A/HRC/4/WG.3/6 page 34 108. The underlying question is whether the existing legal standards sufficiently counter these phenomena. It is clear that the prohibition of multiple discrimination is already well established in law since various forms of discrimination are prohibited. The existing standards provide sufficient basis for protection against multiple discrimination at the national level in terms of responsibility and remedies. However, multiple discrimination is not only a sum of specific manifestations of discrimination, but it creates a new class of discrimination, whereby discrimination on the basis of several grounds creates a new form. 109. It is this phenomenon which amounts to aggravated victimization and marginalization of large groups of people. In order to combat this phenomenon, it is important to capture its contours through a definition which would take into account its complex nature. 110. The experts believe that a methodology of diagnosis of the phenomenon under discussions is still missing. While some of the well-recognised grounds of discrimination are extensively addressed and developed through law and jurisprudence others have only recently been recognised. The assessment of multiple discrimination is lacking a coherent and integrated approach. This leads to accountability gaps, since the legal basis is missing that would enable competent organs, in particular domestic courts, tribunals and commissions, to draw consequences adequate to the severity of multiple discrimination. Finally, the available tools to react effectively to multiple discrimination, including early warning mechanisms, seem to be inadequate. 111. Therefore, the experts are inclined to conclude that the phenomenon of multiple discrimination needs to be addressed, with a particular focus on: the recognition of its diversified characteristics; definition of linkages between different grounds of discrimination; and an understanding of the consequences of their combined manifestations. To that end, it would be most appropriate for the treaty bodies, in particular CERD, to analyse the issue of multiple discrimination and aggravated forms of discrimination with racial aspects and adopt general comments on the methodology for countering this phenomena. B. Ethnic cleansing 112. According to the Secretary-General the term “ethnic cleansing” came to be known as a process the central objective of which was using military means to terrorize civilian populations with the goal of forcing their flight from a certain territory.97 Similarly, according to the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ethnic cleansing refers to “the shared intention on the part of a group to forcibly remove members of one ethnicity from their town, village or region (to effect “ethnic cleansing”) with the consequence that, in the course of doing so, one or more of the victims is shot and killed.”98 97 Report of the Secretary-General pursuant to paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 808 (1993) and Annex thereto, S/25704. 98 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, Appeals Judgment, 15 July 1999, para. 204.