stateless persons.46 The Court has also established that the best interests of the child will weigh in any balancing assessment, narrowing a State’s margin where necessary.47 The intervenors note that if a chosen solution is not in the best interests of the child, there must be clear evidence demonstrating that their best interests were given primary consideration in practice. To assess whether a fair balance has been struck between competing interests, the Court may recall its finding in G.T.B. v Spain that the aim of maintaining reliable information in civil registries “was not incompatible with assisting a person such as the applicant […] so as to protect a particularly important facet of the applicant’s identity”.48 21. Finally, the Court also acknowledged that certain circumstances may require “some adaptability in the standard procedures” to prevent children from being left unregistered.49 Such circumstances include instances where the child’s parent is unable to produce the necessary documents to register the birth. Accordingly, in G.T.B, this Court found that Spanish authorities were required “to act with due diligence in order to assist the applicant to obtain his birth certificate and his identity documents” when it was proven otherwise impossible.50 The Court will recall that the failure to act in an adequate and timely manner constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention. 22. The intervenors further note that fulfilling positive obligations may also include implementing mechanisms to ensure universal and flexible access to birth registration immediately after birth to provide all children with a legal identity and enable them to effectively exercise their rights established by the ECHR. Article 14 with Article 8 ECHR 23. The ECHR prohibits, under Article 14, discrimination in the enjoyment of Convention rights.51 In addition, Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, which Serbia has ratified,52 extends the scope of the protection against discrimination to “any right set forth by law” and thereby introduces a more general prohibition of discrimination. 24. The intervenors submit that the right to immediate birth registration should not be dependent on the documentation status of the child’s parents, as that constitutes both direct and indirect discriminatory treatment prohibited by Article 14. 25. A legal provision requiring parents to present documentation (such as ID cards or passports) to register the birth of their children immediately after birth, failing which they must undergo an additional court procedure before registering the birth of the child, constitutes a difference in treatment of persons in relevantly similar situations, and therefore amounts to direct discrimination. 26. The requirement to present documentation to register a child’s birth also disproportionately affects Romani populations, which constitutes indirect discrimination. 27. The Court has held that a difference in treatment is discriminatory if it has “no objective and reasonable justification”, namely if “it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be achieved”.53 Discrimination on the grounds of the parents’ documentation Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC] (n 20), § 302; Hoti v. Croatia (n 11), § 102. El Ghatet v Switzerland, no. 56971/10, 8 November 2016, § 46; Neulinger and Shuruk v. Switzerland [GC], no. 41615/07, 6 July 2010, § 135; Tarakhel v. Switzerland [GC], no. 29217/12, 4 November 2014, § 99; Tuquabo-Tekle and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 60665/00, 1 December 2005, § 44. 48 G.T.B. v. Spain (n 15), § 124. 49 ibid, § 122. 50 ibid, § 124. 51 Biao v. Denmark [GC], no. 38590/10, 24 May 2016, § 130. 52 Council of Europe, Chart of signatures and ratifications of Treaty 177, Protocol No. 12 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ETS No. 177), at coe.int. 53 Biao v. Denmark [GC] (n 51), § 90. 46 47 5