ÿWPCi Úi‘Ì55I1ƒdŸë*ù,G¥óy;0’4œA²§ø9 S(±;@ŸtCD¶o¶¸ú×÷§ Å|FFo;hü^Îy¢ØKvII×±èTÔ,W#y¨èþfað´X}œ81DÀ7,øÕƒÒø!Mº{4?¾ð²¨jÊüHgo&(K˜O™Ž¤ÑMˆ_–žþڣ͟hÕpüh©§¥*׬Tiº,0.°˜!~o  Uä‚]h>WÅŠu§jN¤»Ç× jŸ&,‹ò >ܧ+ZŽZû$[Ôâ@žLvýáZðXèM?aÀ»ã*»ê‹A†î¤"H_„8¾ÄSÅ•_I‹•!hg"Ý3Ì·)íß“!×Øœ…¶ôøý²GÔ‡UNç‡[¬¬”ü'ÊâK©«[ÆÇ¿ðþM“ñBß øk¬ÇRœšÜm‚‹ÝÅ*ÉƳŒ]ÊuÊ»b]I«CÉ(ã"%X#ÁÄUN… %Ó 0:Ù^ w4#7F mH__Ng˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(üœ$¡¡ÔUSUS.,Ôó ) 'gt)4 k1`cŸ3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ Ý ƒüœ!ÝÔUSUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô€v.€the€NetherlandsóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌCommunication€No.€1/1984Ð `° ÐÌ10€August€1988Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌÔ_ÔCERDÔ_Ô/C/36/D/1/1984*Ð  ` ÐÌÌVIEWSó óÐ Ô$  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€€H.€F.€Ô_ÔDoelemanÔ_Ô€(counsel)Ð ˜è  ÐÌòòOn€behalf€ofóó:€€A.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô€(petitioner)Ð pÀ ÐÌòòState€party€concernedóó:€€The€NetherlandsÐ H˜ ÐòòÌDate€of€communicationóó:€€28€May€1984€(date€of€initial€letter)Ð  p ÐÌòòDate€of€decision€on€admissibilityóó:€€19€March€1987óóÐ øH ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€established€under€article€8€of€theÐ ¼  ÐInternational€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,Ð ¨ø ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€10€August€1988,Ð €Ð ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€1/1984,€submitted€to€the€Committee€byÐ X ¨ ÐH.€F.€Ô_ÔDoelemanÔ_Ô€on€behalf€of€A.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô€under€article€14€of€the€International€Convention€onÐ D!” Ðthe€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination.Ð 0"€  ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€considerationóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€on€behalf€of€Mrs.€A.Ð $X" ÐÔ_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô€and€by€the€State€party,Ð ô$D # ÐÌòòBearing€in€mindóó€rule€95€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€which€requires€it€to€formulate€an€opinion€on€theÐ Ì&"% Ðcommunication€before€it,Ð ¸'#& ÐòòÌIncludingóó€in€its€opinion€suggestions€and€recommendations€for€transmittal€to€the€State€party€and€toÐ )à$( Ðthe€petitioner€under€article€14,€paragraph€7€(b),€of€the€Convention,Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:Ð T,¤'+ ÐÐ @-(, ЇÌòòò òÓ  ÓOpinionó óóóÐ œì ÐÓ ÓÌÌ1.€€The€communication€(initial€letter€dated€28€May€1984,€further€letters€dated€23€October€1984,€5Ð `° ÐFebruary€1986€and€14€September€1987)€placed€before€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€RacialÐ L œ ÐDiscrimination€by€H.€F.€Ô_ÔDoelemanÔ_Ô,€a€Netherlands€lawyer€practicing€in€Amsterdam.€€He€submits€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðcommunication€on€behalf€of€Mrs.€A.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô,€a€Turkish€national€residing€in€the€Netherlands,Ð $ t Ðwho€claims€to€be€the€victim€of€a€violation€of€articles€4€(a),€5(e)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€and€6€of€the€InternationalÐ  ` ÐConvention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination€by€the€Netherlands.Ð ü L  ÐÌ2.1€€The€petitioner€states€that€she€had€been€employed,€since€1979,€by€a€firm€operating€in€the€textileÐ Ô$  Ðsector.€€On€3€April€1981,€she€was€injured€in€a€traffic€accident€and€placed€on€sick€leave.€€AllegedlyÐ À  Ðas€a€result€of€the€accident,€she€was€unable€to€carry€out€her€work€for€a€long€time;€it€was€not€until€1982Ð ¬ü  Ðthat€she€resumed€part„time€duty€of€her€own€accord.€€Meanwhile,€in€August€1981,€she€married€Mr.Ð ˜è  ÐÔ_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô.Ð „Ô  ÐÌ2.2€€By€a€letter€dated€22€June€1982,€her€employer€requested€permission€from€the€District€LabourÐ \¬ ÐExchange€in€Apeldoorn€to€terminate€her€contract.€€Mrs.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô€was€pregnant€at€that€time.€€On€14Ð H˜ ÐJuly€1982,€the€Director€of€the€Labour€Exchange€refused€to€terminate€the€contract€on€the€basis€ofÐ 4„ Ðarticle€Ô_Ô1639hÔ_Ô€(4)€of€the€€Civil€Code,€which€stipulates€that€employment€contracts€may€not€beÐ  p Ðterminated€during€the€pregnancy€of€the€employee.€€He€pointed,€however,€to€the€possibility€ofÐ  \ Ðsubmitting€a€request€to€the€competent€Cantonal€Court.€€On€19€July€1982,€the€employer€addressed€theÐ øH Ðrequest€for€termination€of€the€contract€to€the€Cantonal€Court€in€Apeldoorn.€€The€request€included€theÐ ä4 Ðfollowing€passage:€€[...]Ð Ð  ÐÌà0  àð ðWhen€a€Netherlands€girl€marries€and€has€a€baby,€she€stops€working.€€Our€foreign€womenÐ ¨ø Ðworkers,€on€the€other€hand,€take€the€child€to€Ô_ÔneighboursÔ_Ô€or€family€and€at€the€slightest€set„Ð ”ä Ðback€disappear€on€sick„leave€under€the€terms€of€the€Sickness€Act.€€They€repeat€that€endlessly.€Ð €Ð ÐSince€we€all€must€do€our€utmost€to€avoid€going€under,€we€cannot€afford€such€goings„on.ððÐl¼(#(# ÐÌAfter€hearing€the€request€on€10€August€and€15€September€1982,€the€Cantonal€Court€agreed,€by€aÐ D!” Ðdecision€on€29€September€1982,€to€terminate€the€employment€contract€with€effect€from€1€DecemberÐ 0"€  Ð1982.€€Article€Ô_Ô1639wÔ_Ô€(former€numbering)€of€the€Civil€Code€excludes€the€possibility€of€an€appealÐ #l! Ðagainst€a€decision€of€the€Cantonal€Court.Ð $X" ÐÌ2.3€€On€21€October€1982,€Mrs.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô€requested€the€Prosecutor€at€the€Supreme€Court€to€seekÐ à%0!$ Ðannulment€of€the€decision€of€the€Cantonal€Court€in€the€interest€of€the€law.€€By€a€letter€of€26€October,Ð Ì&"% Ðshe€was€informed€that€the€Prosecutor€saw€no€justification€for€proceeding€in€that€way.€€Convinced€thatÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€employerððs€observations€of€19€July€1982€constituted€offences€under€the€Netherlands€Penal€Code,Ð ¤(ô#' ÐMrs.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô,€on€21€October€1982,€requested€the€Prosecutor€at€the€District€Court€at€Ô_ÔZutphenÔ_Ô€toÐ )à$( Ðprosecute€her€employer.€€On€16€February€1983,€the€Prosecutor€replied€that€he€did€not€consider€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðinitiation€of€penal€proceedings€to€be€opportune.€€The€petitioner€further€applied€to€the€Minister€ofÐ h+¸&* ÐJustice,€asking€him€to€order€the€Prosecutor€at€Ô_ÔZutphenÔ_Ô€to€initiate€such€proceedings.€€The€Minister,Ð T,¤'+ Ðhowever,€replied€on€9€June€1983€that€he€saw€no€reason€to€intervene,€since€recourse€had€not€yet€beenÐ @-(, Ðhad€to€the€complaint€procedure€pursuant€to€article€12€of€the€Code€of€Penal€Procedure,€whichÐ ° Ðprovided€for€the€possibility€of€submitting€a€request€to€the€Court€of€Appeal€to€order€prosecution€ofÐ œì Ða€criminal€offence.€€In€conformity€with€the€Ministerððs€advice,€Mrs.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô,€on€13€July€1983,Ð ˆØ Ðrequested€the€Court€of€Appeal€at€Arnhem,€under€article€12€of€the€Code€of€Penal€Procedure,€to€orderÐ tÄ Ðthe€prosecution€of€her€employer.€€On€30€November€1983,€the€Court€of€Appeal€rejected€the€petition,Ð `° Ðstating,€òòinter€aliaóó,€that€it€could€not€be€determined€that€the€defendant,€by€raising€the€issue€ofÐ L œ Ðdifferences€in€absenteeism€owing€to€childbirth€and€illness€between€foreign€and€Netherlands€womenÐ 8 ˆ Ðworkers,€intended€to€discriminate€by€race,€or€that€his€actions€resulted€in€race€discrimination.€WhileÐ $ t Ðdismissing€the€employerððs€remarks€in€the€letter€of€19€July€1982€as€ð ðunfortunate€and€objectionableðð,Ð  ` Ðthe€Court€considered€ð ðthat€the€institution€of€criminal€proceedings€[was]€not€in€the€public€interest€orÐ ü L  Ðin€the€interest€of€the€petitionerðð.€€The€Courtððs€decision€taken€pursuant€to€article€12€of€the€Code€ofÐ è 8  ÐPenal€Procedure€cannot€be€appealed€before€the€Supreme€Court.Ð Ô$  ÐÌ2.4€€Petitionerððs€counsel€concludes€that€the€Netherlands€violated€article€5€(e)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€of€the€Convention,Ð ¬ü  Ðbecause€the€alleged€victim€was€not€guaranteed€the€right€to€gainful€work€and€protection€againstÐ ˜è  Ðunemployment,€which€is€said€to€be€reflected€in€the€fact€that€both€the€Director€of€the€LabourÐ „Ô  ÐExchange€and€the€Cantonal€Court€endorsed€the€termination€of€her€employment€contract€on€the€basisÐ pÀ Ðof€reasons€which€must€be€considered€as€racially€discriminatory.€€Secondly,€he€claims€that€theÐ \¬ ÐNetherlands€violated€article€6€of€the€Convention€since€it€failed€to€provide€adequate€protection€as€wellÐ H˜ Ðas€legal€remedies€because€Mrs.€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô€was€unable€to€have€the€discriminatory€termination€of€herÐ 4„ Ðcontract€reviewed€by€a€higher€court.€€Thirdly,€it€is€alleged€that€the€Netherlands€violated€article€4€ofÐ  p Ðthe€Convention€because€it€did€not€order€the€Prosecutor€to€proceed€against€the€employer€on€the€basisÐ  \ Ðof€either€article€429€òòÔ_ÔquaterÔ_Ôóó€or€article€Ô_Ô137cÔ_Ô€to€article€Ô_Ô137eÔ_Ô€of€the€Netherlands€Penal€Code,€provisionsÐ øH Ðincorporated€in€that€Code€in€the€light€of€the€undertaking,€under€article€4€of€the€Convention,€to€takeÐ ä4 Ðaction€to€eliminate€manifestations€of€racial€discrimination.€€Finally,€it€is€argued€that€article€6€of€theÐ Ð  ÐConvention€was€violated€because€the€State€party€denied€the€petitioner€due€process€by€virtue€of€articleÐ ¼  Ð12€of€the€Code€of€Penal€Procedure,€when€she€unsuccessfully€petitioned€for€penal€prosecution€of€theÐ ¨ø Ðdiscrimination€of€which€she€claims€to€have€been€the€victim.Ð ”ä ÐÌ3.€€At€its€thirty„first€session€in€March€1985,€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€RacialÐ l¼ ÐDiscrimination€decided€to€transmit€the€communication,€under€rule€92,€paragraphs€1€and€3,€of€its€rulesÐ X ¨ Ðof€procedure,€to€the€State€party,€requesting€information€and€observations€relevant€to€the€question€ofÐ D!” Ðthe€admissibility€of€the€communication.Ð 0"€  ÐÌ4.1€€By€submissions€dated€17€June€and€19€November€1985,€the€State€party€objects€to€theÐ $X" Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication.€€It€affirms€that€the€Committee€is€entitled,€under€its€rules€ofÐ ô$D # Ðprocedure,€to€examine€whether€a€òòprima€facieóó€consideration€of€the€facts€and€the€relevant€legislationÐ à%0!$ Ðreveals€that€the€communication€is€incompatible€with€the€Convention.€€For€the€reasons€set€out€below,Ð Ì&"% Ðit€considers€the€communication€to€be€incompatible€òòÔ_ÔrationeÔ_Ô€Ô_ÔmateriaeÔ_Ôóó€with€the€Convention€andÐ ¸'#& Ðtherefore€inadmissible.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÌ4.2€€The€State€party€denies€that€either€the€Director€of€the€Labour€Exchange€or€the€Cantonal€Court€inÐ |*Ì%) ÐApeldoorn€violated€any€of€the€rights€guaranteed€by€article€5€(e)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€of€the€Convention€and€argues€thatÐ h+¸&* Ðit€met€its€obligation€under€that€provision€to€guarantee€equality€before€the€law€in€the€enjoyment€of€theÐ T,¤'+ Ðright€to€employment€by€providing€non„discriminatory€remedies.€€With€respect€to€the€content€of€theÐ @-(, ÐÔ_Ôletter€of€Mrs.€Yilmazððs€employer€dated€19€July€1982,€the€State€party€points€out€that€the€decision€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Cantonal€Court€does€not,€in€any€way,€justify€the€conclusion€that€the€court€accepted€the€reasonsÐ œì Ðput€forth€by€the€employer.€€In€reaching€its€decision€to€dissolve€the€contract€between€the€petitionerÐ ˆØ Ðand€her€employer,€the€Court€merely€considered€the€case€in€the€light€of€the€relevant€rules€of€civil€lawÐ tÄ Ðand€civil€procedure;€it€refrained€from€referring€to€the€petitionerððs€national€or€ethnic€origin.Ð `° ÐÌ4.3€€With€respect€to€the€petitionerððs€argument€that€the€State€party€should€have€provided€for€a€moreÐ 8 ˆ Ðadequate€mechanism€of€judicial€review€and€appeal€against€Cantonal€Court€judgements€related€to€theÐ $ t Ðtermination€of€employment€contracts,€the€state€party€points€out€that€the€relevant€domestic€procedures,Ð  ` Ðwhich€were€followed€in€the€present€case,€provide€adequate€protection€and€legal€remedies€within€theÐ ü L  Ðmeaning€of€article€6€of€the€Convention.€€Article€6€does€not€include€an€obligation€for€States€partiesÐ è 8  Ðto€institute€appeal€or€other€review€mechanisms€against€judgements€of€the€competent€judicialÐ Ô$  Ðauthority.Ð À  ÐÌ4.4€€With€respect€to€the€allegation€that€the€State€party€violated€articles€4€and€6€of€the€Convention€byÐ ˜è  Ðfailing€to€order€the€Prosecutor€to€prosecute€the€employer,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€obligationÐ „Ô  Ðarising€from€article€4€of€the€Convention€was€met€by€incorporating€in€the€Penal€Code€articles€137cÐ pÀ Ðto€e€and€articles€429€òòteróó€and€òòquateróó€and€penalizing€any€of€the€actions€referred€to€in€these€provisions.€Ð \¬ ÐArticle€4€cannot€be€read€as€obligating€States€parties€to€institute€criminal€proceedings€under€allÐ H˜ Ðcircumstances€with€respect€to€actions€which€appear€to€be€covered€by€the€terms€of€the€article.€Ð 4„ ÐConcerning€the€alleged€violation€of€article€6,€it€is€indicated€that€there€is€a€remedy€against€a€decisionÐ  p Ðnot€to€prosecute:€€the€procedure€pursuant€to€article€12€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure.€€The€StateÐ  \ Ðparty€recalls€that€the€petitioner€indeed€availed€herself€of€this€remedy,€although€the€Court€of€AppealÐ øH Ðdid€not€find€in€her€favour.€€It€further€observes€that€the€assessment€made€by€the€Court€of€AppealÐ ä4 Ðbefore€deciding€to€dismiss€her€petition€was€a€thorough€one.€€Thus,€the€discretion€of€the€court€was€notÐ Ð  Ðconfined€to€determining€whether€the€Prosecutorððs€decision€not€to€institute€criminal€proceedingsÐ ¼  Ðagainst€the€employer€was€a€justifiable€one;€it€was€also€able€to€weigh€the€fact€that€it€is€the€MinisterÐ ¨ø Ðof€Justiceððs€policy€to€ensure€that€criminal€proceedings€are€brought€in€as€many€cases€as€possible€whereÐ ”ä Ðracial€discrimination€appears€to€be€at€issue.Ð €Ð ÐÌ5.1€€Commenting€on€the€State€partyððs€submission,€petitionerððs€counsel,€in€a€submission€dated€5Ð X ¨ ÐFebruary€1986,€denies€that€the€communication€should€be€declared€inadmissible€as€incompatibleÐ D!” Ðòòratione€materiaeóó€with€the€provisions€of€the€Convention€and€maintains€that€his€allegations€are€well„Ð 0"€  Ðfounded.Ð #l! ÐÌ5.2€In€substantiation€of€his€initial€claim,€it€is€argued,€in€particular,€that€the€Netherlands€did€not€meetÐ ô$D # Ðits€obligations€under€the€Convention€by€merely€incorporating€in€its€Penal€Code€provisions€such€asÐ à%0!$ Ðarticles€137c€to€e€and€429€òòteróó€and€òòquateróó.€€He€affirms€that,€by€ratifying€the€Convention,€the€State€partyÐ Ì&"% Ðcurtailed€its€freedom€of€action.€€In€his€opinion,€this€means€that€a€State€cannot€simply€invoke€theÐ ¸'#& Ðexpediency€principle€which,€under€domestic€law,€leaves€it€free€to€prosecute€or€not;€rather,€it€requiresÐ ¤(ô#' Ðthe€Netherlands€actively€to€prosecute€offenders€against€sections€137c€to€e€and€429€òòteróó€and€òòquateróóÐ )à$( Ðunless€there€are€grave€objections€to€doing€so.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌ5.3€€Furthermore,€petitionerððs€counsel€maintains€that,€in€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeal€of€30Ð T,¤'+ ÐNovember€1983,€the€causal€relationship€between€the€alleged€victimððs€dismissal€and€the€different€rateÐ @-(, Ðof€absenteeism€among€foreign€and€Netherlands€women€workers,€as€alleged€by€the€employer,€is€clear.€Ð ° ÐOn€the€basis€of€the€Convention,€it€is€argued,€the€Court€should€have€dissociated€itself€from€theÐ œì Ðdiscriminatory€reasons€for€termination€of€the€employment€contract€put€forth€by€the€employer.Ð ˆØ ÐÌ6.€€On€19€March€1987,€the€Committee,€noting€that€the€State€partyððs€observations€concerning€theÐ `° Ðadmissibility€of€the€communication€essentially€concerned€the€interpretation€of€the€meaning€and€scopeÐ L œ Ðof€the€provisions€of€the€Convention€and€have€further€ascertained€that€the€communication€met€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðadmissibility€criteria€set€out€in€article€14€of€the€Convention,€declared€the€communication€admissible.€Ð $ t ÐIt€further€requested€the€State€party€to€inform€the€Committee€as€early€as€possible,€should€it€not€intendÐ  ` Ðto€make€a€further€submission€on€the€merits,€so€as€to€allow€it€to€deal€expeditiously€with€the€matter.Ð ü L  ÐÌ7.€€In€a€further€submission€dated€7€July€1987,€the€State€party€maintains€that€no€violation€of€theÐ Ô$  ÐConvention€can€be€deemed€to€have€taken€place€in€the€case€of€Mrs.€Yilmaz.€€It€argues€that€the€allegedÐ À  Ðvictimððs€claim€that,€in€cases€involving€alleged€racial€discrimination,€the€weighing€by€the€judge€of€theÐ ¬ü  Ðpartiesðð€submissions€has€to€meet€especially€severe€criteria,€rests€on€personal€convictions€rather€thanÐ ˜è  Ðlegal€requirements.€€The€requirement€in€civil€law€disputes€is€simply€that€the€judge€has€to€pronounceÐ „Ô  Ðhimself€on€the€partiesðð€submissions€inasmuch€as€they€are€relevant€to€the€dispute.€€The€State€partyÐ pÀ Ðfurther€refutes€the€allegation€that€the€terms€of€the€Convention€require€the€establishment€of€appealÐ \¬ Ðprocedures.€€In€this€respect,€it€emphasizes€that€criminal€law,€by€its€nature,€is€mainly€concerned€withÐ H˜ Ðthe€protection€of€the€public€interest.€€Article€12€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure€gives€individualsÐ 4„ Ðwho€have€a€legitimate€interest€in€prosecution€of€an€offence€the€right€to€lodge€a€complaint€with€theÐ  p ÐCourt€of€Appeal€against€the€failure€of€the€authorities€to€prosecute.€€This€procedure€guarantees€theÐ  \ Ðproper€administration€of€criminal€law,€but€it€does€not€offer€the€victims€an€enforceable€right€to€seeÐ øH Ðalleged€offenders€prosecuted.€€This,€however,€cannot€be€said€to€constitute€a€violation€of€theÐ ä4 ÐConvention.Ð Ð  ÐÌ8.1€€Commenting€on€the€State€partyððs€submission,€petitionerððs€counsel,€in€a€submission€dated€14Ð ¨ø ÐSeptember€1987,€reiterates€that€the€State€party€violated€article€5€(e)€(i)€in€that€the€cantonal€judgeÐ ”ä Ðfailed€to€protect€the€petitioner€against€unemployment,€although€the€request€for€her€dismissal€was,Ð €Ð Ðallegedly,€based€on€racially€discriminatory€grounds.€€He€asserts€that,€even€if€the€correspondenceÐ l¼ Ðbetween€the€Director€of€the€Labour€Exchange€and€the€employer€did€not€refer€to€the€national€or€ethnicÐ X ¨ Ðorigin€of€the€alleged€victim,€her€own€family€name€and€that€of€her€husband€must€have€made€it€clearÐ D!” Ðto€all€the€authorities€involved€that€she€was€of€Turkish€origin.Ð 0"€  ÐÌ8.2€€With€respect€to€the€State€partyððs€argument€that€its€legislation€provides€for€adequate€protection€„Ð $X" Ðprocedural€and€substantive€„€in€cases€of€alleged€racial€discrimination,€it€is€claimed€that€domestic€lawÐ ô$D # Ðcannot€serve€as€a€guideline€in€this€matter.€€The€expediency€principle,€i.e.€the€freedom€to€prosecute,Ð à%0!$ Ðas€laid€down€in€Netherlands€law,€has€to€be€applied€in€the€light€of€the€provisions€of€the€ConventionÐ Ì&"% Ðwith€regard€to€legal€protection€in€cases€of€alleged€racial€discrimination.Ð ¸'#& ÐÌ9.1€€The€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination€has€considered€the€presentÐ )à$( Ðcommunication€in€the€light€of€all€the€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€parties,€as€requiredÐ |*Ì%) Ðunder€article€14,€paragraph€7€(a),€of€the€Convention€and€rule€95€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€and€basesÐ h+¸&* Ðits€opinion€on€the€following€considerations.Ð T,¤'+ ÐÐ @-(, Ð9.2€€The€main€issues€before€the€Committee€are€(a)€whether€the€State€party€failed€to€meet€itsÐ ° Ðobligation,€under€article€5€(e)€(i),€to€guarantee€equality€before€the€law€in€respect€of€the€right€to€workÐ œì Ðand€protection€against€unemployment,€and€(b)€whether€articles€4€and€6€impose€on€States€parties€anÐ ˆØ Ðobligation€to€initiate€criminal€proceedings€in€cases€of€alleged€racial€discrimination€and€to€provideÐ tÄ Ðfor€an€appeal€mechanism€in€cases€of€such€discrimination.Ð `° ÐÌ9.3€€With€respect€to€the€alleged€violation€of€article€5€(e)€(i),€the€Committee€notes€that€the€finalÐ 8 ˆ Ðdecision€as€to€the€dismissal€of€the€petitioner€was€the€decision€of€the€Sub„District€Court€of€29Ð $ t ÐSeptember€1982,€which€was€based€on€article€1639w€(2)€of€the€Netherlands€Civil€Code.€€TheÐ  ` ÐCommittee€notes€that€this€decision€does€not€address€the€alleged€discrimination€in€the€employerððsÐ ü L  Ðletter€of€19€July€1982,€which€requested€the€termination€of€the€petitionerððs€employment€contract.€Ð è 8  ÐAfter€careful€examination,€the€Committee€considers€that€the€petitionerððs€dismissal€was€the€result€ofÐ Ô$  Ða€failure€to€take€into€account€all€the€circumstances€of€the€case.€€Consequently,€her€right€to€work€underÐ À  Ðarticle€5€(e)€(i)€was€not€protected.Ð ¬ü  ÐÌ9.4€€Concerning€the€alleged€violation€of€articles€4€and€6,€the€Committee€has€noted€the€petitionerððsÐ „Ô  Ðclaim€that€these€provisions€required€the€State€party€actively€to€prosecute€cases€of€alleged€racialÐ pÀ Ðdiscrimination€and€to€provide€victims€of€such€discrimination€with€the€opportunity€of€judicial€reviewÐ \¬ Ðof€a€judgement€in€their€case.€€The€Committee€observes€that€the€freedom€to€prosecute€criminalÐ H˜ Ðoffences€„€commonly€known€at€the€expediency€principle€„€is€governed€by€considerations€of€publicÐ 4„ Ðpolicy€and€notes€that€the€Convention€cannot€be€interpreted€as€challenging€the€raison€dððtre€of€thatÐ  p Ðprinciple.€€Notwithstanding,€it€should€be€applied€in€each€case€of€alleged€racial€discrimination,€in€theÐ  \ Ðlight€of€the€guarantees€laid€down€in€the€Convention.€€In€the€case€of€Mrs.€Yilmaz„Dogan,€theÐ øH ÐCommittee€concludes€that€the€prosecutor€acted€in€accordance€with€these€criteria.€€Furthermore,€theÐ ä4 ÐState€party€has€shown€that€the€application€of€the€expediency€principle€is€subject€to,€and€has€indeedÐ Ð  Ðin€the€present€case€been€subjected€to,€judicial€review,€since€a€decision€òònotóó€to€prosecute€may€be,€andÐ ¼  Ðwas€reviewed€in€this€case,€by€the€Court€of€Appeal,€pursuant€to€article€12€of€the€Netherlands€CodeÐ ¨ø Ðof€Criminal€Procedure.€€In€the€Committeeððs€opinion,€this€mechanism€of€judicial€review€is€compatibleÐ ”ä Ðwith€article€4€of€the€Convention;€contrary€to€the€petitionerððs€affirmation,€it€does€not€renderÐ €Ð Ðmeaningless€the€protection€afforded€by€sections€137c€to€e€and€429€òòteróó€and€òòquateróó€of€the€NetherlandsÐ l¼ ÐPenal€Code.€€Concerning€the€petitionerððs€inability€to€have€the€Sub„District€Courtððs€decisionÐ X ¨ Ðpronouncing€the€termination€of€her€employment€contract€reviewed€by€a€higher€tribunal,€theÐ D!” ÐCommittee€observes€that€the€terms€of€article€6€do€not€impose€upon€States€parties€the€duty€to€instituteÐ 0"€  Ða€mechanism€of€sequential€remedies,€up€to€and€including€the€Supreme€Court€level,€in€cases€ofÐ #l! Ðalleged€racial€discrimination.Ð $X" ÐÔ_ÔÌ10.€€The€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination,€acting€under€article€14,€paragraphÐ à%0!$ Ð7,€of€the€Convention,€is€of€the€opinion€that€the€information€as€submitted€by€the€parties€sustains€theÐ Ì&"% Ðclaim€that€the€petitioner€was€not€afforded€protection€in€respect€of€her€right€to€work.€€The€CommitteeÐ ¸'#& Ðsuggests€that€the€State€party€take€this€into€account€and€recommends€that€it€ascertain€whether€Mrs.Ð ¤(ô#' ÐÔ_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô€is€now€gainfully€employed€and,€if€not,€that€it€use€its€good€offices€to€secure€alternativeÐ )à$( Ðemployment€for€her€and/or€to€provide€her€with€such€other€relief€as€may€be€considered€equitable.Ð |*Ì%) ÐÌ___________Ð T,¤'+ ÐÓ'°‚Xr™X°œX'Óà r àòò*óó/€€Made€public€by€decision€of€the€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination.