- 21 - 37. Thus, states Parties may treat differently foreigners lawfully and unlawfully present on their territories. However, in so doing, human dignity, which is a recognised fundamental value at the core of positive European human rights law, must be respected (Defence for Children International (DCI) v. the Netherlands, Complaint No. 47/2008, decision on the merits of 20 October 2009, §73). Moreover, a state must ascertain that foreigners legally present are not treated in a discriminatory manner compared to its nationals. 38. The Committee further reiterates that in respect of complaints alleging discrimination, the burden of proof should not rest entirely on the complainant organisation, but should be shifted appropriately (Mental Disability Advocacy Center (MDAC) v. Bulgaria, Complaint No. 41/2007, decision on the merits of 3 June 2008, §52). 39. With regard to racial discrimination, the Committee recalls having already considered that the interpretation of racial discrimination by the European Court of Human Rights is valid for the interpretation of the Charter as well (see Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions (COHRE) v. Italy, Complaint No. 58/2009, decision on the merits of 25 June 2010, §§37-38): “Discrimination on account of one’s actual or perceived ethnicity is a form of racial discrimination (…). Racial discrimination is a particularly invidious kind of discrimination and, in view of its perilous consequences, requires from the authorities special vigilance and a vigorous reaction. It is for this reason that the authorities must use all available means to combat racism, thereby reinforcing democracy’s vision of a society in which diversity is not perceived as a threat but as a source of enrichment. (…) 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 in a contemporary democratic society built on the principles of pluralism and respect for different cultures (mutatis mutandis Timishev v. Russia, judgment of 13 December 2005, §§ 56 and 58)”. 40. The Committee notes that the Government does not dispute that the living conditions of migrant Roma are difficult. It accounts their difficulties concerning effective access to the right to housing, education, social insurance and health primarily to their extremely vulnerable position and on no account to any discrimination against them in the sphere of public policy. The Government points out that, in accordance with its republican traditions, France draws no distinction between categories of the population on an ethnic basis and, as a consequence, its work to assist the Roma forms part of a more general range of measures to help all disadvantages or marginalised people. Regardless of any traditions of the states parties, the Committee underlines the imperative of achieving equal treatment by taking differences between individuals into account. It recalls that it recognised that special consideration should be given to the needs and different lifestyle of the Roma, which are a specific type of disadvantaged group and a vulnerable minority (see inter alia, European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC) v. Portugal, Complaint No. 61/2010, decision on the merits of 30 June 2011, §20).