ÿWPCw ´iÌóñð­­rq)€ík(w ֎?îZ dc¼mHFÃkÑà¬K¹R±Ú·Ü‚:[×;—¢¡ :B•¬<”àÒ À`ûŽw<,$<¡ÐÌ9qeÀ·2¢Ò4æGvNßâìÔ0#6´q—Ïrú{íi¬Kê¥òï²B%óÇÌÂŒMœß-1F‘:oØU~xºiLŸKo Kƒû¤ò¬ŠÖ%r9í:hFj {‚·ÐC3]± _2ØìS W:ûû€ &E¤ô¥Ër•¬Æ?ÞÊÂLqó_÷íO InûQ"/z2¢þV ò5Î̹eç -<…™jpòßKj˜–ÊyF"À¨ÙIç|´<žHfhl/ª]£ÑPÐîþ)çÛ%Þd÷XPýb4“|ßìÑ-£çˆ ^`#eIg¢ÞµŸGÔA¤x4˜±» Áý:xZ ÄB’È]5¹ò³”Æ‘O>ŸÙ×Y m¦–;nß,]Ÿ«!À2téþ¥ê‹FðAÊŦ “€”¶LÐ"gœv‰“–ò&Wëyc¼l<«°ô6P'cÃk¸ ¸A§5†æ5X¯õmN­€ e¨(½ô †²Œ£l ÞâHk³û^ç.(§À/Äj’^ѪˆEcÕ× oi!U>ÎÌ  0µØ 0< 0YÉ 0_" 0iêÆò 0Ѹ 0(‰ D+± AMÜ Ü  ) 5 e = = G 0NW 0¶¥ #![ UN| %Ê MÐ (Ô Nü ^ þ w@ 4J^ m`ô\  `‹&Times New Roman' L.K. v. The Netherlands, Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Communicat4imination, Communicat"Angie Dituri"0Angie Dituri .   6F , ÿÿ4Heading 3Ô S ÔÓ p^SÓÔ€£££Ôò òÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ€XXXÔó óÓ p^SÓ<ÿÿ:Default Para6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ  ÔóóÔ  Ô< ÿÿ:Normal (Web)Ô S ÔÓ =jSÓÓ =jSÓone Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(©2O$££Ý ƒf¬!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X²+XXXÔÔ€X²+XXX²+ÔÝ  Ý(ÿÿ$’’'dxd A<< cÿÿthree  #|x6(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ(Žf¬$¡¡ÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XèXXXÔÔ€XèXXXèÔ˜HP LaserJet 4000 Series PSÈÚØÚÚØÈÚ0(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX‰-)Æ -.D/01D2354 5[6[as()ðÁ¤à?ž œÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒf¬!ÝÒÜ°ÒÒÜ°ÒÔ..ÔÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÓ  ÓÔ€X²+XXXÔÔ€X²+XXX²+ÔÝ  ÝÔ_Ôò òCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONÐ ° ÐÌòòÔ_ÔL.K.Ô_Ô€v.€The€NetherlandsóóÐ ˆØ ÐÌCommunication€No.€4/1991ÌÌ16€March€1993ÌÌñ4ññ3ñÔ.@ƒ0NetherlandscerdDEC04.wpd@ÔNetherlandscerdDEC04.wpdÔ/  Ôñ3ññ4ñÌVIEWSó óÐ ü L  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€byóó:€Ô_ÔL.K.Ô_Ôñ0ñ€*/ñ0ññ1ñ€[Ô4‚Ý † ÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÝ‚ÿÝóóòòÔÿÔóóóóÝ  Ý*Ý‚ÿÿÿ½ƒÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ67ÔÝ‚KƒÝóóÔÿÔóóñ1ññ0ñóóóóóóóóñ0ññ1ñÝ  ÝÔ7Ý ê yÔ]ñ1ññ2ñ€ñ2ñ€[represented€by€counsel]€Ð À  ÐÌòòState€partyóó:€The€Netherlands€Ð ˜è  ÐÌòòDate€of€communicationóó:€6€December€1991€(date€of€initial€letter)€óóÐ pÀ ÐÌÌòòThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discriminationóó,€established€under€article€8Ð 4„ Ðof€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€RacialÏDiscrimination,ÌÌòòMeetingóó€on€16€March€1993,Ð ä4 ÐÌòòHaving€decidedóó,€under€rule€94,€paragraph€7,€of€its€rules€of€procedure€to€deal€jointly€withÐ ¼  Ðthe€question€of€admissibility€and€the€merits€of€the€communication,ÌÌòòHaving€ascertained€that€óóthe€communication€meets€the€criteria€for€being€declaredÐ €Ð Ðadmissible,ÌÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€4/1991,€submitted€to€theÐ D!” ÐCommittee€by€Ô_ÔL.K.Ô_Ô€under€article€14€of€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€ofÏAll€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,ÌÌòòHaving€taken€into€considerationóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€on€behalf€ofÐ ô$D # ÐÔ_ÔL.K.Ô_Ô€and€by€the€State€party,ÌÌòòBearing€in€mindóó€rule€95€of€its€rules€of€procedure€requiring€it€to€formulate€its€opinion€onÐ ¸'#& Ðthe€communication€before€it,ÌÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ð |*Ì%) ÐÓ  ÓÌÌñ6ñòòñ6ññ5ñò òñ5ñOPINIONñ5ñó óñ5ññ6ñóóñ6ñÐ @-(, ЇÌÌÓ  Ó1.€The€author€of€the€communication€(dated€6€December€1991)€is€Ô_ÔL.K.Ô_Ô,€a€Moroccan€citizenÏcurrently€residing€in€Utrecht,€the€Netherlands.€He€claims€to€be€a€victim€of€violations€by€theÏNetherlands€of€articles€2,€paragraph€1€(d);€4€Ô_ÔliteraÔ_Ô€(c),€5€Ô_ÔliteraÔ_Ô€(d)€(Ô_ÔiÔ_Ô)€and€Ô_ÔliteraÔ_Ô€(e)€(iii);€andÏ6€of€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination.ÏThe€author€is€represented€by€counsel.€ÌÌòòThe€facts€as€found€by€the€Committeeóó:Ð  ` ÐÌ2.1€On€9€August€1989,€the€author,€who€is€partially€disabled,€visited€a€house€for€which€a€leaseÏhad€been€offered€to€him€and€his€family,€in€the€Nicholas€Ô_ÔRuychaverstraatÔ_Ô,€a€street€withÏmunicipal€subsidized€housing€in€Utrecht.€He€was€accompanied€by€a€friend,€A.B.€When€theyÏarrived,€some€20€people€had€gathered€outside€the€house.€During€the€visit,€the€author€heardÏseveral€of€them€both€say€and€shout:€"No€more€foreigners".€Others€intimated€to€him€that€if€heÏwere€to€accept€the€house,€they€would€set€fire€to€it€and€damage€his€car.€The€author€and€A.B.Ïthen€returned€to€the€Municipal€Housing€Office€and€asked€the€official€responsible€for€the€fileÏto€accompany€them€to€the€street.€There,€several€local€inhabitants€told€the€official€that€theyÏcould€not€accept€the€author€as€their€Ô_ÔneighbourÔ_Ô,€owing€to€a€presumed€rule€that€no€more€thanÏ5€per€cent€of€the€street's€inhabitants€should€be€foreigners.€Told€that€no€such€rule€existed,Ïstreet€residents€drafted€a€petition,€which€noted€that€the€author€could€not€be€accepted€andÏrecommended€that€another€house€be€allocated€to€his€family.ÌÌ2.2€On€the€same€day,€the€author€filed€a€complaint€with€the€municipal€police€of€Utrecht,€onÏthe€ground€that€he€had€been€the€victim€of€racial€discrimination€under€article€137€(Ô_ÔliteraeÔ_Ô€(c)Ïand€(d))€of€the€Criminal€Code€(Ô_ÔWetboekÔ_Ô€van€Ô_ÔStrafrechtÔ_Ô).€The€complaint€was€directed€againstÏall€those€who€had€signed€the€petition€and€those€who€had€gathered€outside€the€house.€HeÏsubmits€that€initially,€the€police€officer€refused€to€register€the€complaint,€and€that€it€tookÏmediation€by€a€local€anti„discrimination€group€before€the€police€agreed€to€prepare€a€report.ÌÌ2.3€The€State€party's€version€of€the€facts€coincides€to€a€large€extent€with€that€given€by€theÏauthor,€with€some€differences.€According€to€the€State€party,€the€author€visited€the€houseÏallocated€to€him€by€the€Municipality€of€Utrecht€twice,€once€on€8€August€1989,€together€withÏan€official€of€the€Utrecht€Municipal€Housing€Department,€and€again€on€9€August€1989€withÏa€friend.€During€the€first€visit,€the€official€started€a€conversation€with€a€local€resident,€aÏwoman,€who€objected€to€the€author€as€a€future€tenant€and€Ô_ÔneighbourÔ_Ô.€During€theÏconversation,€several€other€residents€approached€and€made€remarks€such€as€"We've€gotÏenough€foreigners€in€this€street"€and€"They€wave€knives€about€and€you€don't€even€feel€safeÏin€your€own€street".€While€the€author€was€no€longer€present€when€these€remarks€were€made,Ïthe€Housing€Department€official€was€told€that€the€house€would€be€set€on€fire€as€soon€as€theÏprior€tenant's€lease€had€expired.€As€to€the€second€visit,€it€is€submitted€that€when€the€authorÏarrived€at€the€house€with€a€friend,€A.B.,€a€group€of€local€residents€had€already€gathered€toÏprotest€against€the€potential€arrival€of€another€foreigner.€When€the€author€remained€reluctantÏto€reject€the€Housing€Department's€offer€the€residents€collected€signatures€on€a€petition.ÏSigned€by€a€total€of€28€local€residents,€it€bore€the€inscription€"Not€accepted€because€ofÐ @-(, Ðpoverty?€Another€house€for€the€family€please?",€and€was€forwarded€to€the€HousingÏDepartment€official.ÌÌ2.4€In€response€to€the€complaint€of€9€August€1989,€the€police€prepared€a€report€on€theÏincident€(Ô_ÔProcesÔ_Ô„Verbal€No.€4239/89)€on€25€September€1989;€according€to€the€State€party,Ï17€out€of€the€28€residents€who€had€signed€the€petition€had€been€questioned€by€the€police,€andÏ11€could€not€be€contacted€before€the€police€report€was€finalized.ÌÌ2.5€In€the€meantime,€the€author's€lawyer€had€Ô_ÔapprisedÔ_Ô€the€prosecutor€at€the€District€Court€ofÏUtrecht€of€the€matter€and€requested€access€to€all€the€documents€in€the€file.€On€2€OctoberÏ1989,€the€prosecutor€forwarded€these€documents,€but€on€23€November€1989€he€informed€theÏauthor€that€the€matter€had€not€been€registered€as€a€criminal€case€with€his€office,€because€itÏwas€not€certain€that€a€criminal€offence€had€taken€place.€On€4€January€1990,€therefore,Ïcounsel€requested€the€Court€of€Appeal€of€Amsterdam€(Ô_ÔGerechtshofÔ_Ô)€to€order€the€prosecutionÏof€the€"group€of€residents€of€the€Nicholas€Ô_ÔRuychaverstraatÔ_Ô€in€Utrecht"€for€racialÏdiscrimination,€pursuant€to€article€12€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure.ÌÌ2.6€Counsel€submits€that,€after€several€months,€he€was€informed€that€the€Registry€of€theÏCourt€of€Appeal€had€indeed€received€the€case€file€on€15€January€1990.€On€an€unspecifiedÏdate€but€shortly€thereafter,€the€Prosecutor„General€at€the€Court€of€Appeal€had€requestedÏfurther€information€from€the€District€Court€Prosecutor,€which€was€supplied€rapidly.ÏHowever,€it€was€not€until€10€April€1991€that€counsel€was€able€to€consult€the€supplementaryÏinformation,€although€he€had€sought€to€obtain€it€on€several€occasions€between€15€FebruaryÏ1990€and€15€February€1991.€It€was€only€after€he€threatened€to€apply€for€an€immediateÏjudgement€in€tort€proceedings€against€the€prosecutor€at€the€Court€of€Appeal€that€the€case€wasÏput€on€the€Court€agenda€for€10€April€1991.€On€5€March€1991,€the€Prosecutor„General€at€theÏCourt€of€Appeal€asked€the€Court€to€declare€the€complaint€unfounded€or€to€refuse€to€hear€itÏon€public€interest€grounds.ÌÌ2.7€Before€the€Court€of€Appeal,€it€transpired€that€only€two€of€the€street's€inhabitants€hadÏactually€been€summoned€to€appear;€they€did€not€appear€personally€but€were€represented.€ByÏjudgement€of€10€June€1991,€the€Court€of€Appeal€dismissed€the€author's€request.€It€held€ò òinterÐ D!” Ðaliaó ó€that€the€petition€was€not€a€document€of€deliberately€insulting€nature,€nor€a€document€thatÐ 4"„  Ðwas€inciting€to€racial€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€137,€literae€(c)€and€(e),€ofÏthe€Criminal€Code.€In€this€context,€the€Court€of€Appeal€held€that€the€heading€to€the€petition€„Ïwhich,€taking€into€account€statements€made€during€the€hearing€and€to€the€police,€should€beÏinterpreted€as€meaning€"Not€accepted€because€of€a€fight?€Another€house€for€the€familyÏplease?"€„€could€not€be€considered€to€be€insulting€or€as€an€incitement€to€racial€discrimination,Ïhowever€regrettable€and€undesirable€it€might€have€been.ÌÌ2.8€Under€article€12€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure,€counsel€requested€the€Prosecutor„¼General€at€the€Supreme€Court€to€seek€the€annulment€of€the€decision€of€the€Court€of€Appeal,Ïin€the€interest€of€law.€On€9€July€1991,€the€request€was€rejected.€As€a€last€resort,€counselÏwrote€to€the€Minister€of€Justice,€asking€him€to€order€the€prosecutor€to€initiate€proceedingsÏin€the€case.€The€Minister€replied€that€he€could€not€grant€the€request,€as€the€Court€of€AppealÐ H-˜(, Ðhad€fully€reviewed€the€case€and€there€was€no€scope€for€further€proceedings€under€article€12Ïof€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure.€However,€the€Minister€asked€the€Chief€Public€ProsecutorÏin€Utrecht€to€raise€the€problems€encountered€by€the€author€in€tripartite€consultations€betweenÏthe€Chief€Public€Prosecutor,€the€Mayor€and€the€Chief€of€the€Municipal€Police€of€Utrecht.€AtÏsuch€tripartite€consultations€on€21€January€1992,€it€was€agreed€that€anti„discrimination€policyÏwould€receive€priority€attention.ÌÌòòThe€complaintóó:Ð $ t ÐÌ3.1€The€author€submits€that€the€remarks€and€statements€of€the€residents€of€the€streetÏconstitute€acts€of€racial€discrimination€within€the€meaning€of€article€1,€paragraph€1,€of€theÏConvention,€as€well€as€of€article€137,€literae€(c),€(d),€and€(e),€of€the€Dutch€Criminal€Code;Ïthe€latter€provisions€prohibit€public€insults€of€a€group€of€people€solely€on€the€basis€of€theirÏrace,€public€incitement€of€hatred€against€people€on€account€of€their€race,€and€the€publicationÏof€documents€containing€racial€insults€of€a€group€of€people.ÌÌ3.2€The€author€contends€that€the€judicial€authorities€and€the€public€prosecutor€did€notÏproperly€examine€all€the€relevant€facts€of€the€case€or€at€least€did€not€formulate€a€motivatedÏdecision€in€respect€of€his€complaint.€In€particular,€he€submits€that€the€police€investigationÏwas€neither€thorough€nor€complete.€Thus,€A.B.€was€not€questioned;€and€street€residents€wereÏonly€questioned€in€connection€with€the€petition,€not€with€the€events€outside€the€house€visitedÏby€the€author€on€8/9€August€1989.€Secondly,€the€author€contends€that€the€decision€of€theÏprosecutor€not€to€institute€criminal€proceedings€remained€unmotivated.€Thirdly,€theÏprosecutor€is€said€to€have€made€misleading€statements€in€an€interview€to€a€local€newspaperÏin€December€1989,€in€respect€of€the€purported€intentions€of€the€street€residents€vis„„vis€theÏauthor.€Fourthly,€the€Prosecutor„General€at€the€Court€of€Appeal€is€said€to€have€unjustifiablyÏprolonged€the€proceedings€by€remaining€inactive€for€over€one€year.€Finally,€the€Court€ofÏAppeal€itself€is€said€to€have€relied€on€incomplete€evidence.ÌÌ3.3€Author's€counsel€asserts€that€the€above€reveals€violations€of€articles€2,€paragraph€1€(d),Ïjuncto€4€and€6;€he€observes€that€articles€4€and€6€must€be€read€together€with€the€first€sentenceÏand€paragraph€1€litera€(d)€of€article€2,€which€leads€to€the€conclusion€that€the€obligations€ofÏStates€parties€to€the€Convention€are€not€met€if€racial€discrimination€is€merely€criminalized.ÏCounsel€submits€that€although€the€freedom€to€prosecute€or€not€to€prosecute,€known€as€theÏexpediency€principle,€is€not€set€aside€by€the€Convention,€the€State€party,€by€ratifying€theÏConvention,€accepted€to€treat€instances€of€racial€discrimination€with€particular€attention,Ïò òinter€aliaó ó,€by€ensuring€the€speedy€disposal€of€such€cases€by€domestic€judicial€instances.Ð à%0!$ ÐÌòòThe€State€party's€information€and€observations€and€counsel's€commentsóó:Ð ¼' #& ÐÌ4.1€The€State€party€does€not€formulate€objections€to€the€admissibility€of€the€communicationÏand€concedes€that€the€author€has€exhausted€available€domestic€remedies.€It€alsoÏacknowledges€that€article€137,€literae€(c),€(d),€and€(e),€of€the€Criminal€Code€are€in€principleÏapplicable€to€the€behaviour€of€the€street's€residents.ÌÐ D-”(, Ð4.2€In€respect€of€the€contention€that€the€police€investigations€of€the€case€were€incomplete,€theÏState€party€argues€that€it€is€incorrect€to€claim€that€the€residents€of€the€street€were€questionedÏonly€about€the€petition.€A€number€of€residents€made€statements€about€the€remark€that€a€fireÏwould€be€set€if€the€author€moved€into€the€house.€The€State€party€also€contends€that€althoughÏlapse€of€time€makes€it€impossible€to€establish€why€A.B.€was€not€called€to€give€evidenceÏbefore€the€Court€of€Appeal,€it€is€"doubtful€...€whether€a€statement€from€him€would€have€shedÏa€different€light€on€the€case.€After€all,€no€one€disputes€that€the€remarks€objected€to€wereÏmade".ÌÌ4.3€The€State€party€similarly€rejects€the€contention€that€the€prosecutor€did€not€sufficientlyÏmotivate€the€decision€not€to€prosecute€and€that€the€interview€given€by€the€press€officer€of€theÏprosecutor's€office€to€an€Utrecht€newspaper€on€6€December€1989€was€incomplete€andÏerroneous.€Firstly,€it€observes€that€the€decision€not€to€prosecute€was€explained€at€length€inÏthe€letter€dated€25€June€1990€from€the€public€prosecutor€in€Utrecht€to€the€Prosecutor„GeneralÏat€the€Amsterdam€Court€of€Appeal,€in€the€context€of€the€author's€complaint€filed€under€articleÏ12€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure.€Secondly,€the€interview€of€6€December€1989€did€notÏpurport€to€reflect€the€opinion€of€the€Public€Prosecutor's€Office€but€that€of€the€residents€of€theÏstreet.ÌÌ4.4€In€respect€of€the€contention€that€the€proceedings€before€the€Court€of€Appeal€were€undulyÏdelayed,€the€State€party€considers€that€although€the€completion€of€the€report€by€theÏProsecutor„General€took€longer€than€anticipated€and€might€be€desirable,€a€delay€of€15€monthsÏbetween€lodging€of€the€complaint€and€its€hearing€by€the€Court€of€Appeal€did€not€reduce€theÏeffectiveness€of€the€remedy;€accordingly,€the€delay€cannot€be€considered€to€constitute€aÏviolation€of€the€Convention.ÌÌ4.5€The€State€party€observes€that€the€Dutch€legislation€meets€the€requirements€of€article€2,Ïparagraph€1€(d),€of€the€Convention,€by€making€racial€discrimination€a€criminal€offence€underÏarticles€137,€Ô_ÔliteraÔ_Ô€(c)€ò òet€seqó ó.€of€the€Criminal€Code.€For€any€criminal€offence€to€beÐ €Ð Ðprosecuted,€however,€there€must€be€sufficient€evidence€to€warrant€prosecution.€In€theÏGovernment's€opinion,€there€can€be€no€question€of€a€violation€of€articles€4€and€6€of€theÏConvention€because,€as€set€out€in€the€public€prosecutor's€letter€of€25€June€1990,€it€had€notÏbeen€sufficiently€established€that€any€criminal€offence€had€been€committed€on€8€and€9ÏAugust€1989,€or€who€had€been€involved.ÌÌ4.6€In€the€State€party's€opinion,€the€fact€that€racial€discrimination€has€been€criminalized€underÏthe€Criminal€Code€is€sufficient€to€establish€compliance€with€the€obligation€in€article€4€of€theÏConvention,€since€this€provision€cannot€be€read€to€mean€that€proceedings€are€instituted€inÏrespect€of€every€type€of€conduct€to€which€the€provision€may€apply.€In€this€context,€the€StateÏparty€notes€that€decisions€to€prosecute€are€taken€in€accordance€with€the€expediency€principle,Ïand€refers€to€the€Committee's€opinion€on€communication€1/1984€addressing€the€meaning€ofÏthis€very€Ô_Ôprinciple.Ô_Ô€a/€€The€author€was€able€to€avail€himself€of€an€effective€remedy,€inÏaccordance€with€article€6€of€the€Convention,€because€he€could€and€did€file€a€complaintÏpursuant€to€article€12€of€the€Code€of€Criminal€Procedure,€against€the€prosecutor's€refusal€toÏprosecute.€The€State€party€emphasizes€that€the€review€of€the€case€by€the€Court€of€Appeal€wasÐ D-”(, Ðcomprehensive€and€not€limited€in€scope.ÌÌ4.7€Finally,€the€State€party€denies€that€it€violated€article€5€(d)€(i)€and€(e)€(iii)€of€theÏConvention€ò òvis„„visó ó€the€author;€the€author's€right€to€freely€choose€his€place€of€residence€wasÐ tÄ Ðnever€impaired,€either€before€or€after€the€events€of€August€1989.€In€this€context,€the€StateÏparty€refers€to€the€Committee's€Opinion€on€communication€No.€2/1989,€where€it€was€heldÏthat€the€rights€enshrined€in€article€5€(e)€of€the€Convention€are€subject€to€progressiveÏimplementation,€and€that€it€was€"not€within€the€Committee's€mandate€to€see€to€it€that€theseÏrights€are€established"€but€rather€to€monitor€the€implementation€of€these€rights,€once€theyÏhave€been€granted€on€equal€terms.€ñ-ñbñ-ññ.ññ-ñ.ñ-ññ.ññ/ñ/€ñ/ññ.ñ€[Ô4‚ciæÔÝ‚ÍOÝÔÿÔòòÝ  ÝÔ5  ÔÝ‚ÿÝóóòòÔÿÔóóóóÝ  ÝbÝ‚ÿÿÿÐKd€thÝóóÔÿÔÝ  ÝÔ6JKÔÝ‚^Kary€ÝóóÔÿÔóóñ.ññ-ñóóóóñ-ññ.ñÝ  ÝÔ7,€JŒKÔ]ñ.ñ€The€State€party€points€out€that€"appropriate€rules€haveÏbeen€drawn€up€to€ensure€an€equitable€distribution€of€housing€...",€and€that€these€rules€wereÏapplied€to€the€author's€case.ÌÌ5.1€In€his€comments,€counsel€challenges€several€of€the€State€party's€observations.€Thus,€heÏdenies€that€the€police€inquiry€was€methodical€and€asserts€that€A.B.€could€and€indeed€wouldÏhave€pointed€out€those€who€made€threatening€and€discriminatory€remarks€on€9€August€1989,Ïhad€he€been€called€to€give€evidence.€Counsel€further€submits€that€he€was€not€able€to€consultÏthe€public€prosecutor's€decision€of€25€June€1990€not€to€institute€criminal€proceedings€untilÏ10€April€1991,€the€date€of€the€hearing€before€the€Court€of€Appeal.ÌÌ5.2€Counsel€takes€issue€with€the€State€party's€version€of€the€prosecutor's€interview€of€6ÏDecember€1989€and€asserts€that€if€the€press€officer€related€the€version€of€the€street€residentsÏwithout€any€comment€whatsoever,€she€thereby€suggested€that€their€account€corresponded€toÏwhat€had€in€fact€occurred.€Finally,€counsel€reaffirms€that€the€judicial€authorities€made€noÏeffort€to€handle€the€case€expeditiously.€He€notes€that€criminal€proceedings€in€TheÏNetherlands€should€duly€take€into€account€the€principles€enshrined€in€article€6€of€theÏEuropean€Convention€on€the€Protection€of€Human€Rights,€of€which€the€obligation€to€avoidÏundue€delays€in€proceedings€is€one.ÌÌòòIssues€and€proceedings€before€the€Committeeóó:Ð pÀ ÐÌ6.1€Before€considering€any€claims€contained€in€a€communication,€the€Committee€on€theÏElimination€of€Racial€Discrimination€must,€in€accordance€with€rule€91€of€its€rules€ofÏprocedure,€decide€whether€or€not€it€is€admissible€under€the€Convention.€Under€rule€94,Ïparagraph€7,€the€Committee€may,€in€appropriate€cases€and€with€the€consent€of€the€partiesÏconcerned,€join€consideration€of€the€admissibility€and€of€the€merits€of€a€communication.€TheÏCommittee€notes€that€the€State€party€does€not€raise€objections€to€the€admissibility€of€theÏcommunication,€and€that€it€has€formulated€detailed€observations€in€respect€of€the€substanceÏof€the€matter€under€consideration.€In€the€circumstances,€the€Committee€decides€to€joinÏconsideration€of€admissibility€and€consideration€of€the€merits€of€the€communication.ÌÌ6.2€The€Committee€has€ascertained,€as€it€is€required€to€do€under€rule€91,€that€theÏcommunication€meets€the€admissibility€criteria€set€out€therein.€It€is,€therefore,€declaredÏadmissible.ÌÐ D-”(, Ð6.3€The€Committee€finds€on€the€basis€of€the€information€before€it€that€the€remarks€and€threatsÏmade€on€8€and€9€August€1989€to€Ô_ÔL.K.Ô_Ô€constituted€incitement€to€racial€discrimination€and€toÏacts€of€violence€against€persons€of€another€Ô_ÔcolourÔ_Ô€or€ethnic€origin,€contrary€to€article€4€(a)Ïof€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,Ïand€that€the€investigation€into€these€incidents€by€the€police€and€prosecution€authorities€wasÏincomplete.ÌÌ6.4€The€Committee€cannot€accept€any€claim€that€the€enactment€of€law€making€racialÏdiscrimination€a€criminal€act€in€itself€represents€full€compliance€with€the€obligations€ofÏStates€parties€under€the€Convention.ÌÌ6.5€The€Committee€reaffirms€its€view€as€stated€in€its€Opinion€on€Communication€No.€1/1984Ïof€10€August€1987€(Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô€v.€The€Netherlands)€that€"the€freedom€to€prosecuteÏcriminal€offenses€„€commonly€known€as€the€expediency€principle€„€is€governed€byÏconsiderations€of€public€policy€and€notes€that€the€Convention€cannot€be€interpreted€asÏchallenging€the€ò òraison€Ô_Ôd'treÔ_Ôó ó€of€that€principle.€Notwithstanding,€it€should€be€applied€in€eachÐ „Ô  Ðcase€of€alleged€racial€discrimination€in€the€light€of€the€guarantees€laid€down€in€theÏConvention".ÌÌ6.6€When€threats€of€racial€violence€are€made,€and€especially€when€they€are€made€in€publicÏand€by€a€group,€it€is€incumbent€upon€the€State€to€investigate€with€due€diligence€andÏexpedition.€In€the€instant€case,€the€State€party€failed€to€do€this.ÌÌ6.7€The€Committee€finds€that€in€view€of€the€inadequate€response€to€the€incidents,€the€policeÏand€judicial€proceedings€in€this€case€did€not€afford€the€applicant€effective€protection€andÏremedies€within€the€meaning€of€article€6€of€the€Convention.ÌÌ6.8€The€Committee€recommends€that€the€State€party€review€its€policy€and€proceduresÏconcerning€the€decision€to€prosecute€in€cases€of€alleged€racial€discrimination,€in€the€light€ofÏits€obligations€under€article€4€of€the€Convention.ÌÌ6.9€The€Committee€further€recommends€that€the€State€party€provide€the€applicant€with€reliefÏcommensurate€with€the€moral€damage€he€has€suffered.ÌÌ7.€Pursuant€to€rule€95,€paragraph€5,€of€its€rules€of€procedure,€the€Committee€invites€the€StateÏparty,€in€its€next€periodic€report€under€article€9,€paragraph€1,€of€the€Convention,€to€informÏthe€Committee€about€any€action€it€has€taken€with€respect€to€the€recommendations€set€out€inÏparagraphs€6.8€and€6.9€above.ÌÌÌ_________Ìà 4 à*€€€At€his€request,€the€name€of€the€author€is€not€disclosed.€ÌÌà 4 àa/€€Ô_ÔYilmazÔ_Ô„Ô_ÔDoganÔ_Ô€v.€The€Netherlands,€Opinion€of€10€August€1988,€paragraph€9.4.€ÌÐ D-”(, Ðà 4 àb/€€D.T.€Ô_ÔDiopÔ_Ô€v.€France,€Opinion€of€18€March€1991,€paragraph€6.4.ÌÓ‡ Ó