impact of such differential treatment is particularly weighty when the additional procedure is complex, lengthy, or ineffective in practice. 35. A difference in treatment in accessing immediate birth registration on the ground of the absence of parental documentation does not pursue a legitimate aim within the spirit of the Convention and is therefore unjustified, thus constituting direct discrimination that is prohibited by Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8. 36. Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8 and in line with international norms and best practices, imposes positive obligations on States to remove any barriers that discriminate or impede access to birth registration, and “documentation requirements that are difficult or impossible to fulfil, in particular for persons in vulnerable situations”.62 There is positive State practice, including in North Macedonia where all children born on the territory must be registered immediately irrespective of the nationality or documentation status of their parents.63 37. The intervenors invite the Court to consider whether the aim of imposing documentation requirements to establish the identity of the parents and the facts of birth could be achieved by less disadvantageous measures,64 such as the acceptance of non-documentary evidence, oral testimony, ex officio investigations,65 or solemn declarations.66 38. In the alternative, the intervenors note that Article 14 may impose positive obligations to correct factual inequalities.67 Failing to do so may be “tantamount to turning a blind eye to the specific nature of acts” which were previously destructive of fundamental rights.68 In Horváth v. Hungary, the Court recognised the need for positive measures to overcome the obstacles faced by Romani children to access education due to past discrimination.69 Parents who are unable to present the documentation required to register a child’s birth should not be prevented from doing so because of past, intergenerational discrimination which prevented them from obtaining the required documents in the first place. Serbian procedures should allow for these positive measures because it is in the best interests of the child to be registered as soon as possible after birth. The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration, not the administrative convenience of the authorities. Indirect discrimination on the ground of ethnic origin 39. Discrimination can also be indirect when certain policies or measures have “disproportionately prejudicial effects on a particular group”,70 even though it is neutrally formulated,71 not specifically aimed at that group, and has ‘no discriminatory intent’.72 UN Human Rights Council, Resolution A/HRC/RES/52/25 (n 2). North Macedonia: Law on Civil Registry, 21 June 2023, Article 4-a, at refworld.org; ENS, ‘Statelessness Index on North Macedonia’, at index.statelessness.eu; Macedonian Young Lawyers Association, ERRC, ISI, ENS, ‘Joint submission to the Human Rights Council at the 46th session of the Universal Periodic Review on North Macedonia’ (October 2023), § 23, at statelessness.eu. 64 See e.g. CJEU, Kalliri, C-409/16, judgment of 18 October 2017, § 42; ECtHR, Fernandez Martinez v. Spain, no. 56030/07, 12 June 2014, § 132; Moraru v Romania, no. 64480/19, 8 November 2022. 65 ENS, ‘Thematic Briefing, Birth registration and the prevention of statelessness in Europe’ (n 1), p. 10. See, e.g., an example in Austria in ENS, ‘Statelessness Index on Austria’, at index.statelessness.eu. 66 See, e.g., an example in Czechia in ENS, ‘Statelessness Index on Czechia’, at index.statelessness.eu; Czechia, Act on Birth registry (zákon o matrikách) no. 301/2000 Sb, at aplikace.mvcr.cz (in Czech). 67 Thlimmenos v. Greece [GC], no. 34369/97, 6 April 2000, § 44. 68 Abdu v. Bulgaria, no. 26827/08, 11 March 2014, § 44. 69 Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary, no. 11146/11, 29 January 2013. 70 D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC] (n 54), § 175; Biao v. Denmark [GC] (n 51), § 103. 71 D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC] (n 54), § 184. 72 Biao v. Denmark [GC] (n 51), § 91; D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC] (n 54), § 184. 62 63 7