numerous national courts in the Americas region such as Argentina, 143 Canada, 144 Chile, 145 Colombia, 146 Costa Rica, 147 as well as international organizations such as the aforementioned Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 148 the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 149 the International Labor Organization (ILO), 150 the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 151 the European Court of Human Rights, 152 the European Committee on Social Rights of the Council of Europe 153 143 Cf. Supreme Court of Argentina, Hooft, Pedro Cornelio Federico c/ Buenos Aires Province s/ action for declaration of unconstitutionality. Buenos Aires, November 16, 2004, judgment of November 16, 2004 and Supreme Court of Argentina, Pellicori, Liliana Silva c/ Lawyers’ Association of the Federal Capital s/ amparo, judgment of November 15, 2011, where it indicated that: “[i]t will be sufficient for the party asserting discriminatory treatment to prove facts that, prima facie evaluated, are suitable to establish its existence, in which case it will be up to the defendant who is reproached for committing the challenged treatment to prove that it was caused by an objective and reasonable motive unrelated to discrimination.” 144 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Moore v. British Columbia (Education). 2012 SCC 61, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 360, November 9, 2012, Dockets 34040, 34041. Available at: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scccsc/en/item/12680/index.do; and Supreme Court of Justice, Quebec (Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse) v. Bombardier Inc. (Bombardier Aerospace Training Center), 2015 SCC 39, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 789, Docket 35625. Available at: https://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2015/2015scc39/2015scc39.html 145 Cf. Court of Appeals of Temuco. Judgment No. 297-2015, May 12, 2015. 146 Cf. Third Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment No. T-098, of March 7, 1994, Third Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment No. T-596, of June 15, 2004, and Third Review Chamber of the Constitutional Court of Colombia, Judgment No. T-291 of 2016 and Judgment No. T-068, of March 21, 2021, which established that: “"[i]n cases where the existence of treatment based on any of the suspected categories of discrimination is disputed, constitutional jurisprudence has developed the concept of "dynamic burden of proof", according to which the obligation to prove the absence of discrimination is transferred to the defendant, who, being in a situation of superiority, has a greater ability to provide the means of proof to demonstrate that its actions did not constitute a discriminatory act. Therefore, a simple denial of the facts by the person who is presumed to have committed them is insufficient for the judge.” 147 Cf. Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice of Costa Rica. Judgment No. 2018010289, of June 26, 2018. 148 Cf. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), Laurent Gabre Gabaroum v. France, Communication No. 52/2012, CERD/C/89/D/52/2012. Decision of June 8, 2016, para. 7(2) and V. S. v. Slovakia, Communication No. 56/2014, 2015. Decision of December 4, 2015, para. 7.4. Furthermore, CERD recommends that States parties “regulate the burden of proof in civil proceedings concerning discrimination based on race, color, descent and national or ethnic origin so that once a non-citizen has established factual presumptions that he or she has been the victim of such discrimination, it is for the respondent to provide evidence of the objective and reasonable justification for the difference in treatment. Cf. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD), General Recommendation No. 30 on discrimination against noncitizens, of October 5, 2004, paragraph 24. 149 Cf. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report on Czechia, E/C.12/CHE/CO/4, of November 18, 2019, para. 35. 150 Cf. ILO, “Freedom of Association – Compilation of decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association of the ILO Governing Body,” Fifth Edition (revised), 2006, Decisions and principles of the Committee on Freedom of Association up to its 339th Report (November 2005), para. 830, which states that “in order to ensure effective protection for workers’ representatives, it recommends among the measures to be adopted that, where it is alleged that the dismissal of a workers' representative or the modification of the conditions of employment to his or her detriment was discriminatory, provisions should be adopted imposing on the employer the obligation to prove that his or her act was justified.” 151 Cf. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Concluding observations on the initial report of the Russian Federation, CRPD/C/RUS/CO/1, April 9, 2018, para. 54, and Concluding observations on the initial report of Bosnia and Herzegovina, CRPD/C/BIH/CO/1, of May 2, 2017, para. 29. 152 Cf. ECHR, Beizaras and Levickas v. Lithuania, no. 41288/15, Judgment of January 14, 2020, para. 115, and Zakharova and Others v. Russia, no. 12736/10. Judgment of March 8, 2022, paras. 36 and 37. 153 Cf. European Committee of Social Rights of the Council of Europe (ECSR), Mental Disability Advocacy Centre (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, Communication no. 41/2007. Decision of June 3, 2008, para. 52. and Associazione Nazionale Giudici di Pace v. Italy, Communication no. 102/2013. Decision of July 5, 2016, para. 73. 38