Laws preventing immediate birth registration for children born to undocumented parents, even if they do not explicitly differentiate on the basis of ethnic origin, may have disproportionately prejudicial effects on minority communities (see paras 1-4). 40. The Court has held that “[d]iscrimination on account of a person’s ethnic origin is a form of racial discrimination” and “authorities must use all available means to combat racism”.73 The Court has further held that “where a difference in treatment is based on race or ethnicity, the notion of objective and reasonable justification must be interpreted as strictly as possible”74 and “no difference in treatment which is based exclusively or to a decisive extent on a person’s ethnic origin is capable of being objectively justified”.75 41. Bureaucracy and institutional barriers, systemic marginalisation, and the lack of measures to address discriminatory attitudes and promote registration, have perpetuated low civil and birth registration rates among the Roma.76 As held by the Court, Roma have become a specific type of disadvantaged and vulnerable minority who thus require special protection,77 and “special consideration should be given to their needs […] both in the relevant regulatory framework and in reaching decisions in particular cases”.78 42. Requirements imposing the presentation of documentation in order to access immediate birth registration disproportionately affect Romani populations due to the low rates of civil and birth registration among this community. As such, the intervenors consider that the cumulative impact of such interference constitutes indirect discrimination and contravenes Article 14 taken together with Article 8. 43. Moreover, there is international consensus among Contracting States to recognise the “special needs of minorities” and “protect their […] identity”.79 To break the cycle of marginalisation and risk of statelessness, the intervenors submit that Contracting States have a positive obligation to prevent and address systemic discrimination which limits Romani individuals’ access to documentation, and in turn hinders their children’s ability to access to birth registration. Article 53 ECHR 44. Article 53 prohibits inter alia a construction of Convention rights which would limit the human rights and fundamental freedoms ensured under any other agreement to which the respondent State is a party. When construing the rights and freedoms which are defined in the Convention, this Court must guarantee at least the level of protection of those human rights and fundamental freedoms already guaranteed by other international agreements to which the relevant Contracting State is a party. 45. Serbia succeeded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC); 80 the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR); 81 the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); 82 the Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC], nos. 27996/06 and 34836/06, 22 December 2009, § 43. ibid, § 44. See also D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC] (n 54), § 196. 75 Sejdić and Finci v. Bosnia and Herzegovina [GC] (n 73), 22 December 2009, § 44. See also D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC] (n 54), § 176. 76 ERRC, ISI, ENS, ‘Roma Belong’ (n 10), p. 14. 77 D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC] (n 54), § 182. 78 ibid, § 181. 79 ibid, § 181. 80 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3, 20 November 1989. 81 UN General Assembly, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 999, p. 171, 16 December 1966. 82 UN General Assembly, International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, p. 195, 21 December 1965. 73 74 8