ÿWPCy mqGèú¾Èؾâé[1Æ 15b »úاŠç-€Šm¼on‹H9ƒ0S¹07‘éÒ\´\×DRzêpÉëUQNƒ,;’]¬3ùøbv ×B!êp¼!ŠŽä’æq¥»s„ìÇQ{­oÝXZ+Ñ/À½yc>Çé¡ó†Ô&¥mž‡ÏǸŒú|«n07‹ò\J_=ð-øE ç÷ÉFð" £'ø7É}­q¢ °pˆ¢T,P"$2t ܲ«·ä¬Ò3 v“ 9qwÔ/}ñÒÜ/Øâ=Ä«ëð™sÕç¥|Ù­£ t{€ñ§xNÚ ;Áe¸@e’Šnæž…àR‘©>»Ê©3½[Z ¦*©šõ¬YÁÎ:¶~í͸ÌåóÎøõÓR°lOÿØt‚X^²„²ï½„ôìÒ6[HŠ›Îø;<àûñj…‹³š¢²‰ü_m¥Þ68 WìµbsëXCé©•bÁ™áZâ'Ÿâ°VPþç¢pØQ”V5ÂC´*ó{Gà»_¾£²)‹?Mš»b"Å*Ô €CN4|è‚Ä‚f¡}µy£³*vÓèCÌ |ìJR(èƒuá)k¢æ£Q­šƒØo.K6U—T÷3ïÝ|ÔC#/#Á’UNS %¡ 0:§Má 01å 0= 0ÈS 0> 0ÊY 0´# 0´× 0a‹ 0´ì 0´  09T 0Ü 02i 0ü› 0:— 0…Ñ 0_V 0 µ 0k¿ 0Ç* B*ñ D3 CN D+h 0Ç“ 0çZ 06A 0w 0: 0h¹ 0F!U6gU>U*Û(^ -w94=Q` mb˜HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - StandardÈÐððÈÐ0&Öd9 Z‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ö\$¡¡ÔCEUS.,Ô0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<GDÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó('zÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°Ôó óÔ  ÔÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡XXXÔ(oÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡Ôó óÔ‡XXXÔ2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8SPÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ;1ܰÜ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#;ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ8.°°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#8Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡&ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6&)ÿÿ4HyperlinkÔ  ÔÔ  ÔòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  ÔÔ  ÔÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔó óÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡&ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡&ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È (#/Ó<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Bottom of ÓI€4$À˜ ** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡'%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡&ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô&ÿÿ0 d d'þÿÈÈÈÈdxd÷ÿdÿÿÿd'ÈÈÈÈdxd<ÃÇÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓI€4$À˜** €€d€dIÓÓ  ÓÔB  ÔÔ € ÔÔ‡ÔÔ?‡'%ä2¼A`Arial?ÔÓ9€*À  €€d€d9ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡&ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔÔ € Ô0Klÿÿ.SampleÔK‡%<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔS‡&ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡%<þ6X9`(Courier NewKÔÔ‡XXXÔÔS‡&ô\  `&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó:ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô<þ6X9`(Courier Newô\  `&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`ArialÙ[K- :PB-iles3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒö\!ÝÔCEUS.,ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÓ  Óò òCOMMITTEE€ON€THE€ELIMINATION€OF€RACIAL€DISCRIMINATIONÐ ° Ðó óÌò òòòÔ_ÔM.B.Ô_Ô€v.€Denmarkóóó óÐ à ÐÌò òCommunication€No.€20/2000€ó óÐ pÀ ÐÌò ò13€March€2002ó óÐ P   ÐÌÌÔ_Ôò òVIEWSó óÔ_ÔÐ  p  ÐÌÌòòòòSubmitted€by:óó€Ms.€M.€B.€(represented€by€counsel)€Ð ð@  ÐÌòòState€party€concernedóó:€Denmark€Ð Ð  ÐÌòòDate€of€registered€communicationóó:€4€August€2000€(initial€submission)€Ð ° ÐóóÌÌòòThe€Committee€on€the€Elimination€of€Racial€Discrimination,óó€established€under€article€8€of€theÐ €Ð ÐInternational€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€Ð pÀ ÐÌòòMeetingóó€on€13€March€2002,€Ð P  ÐÌòòHaving€concludedóó€its€consideration€of€communication€No.€15/1999,€submitted€to€the€CommitteeÐ 0€ Ðunder€article€14€of€the€International€Convention€on€the€Elimination€of€All€Forms€of€RacialÐ  p ÐDiscrimination,€Ð ` ÐÌòòHaving€taken€into€considerationóó€all€written€information€made€available€to€it€by€the€Author€and€theÐ ð@ ÐState€party,€Ð à0 ÐÌòòBearing€in€mindóó€rule€95€of€its€rules€of€procedure€requiring€it€to€formulate€its€opinion€on€theÐ À! Ðcommunication€before€it,€Ð °"  ÐÌòòAdoptsóó€the€following:€Ð $à" ÐÌÓ=Óò òÓ  ÓOpinion€ó óÐ p&À!$ ÐÓ,ÓÓÓÌ1.€€€€€€The€author€of€the€communication,€dated€4€August€2000,€is€M.€B.,€a€Brazilian€citizen€withÐ P( #& Ðpermanent€residence€in€Denmark,€born€in€Denmark€on€25€January€1975.€She€claims€to€be€a€victimÐ @)$' Ðof€a€violation€by€Denmark€of€article€2,€subparagraph€1€(d),€and€article€6€of€the€Convention.€She€isÐ 0*€%( Ðrepresented€by€counsel.€Ð  +p&) ÐÌÌÐ ð-@), Ðò òThe€facts€as€presented€by€the€petitioner€ó óÐ ° ÐÌ2.1€€€€€€On€20€August€1999,€at€approximately€11:30€pm,€the€petitioner,€her€brother,€a€Danish€citizenÐ à Ðof€Brazilian€origin€and€a€friend,€a€black€Brazilian,€were€waiting€to€enter€the€restaurant-discothequeÐ €Ð Ð"Etcetera"€(hereafter,€the€restaurant),€in€the€Centre€of€Copenhagen.€The€doorman,€Martin€Andersen,Ð pÀ Ðtold€them,€in€Danish,€that€he€could€not€let€them€enter€because€the€place€was€too€crowded.€ThinkingÐ ` ° Ðthat€the€doorman€would€inform€them€whenever€they€could€enter,€they€decided€to€wait€in€front€of€theÐ P   Ðrestaurant.€When€shortly€after,€a€group€of€7/8€people€left€the€restaurant,€they€were€not€invited€toÐ @  Ðenter.€Later,€as€they€were€the€only€ones€waiting,€a€group€of€5/6€Danish€people€arrived€and€wereÐ 0 € Ðimmediately€allowed€to€enter.€The€doorman€thereafter€told€the€petitioner€and€her€companions,€inÐ  p  ÐEnglish:€"You€should€not€wait."€They€then€left€the€place.€Ð `  ÐÌ2.2€€€€€€On€16€September€1999,€the€Documentary€and€Advisory€Centre€for€Racial€Discrimination€inÐ ð@  ÐCopenhagen€(Ô_ÔDRCÔ_Ô),€an€independent€institution€dealing€with€racial€discrimination€issues,€reportedÐ à0  Ðthe€incident€to€the€Danish€Police€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner.€On€10€January€2000,€the€Police€ofÐ Ð  ÐCopenhagen€informed€the€Ô_ÔDRCÔ_Ô€that€it€had€decided€not€to€carry€out€further€investigation,€as€it€wasÐ À Ðfound€that€the€denial€of€entrance€could€have€been€due€to€other€reasons€than€racial€discrimination,€andÐ ° Ðregretted€that€the€case€had€not€been€reported€earlier€to€the€police.€According€to€the€same€letter,€theÐ  ð Ðdoorman€of€the€restaurant€had€been€interrogated€but€did€not€remember€anything€and€stated€that€it€wasÐ à Ða€practice€of€the€restaurant€to€give€priority€to€regular€guests.€The€Police€added€that€any€claim€forÐ €Ð Ðdamages€should€therefore€be€pursued€by€civil€proceedings.€Ð pÀ ÐÌ2.3€€€€€€On€25€January€2000,€the€Ô_ÔDRCÔ_Ô,€on€behalf€of€the€petitioner,€brought€the€complaint€to€theÐ P  ÐDistrict€Public€Prosecutor€of€Copenhagen.€Referring€to€a€previous€decision€taken€by€the€CommitteeÐ @ Ðin€the€case€Ô_ÔL.K.Ô_Ô€v.€the€Netherlands,€(1)€it€argued€that€the€investigation€led€by€the€police€could€notÐ 0€ Ðbe€considered€as€satisfactory€since€no€further€investigation€had€been€carried€out€in€relation€to€theÐ  p Ðdoorman's€statements.€In€a€decision€dated€6€March€2000,€the€District€Public€Prosecutor€informed€theÐ ` ÐÔ_ÔDRCÔ_Ô€that,€since€the€police€had€conducted€a€prompt€investigation€and€interrogated€of€nearly€allÐ P Ðpersons€involved,€he€had€not€found€sufficient€justification€to€overturn€their€decision.€He€alsoÐ ð@ Ðregretted€that€the€incident€had€not€been€reported€earlier€to€the€police.€Finally,€he€mentioned€thatÐ à0 Ðdifferent€persons€working€for€the€restaurant€unanimously€explained€that€it€was€usual€to€give€priorityÐ Ð  Ðto€regular€guests€and€that,€in€the€future,€they€would€make€this€policy€clearer€to€other€guests.€Ð À! ÐÌ2.4€€€€€€On€15€March€2000,€the€Ô_ÔDRCÔ_Ô€asked€the€Attorney€General€whether€further€to€the€statementsÐ  #ð! Ðexplaining€the€practice€of€the€restaurant€to€give€priority€to€regular€guests,€the€police€had€investigatedÐ $à" Ðthe€ethnic€background€of€regular€guests€of€the€restaurant.€On€12€May€2000,€the€District€PublicÐ €%Ð # ÐProsecutor€responded€that€nothing€indicated€that€there€had€been€racial€discrimination€since,€on€theÐ p&À!$ Ðnight€of€20€August€2000,€the€restaurant€was€well€attended€and€that€such€an€investigation€wasÐ `'°"% Ðtherefore€not€necessary.€Ð P( #& ÐÌò òThe€complaint€ó óÐ 0*€%( ÐÌ3.1€€€€€€Counsel€for€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€State€party€has€violated€its€obligations€under€articleÐ ,`'* Ð2,€subparagraph€1€(d)€and€article€6€of€the€Convention.€Referring€to€the€Committee's€jurisprudenceÐ -P(+ Ðin€the€cases€L.€K.€v.€the€Netherlands€(2)€and€Ô_ÔHabassiÔ_Ô€v.€Denmark,€(3)€he€further€explains€that€theseÐ ð-@), Ðprovisions€imply€positive€obligations€for€States€parties€to€take€effective€action€further€to€suchÐ ° Ðreported€incidents,€including€an€investigation€into€the€real€reasons€behind€the€"treatment"€of€theÐ  ð Ðpetitioner€in€order€to€ascertain€whether€or€not€criteria€involving€racial€discrimination€have€beenÐ à Ðapplied.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ3.2€€€€€€In€the€present€case,€counsel€for€the€petitioner€argues€that€the€State€party€has€failed€to€conductÐ ` ° Ða€proper€investigation.€In€particular,€three€important€questions€have€not€been€addressed€by€theÐ P   ÐDanish€authorities€in€their€investigation:€Ð @  ÐÌà0  àð ðà ` àThe€mere€fact€that€the€employees€of€the€restaurant€have€stated€that€there€was€no€racialÐ  p  Ðdiscrimination€does€not€give€an€answer€as€to€whether€racial€discrimination€has€effectivelyÐ `  Ðtaken€place.€ÐP (#(# Ðà0  àð ðà ` àThe€Police€have€not€investigated€the€ethnic€background€of€regular€guests€of€theÐ ð@  Ðrestaurant.€Ðà0 (#(# Ðà0  àð ðà ` àHow€is€it€possible€to€become€regular€guest€if€one€is€not€allowed€entrance€in€the€firstÐ Ð  Ðplace?ÐÀ(#(# ÐÌ3.3€€€€€€Counsel€also€argues€that€although€only€intentional€racial€discrimination€is€criminalized€underÐ  ð ÐDanish€law,€it€would€have€been€appropriate€for€the€Police€to€assess€whether€the€alleged€racialÐ à Ðdiscrimination€was€intentional€or€unintentional€and€that€the€State€party€should€explain€on€whichÐ €Ð Ðevidence€the€Police€based€their€conclusions€other€than€the€information€received€from€the€restaurantÐ pÀ Ðemployees.€Ð `° ÐÌ3.4€€€€€€Counsel€further€points€out€to€a€departmental€notice€of€the€Copenhagen€Police€related€toÐ @ Ðinvestigations€on€alleged€racial€discrimination,€which€expressly€comprises€"possible€arbitraryÐ 0€ Ðinterrogation€of€visitors€(for€instance€if€the€allegation€is€that€only€members€or€regular€clients€are€letÐ  p Ðin)".€The€Police€have€however€not€made€such€an€investigation,€which€is,€according€to€counsel,€theÐ ` Ðusual€practice€of€the€Copenhagen€Police€in€similar€cases,€regardless€whether€the€incident€has€beenÐ P Ðreported€immediately.€Ð ð@ ÐÌ3.5€€€€€€Counsel€finally€confirms€that€domestic€remedies€have€been€exhausted€and€that€the€matter€isÐ Ð  Ðnot€pending€before€another€procedure€of€international€investigation€or€settlement.€Ð À! ÐÌò òObservations€by€the€State€party€ó óÐ  #ð! ÐÌ4.1€€€€€€In€a€submission€dated€13€December€2000,€the€State€party€sent€observations€both€on€theÐ €%Ð # Ðadmissibility€and€the€merits€of€the€communication.€Ð p&À!$ ÐÌ4.2€€€€€€The€State€party€contends€that€the€investigation€carried€out€in€the€present€case€"fully€Ô_Ôsatisf[iesÔ_Ô]Ð P( #& Ðthe€requirements€that€can€be€inferred€from€the€Convention€as€interpreted€by€the€Committee'sÐ @)$' Ðpractice"€and€is€in€accordance€with€the€principles€laid€down€in€the€Committee's€previous€opinionsÐ 0*€%( Ðon€cases€related€to€the€implementation€of€the€alleged€violated€articles€of€the€Convention.€Ð  +p&) ÐÌÌ4.3€€€€€€The€State€party€notes€that€the€Copenhagen€Police€conducted€thorough€and€detailed€interviewsÐ ð-@), Ðof€all€persons€involved€in€the€case,€except€the€petitioner's€Brazilian€friend,€and€this,€despite€increasedÐ ° Ðdifficulties€resulting€from€the€delay€in€reporting€the€incident.€Moreover,€considering€the€unanimousÐ  ð Ðstatements€made€by€the€three€people€working€for€the€restaurant€and€the€statement€by€the€petitionerÐ à Ðthat€the€place€was€well-attended€on€the€night€of€the€incident,€the€State€party€is€of€the€opinion€that€theÐ €Ð Ðsteps€taken€by€the€Copenhagen€Police€were€sufficient€to€determine€whether€racial€discrimination€hadÐ pÀ Ðtaken€place.€Ð ` ° ÐÌ4.4€€€€€€The€State€party€also€points€out€that€had€the€incident€been€reported€immediately,€the€policeÐ @  Ðcould€have€investigated€whether€the€group€of€persons€who€were€allowed€to€enter€before€the€petitionerÐ 0 € Ðand€her€companions€were€indeed€regular€guests.€In€this€respect,€the€State€party€notes€that€theÐ  p  Ðdepartmental€notice€referred€to€by€counsel€prescribes€a€description€and€an€inspection€of€the€site,Ð `  Ðincluding€interviews€of€the€clientele,€only€when€the€police€are€present€at€the€place€immediately€afterÐ P  Ðan€incident€of€racial€discrimination€has€occurred,€which€was€not€the€case€in€the€present€situation.€Ð ð@  ÐÌ4.5€€€€€€With€regard€to€the€petitioner's€claim€that€the€police€should€have€investigated€the€ethnicÐ Ð  Ðbackground€of€the€guests€present€in€the€restaurant,€the€State€party€argues€that€the€purpose€of€theÐ À Ðinvestigation€is€to€assess€whether€the€conditions€of€the€criminal€offence€are€fulfilled€in€the€presentÐ ° Ðcase€and€that€the€ethnic€background€of€regular€guests€of€the€restaurant€in€general€is€independent€fromÐ  ð Ðthis€assessment.€Ð à ÐÌ4.6€€€€€€With€regard€to€the€question€as€to€how€it€is€possible€to€become€regular€guest€of€the€restaurantÐ pÀ Ðif€one€is€not€allowed€to€enter€in€the€first€place,€the€State€party€contends€that€the€answer€to€thisÐ `° Ðquestion€has€no€bearing€on€the€issue€whether€racial€discrimination€has€effectively€taken€place€in€thisÐ P  Ðcase.€Ð @ ÐÌ4.7€€€€€€With€regard€to€the€distinction€between€intentional€and€unintentional€discrimination,€the€StateÐ  p Ðparty€notes€that€only€intentional€racial€discrimination€entails€criminal€liability€in€Denmark€and€thatÐ ` Ðthe€police€was€therefore€not€under€a€duty€to€investigate€whether€alleged€racial€discrimination€couldÐ P Ðhad€been€unintentional.€Ð ð@ ÐÌ4.8€€€€€€Finally,€the€State€party€notes€that,€although€it€had€not€been€mentioned€in€the€decisions€takenÐ Ð  Ðby€both€the€Copenhagen€Police€and€the€District€Public€Prosecutor,€the€petitioner's€brother€hadÐ À! Ðexpressly€stated€that,€on€the€night€of€the€incident,€both€Danes€and€foreigners€were€present€in€theÐ °"  Ðrestaurant.€This€demonstrates€that€no€act€of€racial€discrimination€had€been€committed€in€theÐ  #ð! Ðrestaurant€on€the€night€of€the€incident€and€supports€the€decision€taken€by€the€Danish€authorities€toÐ $à" Ðdiscontinue€the€investigation.€Ð €%Ð # ÐÌ4.9€€€€€€For€the€above€reasons,€the€State€party€considers€that€the€communication€is€inadmissibleÐ `'°"% Ðbecause€the€petitioner€has€failed€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case.€However,€if€the€Committee€were€toÐ P( #& Ðconsider€the€case€admissible,€the€State€party€submits€that€article€2,€subparagraph€1(d)€and€article€6Ð @)$' Ðof€the€Convention€have€not€been€violated.€Ð 0*€%( ÐÌò òComments€by€the€petitioner€ó óÐ ,`'* ÐÌ5.1€€€€€€In€a€submission€dated€24€January€2001,€counsel€for€the€petitioner€mentions€a€2000€reportÐ ð-@), Ðmade€by€the€Copenhagen€Police€concerning€a€number€of€situations€where€the€police€had€notÐ ° Ðchallenged€the€doormen's€explanations.€According€to€the€said€report,€ethnic€minorities€can€expectÐ  ð Ðthat€the€police€"€inspect€the€site€to€state€whether€discrimination€has€taken€place"€[and]€"[Ô_Ôi]tÔ_Ô€can€beÐ à Ðdifficult€to€see€from€a€place€and€its€guests€whether€there€is€a€group€which€can€be€called€'regularÐ €Ð Ðclients'.€The€police€can,€however,€by€questioning€at€the€place€investigate€this.€It€should€also€beÐ pÀ Ðinvestigated€whether€there€are€ethnic€minorities€amongst€the€'regular€clients'[]"€(translated€fromÐ ` ° ÐDanish€by€the€petitioner).€Furthermore,€counsel€considers€that€an€immediate€report€of€the€incidentÐ P   Ðwould€not€have€significantly€changed€the€possibilities€of€investigation€since€the€issue€in€this€case€wasÐ @  Ðover€the€existence€of€a€regular€practice€of€the€restaurant€to€give€priority€to€regular€guest,€which€couldÐ 0 € Ðhave€been€investigated€at€any€time.€Ð  p  ÐÌ5.2€€€€€€With€regard€to€the€departmental€notice€referred€to€under€3.4€and€4.4,€counsel€argues€that€theÐ P  Ðfact€that€it€does€not€prescribe€a€description€and€inspection€of€the€site€if€the€Police€is€not€present€atÐ ð@  Ðthe€place€immediately€after€an€incident€of€alleged€racial€discrimination€has€occurred€cannot€justifyÐ à0  Ðany€lack€of€investigation€in€contravention€with€the€Convention.€Ð Ð  ÐÌ5.3€€€€€€Counsel€agrees€that€only€intentional€acts€of€racial€discrimination€constitute€a€criminal€offenceÐ ° Ðunder€Danish€legislation€but€notes€that€racial€discrimination€by€negligence€is€nevertheless€also€inÐ  ð Ðviolation€of€the€Convention.€He€therefore€maintains€that€the€Police€should€have€investigatedÐ à Ðunintentional€acts€of€racial€discrimination.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ5.4€€€€€€Finally,€counsel€states€that€the€statement€by€the€petitioner's€brother€according€to€which€thereÐ `° Ðwere€both€Danes€and€foreigners€in€the€restaurant€on€the€night€of€the€incident€does€not€necessarilyÐ P  Ðlead€to€the€conclusion€that€racial€discrimination€has€not€taken€place.€Moreover,€it€is€submitted€byÐ @ Ðcounsel€that€a€number€of€Danish€discotheques€have€so€called€"immigration€quotas".€Ð 0€ ÐÌò òConsideration€of€admissibility€ó óÐ ` ÐÌ6.€€€€€€€At€its€59th€session,€the€Committee€examined€the€admissibility€of€the€communication€and€dulyÐ ð@ Ðconsidered€the€contention€by€the€State€party€that€the€communication€was€inadmissible€because€theÐ à0 Ðpetitioner€has€failed€to€establish€a€prima€facie€case€but€concluded€that€in€view€of€the€elementsÐ Ð  Ðbrought€before€it€by€the€petitioner,€the€communication€satisfied€the€conditions€for€admissibility.€ItÐ À! Ðthus€declared€the€communication€admissible€on€13€August€2001.€Ð °"  ÐÌò òAdditional€observations€by€the€State€party€ó óÐ $à" ÐÌ7.1€€€€€€By€Note€Ô_ÔVerbaleÔ_Ô€of€23€January€2002,€the€State€party€made€additional€observations€on€theÐ p&À!$ Ðmerits€of€the€case.€Ð `'°"% ÐÌ7.2€€€€€€The€State€party€first€draws€the€attention€of€the€Committee€on€the€nature€of€the€documentÐ @)$' Ðreferred€to€as€the€"2000€report"€in€paragraph€5.1.€The€said€document€is€not€a€report€that€gives€anÐ 0*€%( Ðaccount€of€concrete€situations€where€explanations€given€by€discotheque's€doormen€on€allegationsÐ  +p&) Ðof€discriminatory€practice€have€not€been€challenged;€it€is€draft€entitled€"Strategy€againstÐ ,`'* ÐDiscrimination"€elaborated€in€cooperation€with€the€Documentation€and€Advisory€Centre€on€RacialÐ -P(+ ÐDiscrimination€in€order€to€give€guidelines€to€police€officers€to€combat€discrimination€and€racism.Ð ð-@), ÐThe€document€contains€a€non-exhaustive€list€of€examples€of€the€most€common€reasons€for€denyingÐ ° Ðaccess€to€places€like€discotheques€and€describes€what€the€police€do€or€should€do€when€they€have€toÐ  ð Ðdeal€with€such€cases.€The€document€also€reflects€the€high€priority€given€by€the€Copenhagen€PoliceÐ à Ðto€the€education€of€police€officers€on€issues€related€to€discrimination.€Ð €Ð ÐÌ7.3€€€€€€€The€State€party€further€reiterates€that,€in€the€present€case,€the€doorman's€explanations€haveÐ ` ° Ðindeed€been€challenged€as€all€the€persons€involved,€except€the€Brazilian's€friend,€have€beenÐ P   Ðinterviewed€by€the€police.€Ð @  ÐÌ7.4€€€€€€Finally,€the€State€party€emphasizes€that€the€factual€circumstances€of€the€case€have€beenÐ  p  Ðreflected€very€briefly€in€the€admissibility€decision€taken€by€the€Committee€and€does€not€give€a€trueÐ `  Ðand€fair€impression€of€the€extent€of€the€police€investigation.€Ð P  ÐÌò òConsideration€of€the€merits€ó óÐ à0  ÐÌ8.€€€€€€Acting€under€article€14,€paragraph€7€(a),€of€the€International€Convention€on€the€EliminationÐ À Ðof€All€Forms€of€Racial€Discrimination,€the€Committee€has€considered€all€the€information€submittedÐ ° Ðby€the€petitioner€and€the€State€party.€Ð  ð ÐÌ9.€€€€€€Due€to€the€abovementioned€specific€circumstances€of€the€case,€the€police€could€not€accomplishÐ €Ð Ða€complete€and€in-depth€investigation€of€the€case.€Therefore,€the€Committee€has€no€elements€at€itsÐ pÀ Ðdisposal€which€would€allow€it€to€conclude€that€a€violation€by€the€State€party€of€the€provisions€of€theÐ `° ÐConvention€has€indeed€taken€place€in€this€case.€Ð P  ÐÌ10.€€€€€However,€the€Committee€wishes€to€emphasize€the€importance€it€attaches€to€the€duty€of€theÐ 0€ ÐState€party€and,€for€that€matter,€of€all€States€parties,€to€remain€vigilant,€in€particular€by€prompt€andÐ  p Ðeffective€police€investigations€of€complaints,€that€the€right€established€under€article€5,€paragraph€f,Ð ` Ðis€enjoyed€without€discrimination€by€all€persons,€nationals€or€foreigners,€under€the€jurisdiction€ofÐ P Ðthe€State€party.€Ð ð@ Ð__________________Ð à0 ÐÌ[Done€in€English,€French€and€Spanish,€the€English€text€being€the€original€version.€Subsequently€toÐ À! Ðbe€issued€also€in€Arabic,€Chinese€and€Russian€as€part€of€the€Committee's€annual€report€to€the€GeneralÐ °"  ÐAssembly.]€Ð  #ð! ÐÌÌò òNotesó óÐ p&À!$ ÐÌ1.€Case€No.€4/1991.€Ð P( #& ÐÌ2.€Case€No.€4/1991.€Ð 0*€%( ÐÌ3.€Case€No.€10/1997.€Ð ,`'* ÐÓhÓ