethnicity,€she€would€be€subjected€to€violenceÐ  p  Ðif€she€were€to€enter€either€municipality.€Ð `  ÐÌòòThe€complaintóóÐ ð@  ÐÌ3.1€The€author€asserts€that€a€number€of€rights€to€which€she€is€entitled€under€the€Convention€haveÐ Ð  Ðbeen€violated,€including€the€following:€Ð À ÐÌà0  àArticle€2.1€(a).€The€institutions€which€have€adopted€the€resolutions€in€question€are€localÐ  ð Ðpublic€authorities€and€public€institutions.€By€maintaining€the€resolutions€in€force€the€SlovakÐ à ÐRepublic€has€engaged€in€acts€of€racial€discrimination€against€the€author€and€other€Roma€andÐ €Ð Ðhas€failed€to€ensure€that€all€public€authorities€and€public€institutions,€national€and€local,Ð pÀ Ðrefrain€from€acts€or€practices€of€racial€discrimination.Ð`°(#(# ÐÌà0  àArticle€2.1€(c).€By€maintaining€in€force€the€resolutions€at€issue€the€Slovak€Republic€hasÐ @ Ðfailed€to€take€any€measures€to€review€governmental,€national€and€local€policies€and€toÐ 0€ Ðamend,€rescind€or€nullify€any€laws€and€regulations€which€have€the€effect€of€creating€orÐ  p Ðperpetuating€racial€discrimination.€Ð`(#(# ÐÌà0  àArticle€3.€The€Resolutions€publicly€and€formally€refer€to€the€author€and€other€persons€byÐ ð@ Ðtheir€€€€€€assumed€racial/ethnic€identity€and€single€them€out€for€special€treatment.€As€such,Ð à0 Ðthe€Resolutions€expressly€endorse€policies€of€racial€segregation€and€apartheid.€By€refusingÐ Ð  Ðto€withdraw€them€the€Slovak€Republic€has€contravened€its€obligation€to€prevent,€prohibit€andÐ À! Ðeradicate€all€practices€of€segregation€and€apartheid€within€its€jurisdiction.€Ð°" (#(# ÐÌà0  àArticle€4€(c).€By€maintaining€in€force€the€resolutions€at€issue€the€Slovak€Republic€has€failedÐ $à" Ðto€comply€with€its€obligation€not€to€permit€public€authorities€or€public€institutions,€nationalÐ €%Ð # Ðor€local,€to€promote€or€incite€racial€discrimination€against€the€author€and€other€Roma.€Ðp&À!$(#(# ÐÌà0  àArticle€5€(d)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô).€The€resolutions€at€issue€expressly€forbid€the€author€and€other€Roma€fromÐ P( #& Ðentering€the€two€municipalities€solely€because€of€their€status€as€Roma.€By€adopting€andÐ @)$' Ðmaintaining€in€force€these€resolutions€the€Slovak€Republic€has€infringed€the€author's€rightÐ 0*€%( Ðto€freedom€of€movement€and€residence.€Ð +p&)(#(# ÐÌà0  àArticle€6.€The€author€complained€to€local€law€enforcement€authorities€and€filed€formalÐ -P(+ Ðcomplaints€with€the€Constitutional€Court.€However,€each€request€for€a€remedy€was€rebuffed.Ð ð-@), ÐThe€ruling€of€16€June€1998€by€the€Constitutional€Court€represents€the€final€domesticÐ ° Ðdecision,€from€which€no€appeal€is€permitted.€Accordingly,€all€domestic€remedies€have€beenÐ  ð Ðexhausted.Ðà(#(# ÐÌ3.2€The€author€states€that€she€is€a€victim€of€the€above€violations€for€the€purposes€of€article€14,Ð pÀ Ðparagraph€1,€of€the€Convention.€Both€resolutions€may€be€reasonably€understood€by€the€author,€(as,Ð ` ° Ðindeed,€by€all€Roma€in€Slovakia)€to€apply€to€her.€The€author€would€like€to€be€free€to€visit€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€andÐ P   ÐÔ_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€for€instance€in€order€to€further€the€work€of€her€organization.€However,€she€has€notÐ @  Ðentered€either€municipality€since€the€resolutions€were€adopted,€in€part€because€she€fears€that€theyÐ 0 € Ðcould€be€enforced€against€her.€The€author€believes€that,€by€publicly€and€formally€using€the€termÐ  p  Ð"Roma"€to€refer€to€certain€unspecified€persons€and€by€singling€out€such€persons€for€special€andÐ `  Ðinvidious€treatment,€the€resolutions€subject€her,€as€a€person€of€Romany€ethnicity,€to€degradingÐ P  Ðtreatment.€òò1óó/€Ð ð@  ÐÌ3.3€The€author€further€argues€that,€in€assessing€her€"victim"€status,€the€Committee€should€also€takeÐ Ð  Ðinto€consideration€jurisprudence€of€the€European€Court€of€Human€Rights€which€entitles€individualsÐ À Ðto€contend€that€a€law€violates€their€rights€by€itself,€in€the€absence€of€an€individual€measure€ofÐ ° Ðimplementation,€if€they€run€the€risk€of€being€directly€affected€by€it.€Ð  ð ÐÌ3.4€Even€though€the€author€does€not€now€and€did€not€previously€reside€in€the€affected€municipalities,Ð €Ð Ðshe€is€among€the€class€of€persons€defined€by€the€challenged€resolutions€who€are€adversely€affectedÐ pÀ Ðby€them.€Both€the€text€of€the€resolutions€and€the€background€of€anti-Roma€hostility€which€underliesÐ `° Ðtheir€adoption€make€it€reasonable€to€believe€that€the€risk€of€additional€adverse€effect€-€i.e.€that,€ifÐ P  Ðviolated,€the€Resolutions€might€be€enforced€through,€inter€alia,€physical€force€-€is€high.€Ð @ ÐÌ3.5€Finally,€the€author€asserts€that€the€matter€is€not€being€examined€under€any€other€procedure€ofÐ  p Ðinternational€investigation€or€settlement,€although€she€notes€that€a€separate€case€concerning€theÐ ` Ðevents€giving€rise€to€the€present€communication€had€been€filed€on€behalf€of€other€persons€with€theÐ P ÐEuropean€Court€of€Human€Rights.€Ð ð@ ÐÌòòState€party's€observations€on€admissibilityóóÐ Ð  ÐÌ4.1€By€submission€of€23€June€1999€the€State€party€challenges€the€admissibility€of€theÐ °"  Ðcommunication.€It€informs€the€Committee€that€on€8€April€1999€the€Municipal€Council€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€andÐ  #ð! Ðthe€Municipal€Council€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€held€extraordinary€meetings,€also€attended€by€the€DistrictÐ $à" ÐProsecutor€of€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô,€and€decided€to€revoke€resolution€No.€22€of€16€June€1997€and€resolution€No.Ð €%Ð # Ð21€of€8€June€1997€respectively.€The€State€party€therefore€concludes€that€the€communication€has€lostÐ p&À!$ Ðits€relevance.€Ð `'°"% ÐÌ4.2€The€State€party€further€argues€that€a€case€concerning€alleged€racial€discrimination€against€RomaÐ @)$' Ðcaused€by€the€adoption€of€the€above-mentioned€resolutions€has€been€filed€with€the€European€CourtÐ 0*€%( Ðof€Human€Rights.€Although€the€applicants€are€not€identical€in€the€two€cases,€the€subject€matter€isÐ  +p&) Ðexactly€the€same.€Ð ,`'* ÐÌ4.3€According€to€the€State€party,€the€Roma€inhabitants€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€were€summoned€by€the€DistrictÐ ð-@), ÐProsecutor€of€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô€by€registered€letters€dated€20€November€1997.€However,€they€failed€toÐ ° Ðappear€in€the€Prosecutor's€Office,€which€means€that€they€did€not€cooperate€in€establishing€the€factsÐ  ð Ðof€the€case.€Ð à ÐÌ4.4€The€State€party€also€submits€that€the€author€has€failed€to€exhaust€domestic€remedies.€First€of€all,Ð pÀ Ðthe€Constitutional€Court€rejected€the€petition€filed€by€the€Legal€Defence€Bureau€for€EthnicÐ ` ° ÐMinorities€on€the€grounds€that,€as€a€legal€entity,€the€Bureau€could€not€challenge€a€violation€ofÐ P   Ðfundamental€rights€belonging€to€natural€persons.€The€court,€however,€also€noted€that€its€decision€wasÐ @  Ðwithout€prejudice€to€the€right€of€natural€persons€to€claim€the€violation€of€their€fundamental€rightsÐ 0 € Ðas€a€result€of€decisions€made€by€State€or€local€administrative€organs.€On€the€basis€of€the€court'sÐ  p  Ðdecision€the€District€Prosecutor€of€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô€informed€the€author€that€her€case€would€beÐ `  Ðdiscontinued.€The€author€did€not€appeal€the€decision€of€the€District€Prosecutor,€although€it€wasÐ P  Ðpossible€to€appeal€in€accordance€with€Act€314/1996€on€the€Prosecution€Authority.€Ð ð@  ÐÌ4.5€As€for€the€decision€of€the€Constitutional€Court€dated€16€June€1998€to€reject€the€author's€petitionÐ Ð  Ðof€5€May€1998,€the€State€party€submits€that€nothing€prevented€the€author€from€filing€a€new€petitionÐ À Ðwith€the€Constitutional€Court€submitting€evidence€of€violation€of€her€constitutional€rights€or€a€causalÐ ° Ðlink€between€the€violation€of€her€rights€and€the€decision€of€the€municipal€council.€Ð  ð ÐÌ4.6€Secondly,€the€State€party€submits€that€the€author€could€have€availed€herself€of€the€remedyÐ €Ð Ðprovided€for€under€section€13€of€the€Civil€Code,€according€to€which€everyone€is€entitled€to€seek€theÐ pÀ Ðprotection€of€the€State€against€violations€of€his/her€integrity€and€to€be€given€appropriate€satisfaction;Ð `° Ðin€the€case€of€insufficient€satisfaction,€mainly€because€the€dignity€or€respect€that€the€person€enjoyedÐ P  Ðin€society€was€significantly€harmed,€the€victim€is€entitled€to€compensation,€to€be€determined€by€aÐ @ Ðcourt€as€appropriate.€Ð 0€ ÐÌ4.7€The€State€party€further€submits€that€the€resolutions€of€the€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€municipalÐ ` Ðcouncils€were€never€implemented.€During€the€time€they€remained€in€force€no€act€of€violence€againstÐ P Ðpersons€belonging€to€the€Roma€minority€took€place€and€the€Roma€moved€within€the€boundaries€ofÐ ð@ Ðthe€two€municipalities€without€restrictions.€The€Roma€registered€as€permanent€residents€in€thoseÐ à0 Ðmunicipalities€when€the€resolutions€were€adopted€continue€to€enjoy€that€status.€Ð Ð  ÐÌ4.8€As€for€the€author's€claim€that€several€provisions€of€the€Convention,€including€article€2,€paragraphÐ °"  Ð1€(a),€have€been€violated,€the€State€party€indicates€that,€according€to€section€1,€paragraphs€1€and€2,Ð  #ð! Ðof€the€Act€of€the€Slovak€National€Council€No.€369/1990€Coll.€on€the€Municipal€System,€aÐ $à" Ðmunicipality€is€an€independent€self-governing€territorial€unit€of€the€Slovak€Republic€and€anyÐ €%Ð # Ðinterventions€as€to€its€powers€and/or€impositions€of€responsibilities€are€possible€only€by€law.€TheÐ p&À!$ Ðtwo€resolutions€adopted€by€the€municipal€councils€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€did€not€concern€theÐ `'°"% Ðperformance€of€State€administrative€tasks€transferred€to€the€municipal€level€in€the€field€of€generalÐ P( #& Ðpublic€administration,€neither€did€they€concern€security€and€public€order€affairs€transferred€toÐ @)$' Ðmunicipalities,€in€which€case€the€control€and€supervision€of€a€municipality€could€be€applied€pursuantÐ 0*€%( Ðto€article€71,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Constitution.€Ð  +p&) ÐÌ4.9€The€author€never€tried€to€move€into€either€municipality,€to€acquire€or€rent€a€house€or€to€workÐ -P(+ Ðthere.€She€showed€no€interest€in€visiting€the€municipalities€in€order€to€know€the€reasons€for€theÐ ð-@), Ðissuing€of€the€resolutions.€She€provided€no€evidence,€to€the€Committee€or€the€authorities€involvedÐ ° Ðin€the€case€at€the€national€level,€that€she€had€tried€to€enter€the€municipalities€or€that€she€had€beenÐ  ð Ðprevented€from€doing€so.€Ð à ÐÌòòCounsel's€commentsóóÐ pÀ ÐÌ5.1€In€a€submission€dated€2€August€1999€counsel€contends€that€even€if€the€challenged€resolutionsÐ P   Ðwere€withdrawn€the€communication€is€still€admissible.€Ð @  ÐÌ5.2€First€of€all,€the€author€remains€a€"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€14€of€the€Convention.€TheÐ  p  ÐCommittee€could€follow€in€this€respect€jurisprudence€from€the€European€Court€of€Human€RightsÐ `  Ðaccording€to€which€an€applicant€remains€a€"victim"€unless€the€following€conditions€obtain:€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€thereÐ P  Ðhas€been€an€acknowledgment€by€the€domestic€courts€of€a€violation€of€the€substance€of€the€EuropeanÐ ð@  ÐConvention€rights€at€issue;€(ii)€the€applicant€has€received€satisfaction€with€regard€to€the€past€damageÐ à0  Ðsuffered€by€reason€of€the€violating€provisions;€and€(iii)€the€applicant€has€received€satisfaction€withÐ Ð  Ðregard€to€a€complaint€that€the€violating€provisions€should€not€have€been€promulgated€in€the€firstÐ À Ðplace.€Ð ° ÐÌ5.3€In€the€instant€case€none€of€those€conditions€has€been€satisfied:€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€at€no€time€has€the€authorÐ à Ðreceived€an€acknowledgment€by€the€domestic€courts€that€the€existence€of€the€resolutions€amountedÐ €Ð Ðto€a€violation€of€domestic€law,€of€the€Slovak€Constitution,€of€the€Convention€or€of€any€other€treatyÐ pÀ Ðor€international€legal€instrument€protecting€human€rights;€(ii)€at€no€time€has€the€author€receivedÐ `° Ðsatisfaction€with€regard€to€the€past€damage€suffered€by€her€by€reason€of€the€authorities'€initialÐ P  Ðpromulgation€and€subsequent€maintenance€in€force€of€the€resolutions€for€almost€two€years;€(iii)€atÐ @ Ðno€time€has€the€applicant€received€satisfaction€with€regard€to€her€complaint€that€the€resolutionsÐ 0€ Ðshould€not€have€been€issued€in€the€first€place.€Accordingly,€counsel€concludes€that€the€author€is€aÐ  p Ð"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€14€and€that€the€matter€of€the€abolition€of€the€resolutions€isÐ ` Ðrelevant€only€for€the€purpose€of€any€suggestions€and€recommendations€that€the€Committee€mightÐ P Ðaddress€to€the€State€party€at€the€conclusion€of€the€case.€Ð ð@ ÐÌ5.4€Further€or€alternative€to€the€arguments€made€above,€counsel€submits€that€the€Committee€shouldÐ Ð  Ðin€any€event€consider€the€author's€claim€for€reasons€of€"general€interest".€The€Committee€ought€toÐ À! Ðhave€jurisdiction€to€consider€claims€relevant€to€the€general€or€public€interest,€even€in€exceptionalÐ °"  Ðcases€where€the€victim€requirement€has€not€been€satisfied.€A€case€involving€the€promulgation€andÐ  #ð! Ðmaintenance€in€force€of€resolutions€banning€an€entire€ethnic€minority€from€residing€or€entering€anÐ $à" Ðentire€municipality€is€precisely€the€kind€of€case€that€should€satisfy€a€"general€interest"€rule.€Ð €%Ð # ÐÌ5.5€Regarding€the€State€party's€argument€that€an€application€on€the€same€matter€has€also€beenÐ `'°"% Ðsubmitted€to€the€European€Court€of€Human€Rights,€counsel€contends€that€the€author€had€alreadyÐ P( #& Ðinformed€the€Committee€about€that.€However,€the€application€filed€with€the€European€Court€by€threeÐ @)$' Ðother€persons€and€alleging€violations€of€the€European€Convention€should€in€no€way€preclude€theÐ 0*€%( Ðauthor€from€filing€a€separate€communication€before€the€Committee€complaining€that€the€resolutionsÐ  +p&) Ðviolate€the€Convention.€Counsel€cites€jurisprudence€of€the€Human€Rights€Committee€adopting€thatÐ ,`'* Ðapproach.€Ð -P(+ ÐÐ ð-@), Ð5.6€Furthermore,€even€if€the€author€had€filed€a€separate€application€with€the€European€Court€ofÐ ° ÐHuman€Rights€concerning€the€same€matter,€there€is€no€provision€in€the€Convention€expressly€barringÐ  ð Ðthe€Committee€from€examining€a€case€that€is€already€being€examined€by€another€international€body.€Ð à ÐÌ5.7€The€substantive€features€and€intent€behind€this€Convention€and€the€European€Convention€areÐ pÀ Ðtotally€different.€The€application€before€the€European€Court€alleges€breaches€of€EuropeanÐ ` ° ÐConvention€provisions,€including€the€prohibition€of€inhuman€and€degrading€treatment€and€the€rightÐ P   Ðto€freedom€of€movement€and€choice€of€residence.€It€seeks,€inter€alia,€a€declaration€that€certainÐ @  Ðprovisions€of€the€European€Convention€have€been€violated€and€an€award€of€just€compensation.€ByÐ 0 € Ðcontrast,€the€present€communication€alleges€separate€and€different€violations€of€the€Convention€onÐ  p  Ðthe€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination€(which€is€more€concerned€than€the€EuropeanÐ `  ÐConvention€with€the€positive€duties€and€obligations€of€States€parties€not€to€discriminate€on€the€basisÐ P  Ðof€race,€colour€or€national€origin)€and€seeks€suggestions€and€recommendations€concerning€theÐ ð@  ÐGovernment's€obligation€to€remedy€the€alleged€violations.€The€simultaneous€filings€of€claimsÐ à0  Ðinvolving€similar€matters€with€the€Committee€and€the€European€Court€are€founded€on€different€legalÐ Ð  Ðbases€and€seek€different€legal€remedies.€They€are€not,€therefore,€duplicitous€claims.€Ð À ÐÌ5.8€Counsel€further€objects€to€the€State€party's€argument€that€the€author€did€not€exhaust€domesticÐ  ð Ðremedies.€He€states€that,€according€to€international€human€rights€jurisprudence,€the€local€remediesÐ à Ðrule€requires€the€exhaustion€of€remedies€that€are€available,€effective€and€sufficient.€A€remedy€isÐ €Ð Ðconsidered€available€if€it€can€be€pursued€by€the€petitioner€without€impediment,€it€is€deemed€effectiveÐ pÀ Ðif€it€offers€some€prospect€of€success€and€it€is€found€sufficient€if€it€is€capable€of€redressing€theÐ `° Ðcomplaint.€If€a€remedy€is€not€available,€effective€or€sufficient€the€individual€is€not€required€to€pursueÐ P  Ðit.€Ð @ ÐÌ5.9€First€of€all,€there€is€no€effective€remedy€available€in€the€State€party€for€any€cases€of€racialÐ  p Ðdiscrimination.€In€its€concluding€observations€on€the€Slovak€Republic,€dated€4€August€1997,€theÐ ` ÐHuman€Rights€Committee€noted€that€independent€complaint€mechanisms€for€victims€of€all€formsÐ P Ðof€discrimination€did€not€exist.€The€European€Commission€against€Racism€and€Intolerance€(Ô_ÔECRIÔ_Ô)Ð ð@ Ðhas€also€noted€the€absence€of€effective€legal€remedies€for€racial€discrimination€in€the€State€party.€Ð à0 ÐÌ5.10€Secondly,€the€author€did€exhaust€all€remedies€available.€As€explained€in€the€initial€submission,Ð À! Ðthe€Ô_ÔKosiceÔ_Ô€Legal€Defence€Foundation€reported€the€matter€to€the€Office€of€the€General€Prosecutor,Ð °"  Ðrequesting€an€investigation€into€the€legality€of€the€resolutions.€Upon€request,€the€FoundationÐ  #ð! Ðprovided€the€County€Prosecutor€in€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô€with€the€names€of€five€persons€from€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€and€fourÐ $à" Ðpersons€from€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€who€felt€they€had€been€discriminated€against€by€the€two€resolutions.€SoonÐ €%Ð # Ðafterwards€the€Foundation€submitted€an€application€to€the€Constitutional€Court€requesting€annulmentÐ p&À!$ Ðof€both€the€resolutions€at€issue.€The€Court€dismissed€the€submission€on€the€ground€that,€as€a€legalÐ `'°"% Ðperson,€the€Foundation€could€not€suffer€an€infringement€of€constitutional€rights€designed€to€protectÐ P( #& Ðonly€natural€persons.€As€a€result€of€that€ruling€the€District€Prosecutor's€Office€decided€to€suspendÐ @)$' Ðits€investigation,€as€it€was€not€competent€to€examine€decisions€of€the€Constitutional€Court.Ð 0*€%( ÐSubsequent€to€that,€the€present€communication€was€filed€with€the€Committee.€Ð  +p&) ÐÌ5.11€On€30€March€1999€the€Departmental€Secretary€General€of€the€Office€of€the€Government€of€theÐ -P(+ ÐSlovak€Republic€informed€counsel€that€the€Office€of€the€General€Prosecutor€was€reviewing€theÐ ð-@), Ðresolutions€and€that,€if€they€were€found€illegal,€a€suggestion€for€withdrawal€would€be€filed€at€theÐ ° ÐConstitutional€Court,€as€the€only€organ€with€legal€authority€to€withdraw€resolutions€of€localÐ  ð Ðgovernment€councils€in€order€to€guarantee€their€compliance€with€domestic€and€international€law.€OnÐ à Ð31€May€1999€counsel€was€informed€by€the€Chairman€of€the€Committee€on€Human€Rights€andÐ €Ð ÐNational€Minorities€of€the€Slovak€Republic€that€the€resolutions€had€been€cancelled.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ5.12€As€for€the€State€party's€contention€that€the€applicant€did€not€cooperate€with€the€investigation,Ð P   Ðcounsel€contends€that€whether€or€not€the€applicant€failed€to€attend€an€interview€at€the€Office€of€theÐ @  ÐGeneral€Prosecutor,€which€is€not€admitted,€the€Prosecutor€was€still€under€a€domestic€andÐ 0 € Ðinternational€legal€duty€to€investigate€the€complaint.€The€only€circumstance€in€which€the€ProsecutorÐ  p  Ðis€not€under€such€a€duty€is€where€the€applicant's€failure€to€attend€the€appointment€would€hinder€theÐ `  Ðinvestigation.€In€other€words,€the€applicant€must€be€someone€whose€evidence€is€necessary€in€orderÐ P  Ðto€investigate€the€case.€This€exception€clearly€does€not€apply€in€the€instant€case,€because€theÐ ð@  Ðapplicant's€alleged€failure€to€attend€for€an€interview€is€not€a€hindrance€to€continuing€investigationÐ à0  Ðby€the€Prosecutor€as€to€the€compliance€of€the€resolutions€with€domestic€or€international€human€rightsÐ Ð  Ðnorms.€Indeed,€despite€the€alleged€failure€of€the€applicant€to€appear€for€an€interview,€the€authoritiesÐ À Ðproceeded€with€their€investigation€until€the€decision€of€the€Constitutional€Court€was€promulgated.€Ð ° ÐÌ5.13€The€State€party€has€failed€to€identify€any€basis€for€believing€that€the€Office€of€the€Prosecutor,Ð à Ðhaving€once€rejected€the€complaint,€would€reach€a€different€result€if€faced€with€a€second,€identicalÐ €Ð Ðcomplaint,€given€the€absence€of€new€facts€or€law.€Furthermore,€on€the€basis€of€jurisprudence€of€theÐ pÀ ÐConstitutional€Court,€it€is€questionable€whether€the€prosecutor€possesses€the€legal€power€to€remedyÐ `° Ðthe€violations€of€the€Convention€alleged€in€the€instant€case.€In€fact,€in€the€letter€sent€to€counsel€onÐ P  Ð30€March€1999,€referred€to€above,€the€Government€itself€states€that€the€only€effective€and€availableÐ @ Ðremedy€in€this€case€is€an€application€to€the€Constitutional€Court.€Thus€the€Government€has€concededÐ 0€ Ðthat€a€complaint€to€the€General€Prosecutor€is€not€an€effective€and€available€remedy€because€theÐ  p ÐProsecutor's€Office€is€not€a€judicial€body.€Ð ` ÐÌ5.14€Counsel€also€argues€against€the€State€party's€contention€that€a€civil€action€pursuant€to€article€11Ð ð@ Ðof€the€Civil€Code€would€be€an€effective€remedy.€The€applicable€provisions€of€the€Civil€Code€regulateÐ à0 Ðprivate€relations,€whereas€the€resolutions€at€issue€are€not€matters€of€private€individual€rights.€TheÐ Ð  Ðmunicipalities€that€issued€the€resolutions€are€not€private€entities,€therefore€the€Civil€Code€isÐ À! Ðinapplicable.€Ð °"  ÐÌ5.15€A€civil€remedy,€even€if€available€and€effective,€would€be€insufficient,€insofar€as€a€civil€courtÐ $à" Ðin€the€Slovak€Republic€would€not€have€legal€authority€to€grant€sufficient€redress€for€the€violationsÐ €%Ð # Ðof€the€Convention€that€the€applicant€has€suffered.€Thus€the€civil€court€lacks€the€power€to:€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)Ð p&À!$ Ðprosecute,€sanction€or€otherwise€punish€the€responsible€municipal€officials€for€racial€discrimination;Ð `'°"% Ð(ii)€declare€that€the€existence€of€the€resolutions€amounted€to€a€practice€of€racial€discrimination€andÐ P( #& Ðthat€such€a€practice€is€unacceptable€and€illegal;€(iii)€declare€that€the€existence€of€the€resolutionsÐ @)$' Ðamounted€to€a€violation€of€human€rights€laid€down€in€international€human€rights€instruments€byÐ 0*€%( Ðwhich€the€Republic€of€Slovakia€is€bound;€(iv)€award€satisfaction€with€regard€to€a€complaint€that€theÐ  +p&) Ðviolating€provisions€should€not€have€been€made€in€the€first€place;€(v)€order€cancellation€of€theÐ ,`'* Ðresolutions.€Furthermore,€the€author€should€only€exhaust€those€remedies€which€are€reasonably€likelyÐ -P(+ Ðto€prove€effective.€Ð ð-@), Ї5.16€Regarding€the€second€constitutional€action,€filed€by€the€author€in€her€personal€capacity,€theÐ ° ÐState€party€contends€that€the€author€failed€to€present€evidence€of€an€actual€attempt€to€enter€theÐ  ð Ðterritories€and€that€the€author€should€have€filed€a€new€petition.€According€to€counsel,€theseÐ à Ðcontentions€lack€merit.€Insofar€as€the€Constitutional€Court€had€already€dismissed€several€separateÐ €Ð Ðapplications€concerning€the€same€resolutions,€the€suggestion€that€the€author€should€be€required€toÐ pÀ Ðsubmit€yet€another€petition,€to€the€very€same€forum€which€had€squarely€rejected€her€claim,€lacksÐ ` ° Ðlogical€or€legal€foundation.€Ð P   ÐÌ5.17€As€for€the€failure€to€present€evidence,€counsel€reiterates€its€arguments€concerning€the€"victimÐ 0 € Ðstatus"€of€the€author€and€suggests€that€in€assessing€such€status€the€Committee€should€be€guided€byÐ  p  Ðthe€jurisprudence€of€the€European€Court,€which€entitles€individuals€to€contend€that€a€law€violatesÐ `  Ðtheir€rights€by€itself,€in€the€absence€of€an€individual€measure€of€implementation,€if€they€run€the€riskÐ P  Ðof€being€directly€affected€by€it.€It€is€not€necessary€for€the€author€to€demonstrate€that€she€was€actuallyÐ ð@  Ðplaced€in€an€unfavourable€position.€The€author€has€been€personally€affected€by€the€resolutions€in€theÐ à0  Ðfollowing€ways:€Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àInhuman€and€degrading€treatment.€The€author€has€personally€suffered€degrading€treatment,Ð ° Ðdirect€emotional€harm,€loss€of€human€dignity€and€humiliation€owing€to€the€existence€of€theÐ  ð Ðtwo€resolutions,€a€fact€not€altered€by€their€subsequent€cancellation.€It€is€therefore€notÐ à Ðunreasonable€that€the€applicant,€as€any€other€Romany€person€in€Slovakia,€feels€that€she€hasÐ €Ð Ðbeen€personally€offended€and€publicly€shamed€in€a€way€different€from€the€moral€outrageÐ pÀ Ðwhich€may€be€felt€by€even€the€most€sympathetic€of€non-Roma.€Ð`°(#(# ÐÌà0  àSubjection€to€undue€restrictions€on€her€personal€freedoms.€The€author€was€affected€by€theÐ @ Ðthreat€of€a€potential€use€of€violence;€prevented€from€entering€or€settling€in€the€vicinity€ofÐ 0€ ÐÔ_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€thereby€violating€her€rights€to€freedom€of€movement€and€freedom€toÐ  p Ðchoose€a€residence;€and€prevented€from€having€personal€contact€with€persons€in€the€vicinityÐ ` Ðof€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€thereby€violating€her€right€to€private€life.€ÐP(#(# ÐÌà0  àThe€author€has€also€been€directly€affected€by€the€existence€of€the€resolutions€because€she€isÐ à0 Ðaffected€by€the€atmosphere€of€racial€discrimination€around€her.€ÐÐ (#(# ÐÌ5.18€The€State€party€asserts€that€the€municipalities€that€issued€the€resolutions€are€not€"publicÐ °"  Ðauthorities"€or€"public€institutions"€and€that€a€municipality€is€"an€independent€self-governingÐ  #ð! Ðterritorial€unit€of€the€Slovak€Republic".€Counsel€disagrees€with€that€view,€at€least€with€respect€toÐ $à" Ðgovernmental€responsibility€for€ensuring€compliance€with€the€Convention.€Several€provisions€of€theÐ €%Ð # ÐConstitution€and€the€Municipality€System€Act€No.€369/1990€suggest€that€there€is€a€direct€relationshipÐ p&À!$ Ðbetween€the€State€and€the€municipality,€a€relationship€which€makes€it€clear€that€the€municipalitiesÐ `'°"% Ðare€"public€authorities"€or€"public€institutions".€The€Committee€itself€has€stated,€in€its€GeneralÐ P( #& ÐRecommendation€XV€on€article€4€of€the€Convention,€that€the€obligations€of€a€"public€authority"Ð @)$' Ðunder€the€Convention€include€the€obligations€of€a€municipality.€Although€municipalities€may€beÐ 0*€%( Ð"independent€self-governing€territorial€units",€they€are€still€State€organs€and€part€of€the€StateÐ  +p&) Ðadministration€and,€therefore,€public€institutions€within€the€meaning€of€article€2€(1)€(a)€of€theÐ ,`'* ÐConvention.€Ð -P(+ ÐÐ ð-@), Ð5.19€As€for€the€fact€that€the€resolutions€were€cancelled,€the€government€measures€of€cancellationÐ ° Ðwere€not€"effective€measures"€in€the€sense€of€article€2€(1)€(c),€because€the€cancellations€wereÐ  ð Ðunreasonably€delayed.€Prior€to€cancellation€the€resolutions€did€violate€the€above-mentionedÐ à Ðprovision.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ5.20€That€the€resolutions€may€not€have€been€implemented€through€the€particular€means€of€criminalÐ ` ° Ðprosecution€and€conviction€does€not€mean€they€did€not€breach€the€Convention.€Part€of€the€point€andÐ P   Ðclearly€the€effect€of€the€resolutions€was€to€deter€any€Roma€who€might€otherwise€consider€comingÐ @  Ðto€the€affected€municipalities.€The€fact€that€no€Roma€dared€to€defy€the€resolutions€would€indicateÐ 0 € Ðthat€the€mere€passage€and€maintenance€in€force€of€the€resolutions€for€almost€two€years€succeededÐ  p  Ðin€intimidating€Roma€and€thus€interfering€with€their€rights€under€the€Convention.€Ð `  ÐÌ5.21€Finally,€counsel€provides€observations€by€monitoring€organizations€documenting€official€andÐ ð@  Ðracially-motivated€violence€and€discrimination€against€Roma€in€the€State€party.€Ð à0  ÐÌòòAdmissibility€considerationsóóÐ À ÐÌ6.1€At€its€fifty-fifth€session€the€Committee€examined€the€admissibility€of€the€communication.€It€dulyÐ  ð Ðconsidered€the€State€party's€claims€that€the€communication€should€be€considered€inadmissible€onÐ à Ðseveral€grounds.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ6.2€First€of€all,€the€State€party€argued€that€the€resolutions€of€the€municipal€councils€in€question€wereÐ `° Ðrevoked€and,€therefore,€the€communication€had€lost€its€relevance.€The€Committee€noted,€however,Ð P  Ðthat€notwithstanding€their€abrogation€the€resolutions€had€remained€in€force€from€July€1997€to€AprilÐ @ Ð1999.€Accordingly,€the€Committee€had€to€examine€whether€during€that€time€violations€of€theÐ 0€ ÐConvention€had€taken€place€as€a€result€of€their€enactment.€Ð  p ÐÌ6.3€Secondly,€the€State€party€contended€that€a€similar€case€had€been€filed€with€the€European€CourtÐ P Ðof€Human€Rights.€The€Committee€noted€in€that€respect€that€the€author€of€the€present€communicationÐ ð@ Ðwas€not€the€petitioner€before€the€European€Court€and€that,€even€if€she€was,€neither€the€ConventionÐ à0 Ðnor€the€rules€of€procedure€prevented€the€Committee€from€examining€a€case€that€was€also€beingÐ Ð  Ðconsidered€by€another€international€body.€Ð À! ÐÌ6.4€Thirdly,€the€Committee€did€not€share€the€State€party's€view€that€domestic€remedies€had€not€beenÐ  #ð! Ðexhausted€and€considered€that€neither€a€new€petition€to€the€Constitutional€Court€nor€a€civil€actionÐ $à" Ðwould€be€effective€remedies€in€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€Ð €%Ð # ÐÌ6.5€Fourthly,€the€Committee€was€of€the€view,€contrary€to€the€State€party,€that€the€author€could€beÐ `'°"% Ðconsidered€a€"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Convention,€since€sheÐ P( #& Ðbelonged€to€a€group€of€the€population€directly€targeted€by€the€resolutions€in€question.€Ð @)$' ÐÌ6.6€Finally,€the€Committee€considered€that€the€municipal€councils€which€had€adopted€the€resolutionsÐ  +p&) Ðwere€public€authorities€for€the€purposes€of€the€implementation€of€the€Convention.€Ð ,`'* ÐÌ6.7€The€Committee€found€that€all€other€conditions€for€admissibility€established€under€rule€91€of€itsÐ ð-@), Ðrules€of€procedure€had€been€met.€Accordingly,€it€decided,€on€26€August€1999,€that€theÐ ° Ðcommunication€was€admissible.€It€also€decided€that,€in€order€to€enable€the€Committee€to€examineÐ  ð Ðthe€case€in€all€its€aspects,€the€State€party€and€the€author€should€provide€information€about€domesticÐ à Ðlegislation€and€remedies€intended€to€protect€the€right€of€everyone,€without€distinction€as€to€race,Ð €Ð Ðcolour,€or€national€or€ethnic€origin,€to€freedom€of€movement€and€residence€within€the€border€of€theÐ pÀ ÐState,€in€accordance€with€article€5€(d)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€of€the€Convention.€Ð ` ° ÐÌòòFurther€observations€by€the€State€partyóóÐ @  ÐÌ7.1€The€State€party€admits€that€the€investigation€of€the€complaint€carried€out€by€the€DistrictÐ  p  ÐProsecutor's€Office€of€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô€was€incomplete,€since€it€did€not€address€the€substantive€aspects.Ð `  ÐHowever,€the€Legal€Defence€Bureau€for€Ethnic€Minorities€did€not€make€use€of€their€legal€possibilityÐ P  Ðto€have€the€lawfulness€of€the€resolutions€in€question€reviewed.€A€complaint€pursuant€to€section€11,Ð ð@  Ðparagraph€1€of€Act€No.€314/1996€Coll.€òò2óó/€to€the€prosecution€authority€or€a€motion€by€theÐ à0  ÐProsecutor-General€with€the€Constitutional€Court€for€incompatibility€of€the€resolutions€in€questionÐ Ð  Ðwith€the€Constitution€could€have€been€filed.€As€the€Legal€Defence€Bureau€failed€to€utilize€theseÐ À Ðpossibilities,€neither€the€regional€nor€the€general€prosecution€authorities€knew€about€the€way€inÐ ° Ðwhich€the€District€Prosecutor's€Office€of€Ô_ÔHumennÔ_Ô€had€handled€the€complaint.€The€State€partyÐ  ð Ðemphasizes€that€the€Slovak€legal€order€has€effective,€applicable,€generally€available€and€sufficientÐ à Ðmeans€of€legal€protection€against€discrimination.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ7.2€The€State€party€acknowledges€that€the€adoption€of€the€resolutions€in€question€in€1997€created€anÐ `° Ðunlawful€situation€which€lasted€until€their€abrogation€in€1999.€However,€during€the€time€theyÐ P  Ðremained€in€force€no€violation€of€human€rights€took€place€since€they€were€not€applied€againstÐ @ Ðanybody.€The€Constitutional€Court€found€in€that€respect€that€the€applicants€had€provided€no€evidenceÐ 0€ Ðof€the€violation€of€their€rights€and€freedoms.€òò3óó/€Ð  p ÐÌ7.3€The€State€party€further€submits€that€no€direct€violation€of€the€right€to€freedom€of€movement€andÐ P Ðchoice€of€residence,€as€guaranteed€by€article€5€(d)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€of€the€Convention,€took€place€in€the€presentÐ ð@ Ðcase.€The€legal€order€of€the€Slovak€Republic€guarantees€the€equality€of€citizens€before€the€law.€òò4óó/€Ð à0 ÐFreedom€of€movement€and€residence€is€also€guaranteed€to€all€persons€staying€in€the€territory€of€theÐ Ð  ÐState€party€regardless€of€their€citizenship.€òò5óó/€€The€freedom€of€residence€is€understood€as€the€right€ofÐ À! Ðcitizens€to€choose€without€any€restrictions€their€place€of€residence.€This€right€may€only€be€limitedÐ °"  Ðas€a€result€of€a€penal€sanction.€A€ban€on€residence€can€be€imposed€as€a€sanction€only€for€intentionalÐ  #ð! Ðcrimes,€can€never€be€imposed€on€juveniles€and€cannot€apply€to€the€place€where€the€offender€hasÐ $à" Ðpermanent€residence.€Restrictions€to€the€freedom€of€movement€and€residence€can€only€be€based€onÐ €%Ð # Ða€parliamentary€act€and€never€on€decisions€of€the€Government€or€other€bodies€of€StateÐ p&À!$ Ðadministration.Ð `'°"% ÐÌòòCounsel's€commentsóóÐ @)$' ÐÌ8.1€Counsel€notes€the€State€party's€acknowledgement€that€the€resolutions€in€question€were€unlawful.Ð  +p&) ÐAs€a€result,€the€only€relevant€issues€left€for€the€Committee€to€decide€are,€firstly,€whether€theÐ ,`'* Ðapplicant€is€a€victim€for€the€purposes€of€a€complaint€under€the€Convention€and,€secondly,€whetherÐ -P(+ Ðthe€subsequent€abolition€of€the€resolutions€affects€the€validity€of€the€complaint€to€the€Committee.€Ð ð-@), Ї8.2€In€its€admissibility€decision€the€Committee€already€addressed€the€first€issue€when€it€stated€thatÐ ° Ðthe€author€could€be€considered€a€"victim"€within€the€meaning€of€article€14,€paragraph€1,€of€theÐ  ð ÐConvention,€since€she€belonged€to€a€group€of€the€population€directly€targeted€by€the€resolutions€inÐ à Ðquestion.€òò6óó/€€The€Committee€also€addressed€the€second€issue€when€it€noted€that,€notwithstandingÐ €Ð Ðtheir€abrogation,€the€resolutions€had€remained€in€force€from€July€1997€to€April€1999€and€that€it€hadÐ pÀ Ðto€examine€whether€during€that€time€violations€of€the€Convention€had€taken€place€as€a€result€of€theirÐ ` ° Ðenactment.€òò7óó/Ð P   ÐÌ8.3€Finally,€counsel€states€that€the€points€raised€by€the€State€party€in€its€observations€on€the€meritsÐ 0 € Ðhave€already€been€addressed€in€his€submission€of€2€August€1999.€Ð  p  ÐÌòòAdditional€information€submitted€by€the€State€partyóóÐ P  ÐÌ9.1€Upon€the€Committee's€request€the€State€party€provided€copy€of€records€of€the€municipal€councilsÐ à0  Ðof€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô€containing€the€texts€of€resolutions€Nos.€21€and€22€respectively.€Ð Ð  ÐÌ9.2€The€English€version€of€the€record€referring€to€resolution€No.€21€reads€as€follows:€Ð ° ÐÌà0  à"The€extraordinary€meeting€was€convoked€based€on€the€minutes€[of€the€meeting]€of€mayorsÐ à Ðof€€€€€€settlements€of€Ô_ÔCabinaÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔCabalovceÔ_Ô,€Krasny€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€in€connectionÐ €Ð Ðwith€Roma€citizens€that€are€homeless€in€the€District€of€Ô_ÔMedzilaborceÔ_Ô.€ÐpÀ(#(# ÐÌà0  à"Deputies€of€the€Municipal€Council€after€reading€and€studying€the€Minutes€have€adopted€theÐ P  Ðfollowing€standpoint€on€the€matter€in€question:Ð@(#(# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€deputies€have€Ô_ÔunivocallyÔ_Ô€stated€and€they€declare€herewith€that€those€Roma€areÐ  p Ðnot€native€citizens€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€but€they€are€immigrants€from€settlements€of€Ô_ÔRovnÔ_ÔÐ ` Ðand€Ô_ÔZbudskÔ_Ô.€In€1981€one€family€moved€there€as€employees€of€the€Ô_ÔJRDÔ_Ô€(UnifiedÐ P ÐAgricultural€Co-operative)€Ô_ÔKrsnyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô€.€.€.€Ðð@` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€1981€they€received€permanent€residence€status€from€.€.€.€the€former€Secretary€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€Municipal€National€Committee€in€Ô_ÔKrsnyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô,€as€the€settlement€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_ÔÐ À! Ðdid€not€exist€as€an€independent€settlement€and€it€was€then€only€a€part€of€theÐ °"  Ðsettlement€of€Ô_ÔKrsnyÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔBrodÔ_Ô.€The€family€was€officially€registered/reported€at€a€houseÐ  #ð! Ðas€tenants€.€.€.€Ð$à"` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àIn€1989€the€Roma€moved€from€the€settlement€to€the€settlement€of€Ô_ÔSukovÔ_Ô€(?)€as€thereÐ p&À!$ Ðwas€work€€for€them€there.€Ð`'°"%` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àAfter€the€settlement€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô€became€independent€in€1990,€the€Roma€citizensÐ @)$' Ðdid€not€live€there;€neither€did€they€report€there€for€permanent€residence.€As€a€resultÐ 0*€%( Ðwe€do€not€count€them€among€our€citizens.€Ð +p&)` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àBased€on€findings€from€the€registered€entries€in€the€House€Book€it€was€ascertainedÐ -P(+ Ðthat€of€five€proposed€Roma€that€should€return€back€to€the€settlement€of€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,Ð ð-@), Ðonly€two€of€them€have€permanent€residence€in€Ô_ÔRokytovceÔ_Ô,€those€being€Ô_ÔJliaÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐÔ_ÔDemetrovÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔValriaÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔDemetrovÔ_Ô.Рð` (#` (# ÐÌà0  àà0` (#(#àThe€Municipal€Council€declared€in€conclusion€that€in€case€the€Roma€wouldÐ €Ð Ðforcefully€move€into€the€settlement,€they€would€be,€with€the€help€of€all€citizens,Ð pÀ Ðevicted€from€the€settlement."€Ð` °` (#` (# ÐÌ9.3€Resolution€No.€22€of€16€July€1997,€as€amended€by€resolution€No.€27/98,€indicates€the€following:Ð @  Ð"The€Municipal€Council€cannot€agree€with€accommodation€of€the€Roma€citizens€in€the€cadastralÐ 0 € Ðterritory€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô,€as€they€do€not€have€any€ownership€rights,€nor€origin,€nor€accommodation,€norÐ  p  Ðjobs€(employment)€in€the€settlement€of€Ô_ÔNagovÔ_Ô."€Ð `  ÐÌòòExamination€of€the€meritsóóÐ ð@  ÐÌ10.1€Having€received€the€full€texts€of€resolutions€21€and€22€the€Committee€finds€that,€although€theirÐ Ð  Ðwording€refers€explicitly€to€Ô_ÔRomasÔ_Ô€previously€domiciled€in€the€concerned€municipalities,€the€contextÐ À Ðin€which€they€were€adopted€clearly€indicates€that€other€Ô_ÔRomasÔ_Ô€would€have€been€equally€prohibitedÐ ° Ðfrom€settling,€which€represented€a€violation€of€article€5€(d)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€of€the€Convention.€Ð  ð ÐÌ10.2€The€Committee€notes,€however,€that€the€resolutions€in€question€were€rescinded€in€April€1999.Ð €Ð ÐIt€also€notes€that€freedom€of€movement€and€residence€is€guaranteed€under€article€23€of€theÐ pÀ ÐConstitution€of€the€Slovak€Republic.€Ð `° ÐÌ10.3€The€Committee€recommends€that€the€State€party€take€the€necessary€measures€to€ensure€thatÐ @ Ðpractices€restricting€the€freedom€of€movement€and€residence€of€Ô_ÔRomasÔ_Ô€under€its€jurisdiction€are€fullyÐ 0€ Ðand€promptly€eliminated.€Ð  p ÐÌòòNotesóóÐ P ÐÌ1/€€In€so€doing€the€author€relies€upon€jurisprudence€of€the€European€Commission€on€Human€Rights,Ð à0 Ðin€particular€its€decision€in€òòEast€African€Asians€v.€United€Kingdomóó,€in€which€the€Commission€foundÐ Ð  Ðthat€challenged€immigration€legislation€had€publicly€subjected€the€applicants€to€racial€discriminationÐ À! Ðand€constituted€an€interference€with€their€human€dignity,€amounting€to€"degrading€treatment"€in€theÐ °"  Ðsense€of€article€3€of€the€European€Convention€on€Human€Rights.€Ð  #ð! ÐÌ2/€€Pursuant€to€section€30,€paragraph€1.2€of€this€Act,€the€prosecutor€shall,€upon€his€own€initiative€orÐ €%Ð # Ðupon€a€petition,€review€the€procedure€or€decisions€by€public€administrative€bodies,€decisions€of€aÐ p&À!$ Ðcourt,€prosecutor,€investigator€or€police€body€for€compliance€with€the€law.€The€person€who€filed€theÐ `'°"% Ðpetition€may€request€a€review€as€to€the€lawfulness€of€its€processing€with€a€repeated€petition€whichÐ P( #& Ðshall€be€processed€by€the€superior€body.€Ð @)$' ÐÌPursuant€to€section€11€of€the€same€Act,€prosecutors€shall€file€protests€against€generally€bindingÐ  +p&) Ðpieces€of€legislation,€municipal€binding€regulations,€guidelines,€amendments,€resolutions,€other€legalÐ ,`'* Ðacts€and€decisions€by€public€administrative€bodies€issued€in€individual€cases€which€violate€the€law.Ð -P(+ ÐIf€the€protest€was€filed€with€the€body€which€issued€the€decision,€this€body€can€either€repeal€theÐ ð-@), Ðdecision€being€challenged€or€replace€it€with€a€decision€complying€with€the€law.€If€this€body€does€notÐ ° Ðfully€accept€the€protest,€it€has€the€duty€to€submit€it€to€a€superior€or€monitoring€body.€The€prosecutorÐ  ð Ðmay€file€a€new€protest€against€the€decision€rejecting€the€protest.€Ð à ÐÌ3/€€See€paragraph€2.9.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ4/€€Article€12,€paragraph€2,€of€the€Constitution€stipulates€that€fundamental€rights€and€freedoms€areÐ P   Ðguaranteed€to€all€regardless€of€their€gender,€race,€colour,€language,€faith€and€religion,€political€orÐ @  Ðother€views,€national€or€social€origin,€belonging€to€a€national€minority€or€ethnic€group,€etc.€ArticleÐ 0 € Ð33€stipulates€that€membership€in€any€national€minority€or€ethnic€group€may€not€be€used€to€theÐ  p  Ðdetriment€of€any€individual.€Article€34€states€that€citizens€belonging€to€national€minorities€or€ethnicÐ `  Ðgroups€shall€be€guaranteed€their€full€development,€particularly€the€rights€to€promote€their€culturalÐ P  Ðheritage€with€other€citizens€of€the€same€national€minority€or€ethnic€group,€receive€and€disseminateÐ ð@  Ðinformation€in€their€mother€tongues,€form€associations€and€create€and€maintain€educational€andÐ à0  Ðcultural€institutions.€Ð Ð  ÐÌ5/€€Article€23€of€the€Constitution.€Ð ° ÐÌ6/€€See€paragraph€6.5.€Ð à ÐÌ7/€See€paragraph€6.2.€