WPCg0 £2#Խxoo' !Fb"j˷@&`K迺s_]RMxsL-1 Ɠ3->uנ8;of>xB}'=t ;=: (vJ/Z>%|?,'w"& H$JG$CtPR)l[N#I2^ʷv@ԅ,ɫӳdI>) Xgw,K#_qθaB}"z2Y AC  9'#Cy"6LlE-274UQx;SÌ⟠+ZOj&r¸YJ# UN % 0:! 0[ 0O 0@ 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0e 0D 0  0 0 0 0r 0? 0  0 0 0 0{ 0P 0" 0 0 00 0< 0 0> 0v 0`d! 0`! 0`$" 0`" 0`" 08D# 0|# 02N$ 0$ 0:|% 0Y% 0_& 0 n& 0jx' 0( B*f* D/* D+* 0* D/n, 0, 06k- 0- 0:. 0^. 0<A/U6}/U>/U*///^ 0w'04+0?0N0 mP0HP LaserJet 6P/6MP - Standard0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard K?<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/K?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 75(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS&  d d4)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For78(X7  ?A%2A`Arial?76(X7  XXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS4)2dxd0KS.SampleK?<6X9`(Courier NewKS@\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterK?<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXS@\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arialmc6. D-`3|xU !UKUS.,  _ CEUK.,COMMITTEEONTHEELIMINATIONOFRACIALDISCRIMINATIONUK.,CE.,A  K.R.C.v.Denmark  CommunicationNo.23/2002 `  13August2002 @  _CERD_/C/61/D/23/2002  p   ADMISSIBILITY  @  Submittedby:Ms.K.R.C(representedbycounsel)  Allegedvictim:Thepetitioner  StateParty:Denmark  DateofCommunication:2January2002(initialsubmission) ` TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscrimination,establishedunderarticle8ofthe 0 InternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,  p Meetingon13August2002, P HavingconcludeditsconsiderationofcommunicationNo.23/2002,submittedtotheCommittee 0 underarticle14oftheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacial   Discrimination, ! Havingtakenintoconsiderationallwritteninformationmadeavailabletoitbythepetitionerand #! theStateparty, $" Adoptsthefollowing: p&!$    Decisiononadmissibility  P(#&   1.ThepetitionerisMs.K.R.C.,acitizenoftheUnitedStates,currentlyresidingasapermanent 0*%( residentinDenmark.SheclaimstobeavictimofaviolationbyDenmarkofarticles2,paragraph  +p&) 1(d),and6,oftheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacial ,`'* Discrimination.Sheisrepresentedbycounsel. -P(+  -@),  Thefactsaspresentedbythepetitioner   2.1InJune2000,thepetitionerpurchasedacaratBrandt'sAuto,inDenmark.Thecardealers  suggestedapproaching_Sparekassen_Ԁ_Vestsjlland_Ԁ("thebank"),withwhichBrandt'sAutocooperated,  foraloan.Thepetitionerthuscontactedthebankforaloanapplicationform.On27June2000,she p receivedtheloanapplicationformtogetherwithaletterfromthebank. `  2.2Aspartofthestandardinformationintheloanformitwasindicatedthatthepersonapplying @  foraloanwastodeclare"thatIamaDanishcitizen".Furthertheletteraccompanyingtheapplication 0  formstated:"Youarekindlyrequestedtohandintheapplicationdulyfilledin,andencloseacopy  p  ofyourDanishpassporttothesalesagent".AsthepetitionerisnotaDanishcitizenshewasnotable `  tosigntheapplicationform. P  2.3On28ofJune2000,thepetitionercontactedthebank,explainedthatshewasanAmerican 0  citizen,andaskedwhetherthiswouldhaveanyinfluenceonherapplication.Shewasinformedthat   ifonedidnothaveDanishcitizenship,onecouldnotapplyforaloan.Afterhavingreceivedthis  information,thepetitionercontactedafriendwhosimilarlyrequestedofthebankwhetheritwas  correctthatnonDanishcitizenscouldnotapplyforacarloaninthebank.Shewasinformedthat  thiswascorrect,andthatthereasonwasthatthebankdidnothaveanypossibilitiesofcollectingthe  loaniftheindividualleftthecountrywiththecar.Thepetitioner'sfriendinformedthebankthatthe  petitionerhadlivedinDenmarkforthelast9years,thatshewasfromtheUSA,had_had_Ԁpermanent p employmentforthelast8years,andwasjustabouttostartinanewjobatNovo_Nordisk_.The ` employeeatthebankrespondedthatshewouldtalktohersuperiorandgetbackwithananswer. P 2.4Onthesameday,thedeputyheadofthebankinformedthepetitioner'sfriendthatthebankdid 0 notgiveloanstononDanishcitizens.However,asthepetitionerwasabouttostartasanemployee  p atNovo_Nordisk_,hewouldtrytofindasolutionandrequestedofthepetitionertosendtheloanform ` togetherwithevidenceofherannualincometothebank.Thepetitionerdidnotsendtheapplication P backasshebelievedthatherchancesofloanapprovalwereslim.Sheappliedandgotacarloan @ fromherownbank,whichcost1%morethanthepotentialloanfromthebank. 0 2.5Followingthisincident,thepetitionerreportedtheincidenttotheDocumentationandAdvisory ! CentreonRacialDiscrimination("_DRC_")1/inCopenhagen.The_DRC_Ԁinformedthebankthatitwas "  prohibitedtorequestanduseinformationaboutaperson'scitizenshipwhenhandlingloan #! applications,andrequestedthebanktoremovetherequirementofcitizenshipintheapplicationform $" inquestion,andinfutureapplicationforms.Thebankrespondedthatitwasnotoftheviewthatthis % # requirementwasillegal,thatalthoughitmayappearfromtheformthatcitizenshipisaninvariable p&!$ criteriontoreceivingloanapproval,thisisnotthecase,butthatnevertheless,itwouldremovethis `'"% criterionfromtheforms. P(#& 2.6Byletterdated6September2000,the_DRC_Ԁwrotetothebankandrequestedittocompensate 0*%( thedifferencebetweenthepotentialloanatthebankandtheloanshereceivedfromthepetitioner's  +p&) ownbankadifferenceof10180_dkr_.2/Inaletterof12September2000,thebankrepliedthatit ,`'* wasstilloftheopinionthattherequirementofcitizenshipwasnotillegal,andthattheydidactually -P(+ offerthepetitionertheloan,andhencetheyhadnoobligationtoprovideherwithcompensation. -@), Ї2.7Inaletterof25September2000,the_DRC_Ԁpointedoutthatthebankhadmadenoofferofaloan  tothepetitionerandthatgiventheresponsebythebanktothepetitionerthatthebankdidnotoffer  loanstononDanishcitizensӀitwasfullyunderstandablethatthepetitionerhadnotreturnedtheloan  applicationasshehadnogroundstobelieveshewouldbegrantedtheloan.The_DRC_Ԁthusinsisted  thatthebankcompensatethepetitioner.Itfurtherstressedthatifthebankrefusedtooffer p compensation,acomplaintwouldbefiledwiththepolice. `  2.8Byletterof12October2000,thebankdeniedtherequestforcompensation,informedthe_DRC_ @  thatithadseveralforeigncitizenswhoweregrantedloanapprovalandsuggestedthatthepetitioner 0  movetheloantothebank.Thebankdidnotagreetocovertheexpensesfortransferringtheloan.  p  2.9On8October2000,the_DRC_Ԁreportedtheincidenttothepolicedepartmentin_Holb_k, P  expressingtheviewthatthetreatmentofthepetitionerviolatedtheDanishActontheprohibition @  ofdifferentialtreatmentonthebasisofrace("theActagainstDiscrimination"),which,itclaims, 0  partlyimplementsthe_ICERD_ԀintoDanishlaw.Byletterof1February2001,thepoliceinformed   the_DRC_Ԁthattheinvestigationofthecasehadbeendiscontinued,asitconsideredthattherewasno  reasonableevidencethatanunlawfulacthadbeencommitted.Thepolicebaseditsdecisiononthe  beliefthatthepetitioner"wasofferedtheloanonJune28,2000bythebankwhenshewasaskedto  handinhercontractofemploymentandevidenceofherannualincome,tousewiththenormal  assessmentofapplications.Becauseoftimeconstraintsshedidnotsendtherequestedpapers,but  insteadtookaloaninanotherbank.Underthesecircumstances,itismyperceptionthatthereisno p basestopresschargesinthecase,hencetheinvestigationhasbeendiscontinued." ` 2.10Byletterof28February2001,the_DRC_,onbehalfofthepetitioner,complainedtothePublic @ Prosecutorfor_Sealand_,claimingthatthepetitionerhadnotbeentreatedonthesamebasisasDanes, 0 becauseofherethnicorigin.Shetherebysufferedaneconomiclossandaviolationofherintegrity.  p Inaletterof10July2001,thePublicProsecutorinformedthe_DRC_Ԁthathedidnotseeanyreason ` forchangingthepolicedecision. P Thecomplaint 0 3.1Thepetitionerclaimsthatshehasexhausteddomesticremediesasthereisneitherapossibility ! ofappealingthedecisionofthePublicProsecutornorofbringingthecasebeforetheDanishCourts. "  3.2Thepetitioneralsoconfirmsthatthesubjectofthiscommunicationhasnotnoriscurrentlybeing $" examinedbyanotherinternationalinstance. % # 3.3ThepetitionerclaimsthattheStatepartyhasviolateditsobligationsunderarticle2, `'"% subparagraph1(d),and6,oftheConventioninnoteffectivelyinvestigatingthereportedincident P(#& ofracialdiscrimination.Thepetitionerarguesthatfollowingthedecisionofthe_CERD_Ԁin_L.K_Ԁv.The @)$' Netherlands3/theStatespartiesundertheseprovisionshaveapositiveobligationtotakeeffective 0*%( actionagainstreportedincidentsofracialdiscrimination.Allegedcasesofdiscriminationmustbe  +p&) takenseriouslyandmustbeinvestigatedthoroughlybythenationalauthorities. ,`'* 3.4Thepetitionerarguesthatalthougharticle1,paragraph2,stipulatesthatdistinctionsbasedon -@), citizenshiparenotassuchcomprisedwithinthedefinitionofdiscrimination,iftheapplicationof  acitizenshipcriterioninfactconstitutesadistinctiononthebasisof,forexample,nationalorigin  orcolour,itmayamounttodiscriminationwithinthetermsofarticle1,paragraph1.Inaddition,the  petitionerarguesthatiftheapplicationofthecriterionofcitizenshiphastheeffectofdiscriminating  againstapersononthebasesofhisrace,nationaloriginorcolour,itmayalsoconstitute p discriminationforthepurposesofarticle1,paragraph1,oftheConvention.Inthisregard,the `  petitionerreferstothecaseof_Habassi_Ԁv.Denmark.4/ P  3.5Accordingtothepetitioner,thereisnoindicationthatthepoliceinterviewedtheparties 0  involved,nordidtheyincludeanythingelsetosupporttheirdecision,acceptthematerialprovided  p  bythe_DRC_Ԁinitscomplaintothepolice.Inparticular,thepetitionerarguesthatthefollowingissues `  shouldhavebeenexamined:first,towhatextentwerepersonsapplyingforloansrequestedtoshow P  theirpassports;second,towhatextentdoesthebankgrantloanstononDanishcitizens;third,on @  whatgroundsdidthebankinformthepetitionerthatnonDanishcitizenscouldnotapplyforaloan; 0  fourth,towhatextentdoesthebankgrantloanstoDanishcitizenslivingabroad;fifth,whetheran   actofindirectandunintentionaldiscriminationhadtakenplace.  3.6Accordingtothepetitioner,ifloansweregrantedtocitizenslivingabroad,thecriterionof  citizenshipwouldinfactconstituteracialdiscriminationoranactofdiscriminationonthebasisof  nationaloriginorcolour.  TheStateparty'ssubmissionontheadmissibilityandmeritsofthecommunication ` 4.1Byletterof25March2002,theStatepartymadeitssubmissionontheadmissibilityandmerits @ ofthecommunication.Onadmissibility,theStatepartyconfirmsthatinrelationtoremediesunder 0 criminallaw,thepetitionerhasexhausteddomesticremedies.However,itarguesthatthepetitioner  p hasnotexhaustedallofthecivilremediesavailabletoherandthereforethecommunicationshould ` bedeclaredinadmissible,underarticle14,paragraph7(a),oftheConventionasreadwithRule91 P (e)oftherulesofprocedure. @ 4.2AccordingtotheStateparty,thepetitionercouldhavebroughtanactionagainstthebank,   claimingthatitactedincontraventionofthelawbyexposingthepetitionertoracialdiscrimination, ! andthepetitionercanalsoclaimdamagesforbothpecuniaryandnonpecuniaryloss.Accordingto "  theStateparty,thispossibilityisavailablewhetherornotthePublicProsecutorchoosesto #! investigatethesamematterordiscontinuesaninvestigation. $" 4.3Initsargument,theStatepartyreferstothecommunicationof_Habassi_Ԁv.Denmarkwherethe p&!$ Committeeheld,amongotherthings,thatthebringingofacivilactioninacaseofalleged `'"% discriminationcontrarytotheActagainstDiscriminationwasnot,inthatparticularcase,aneffective P(#& remedy.Inthatcase,thepetitionerclaimedthatacriminalactofdiscriminationhadbeencommitted, @)$' andtheCommitteeattacheddecisiveimportancetothefactthattheinstitutionofcivilproceedings 0*%( couldonlyleadtodamagesfornonpecuniaryloss.Thepetitionerhadnotsufferedafinancialloss  +p&) astheloanwassubsequentlygrantedinthewife'sname. ,`'* 4.4Inthecaseathand,thepetitionerclaimstohavesufferedafinancialloss,afterobtainingaloan -@), inanotherbankatahigherrateofinterest.Onherbehalf,the_DRC_Ԁrequestedcompensationfromthe  bankandinfacttoldthebankthatitwouldonlyreporttheincidenttothepoliceifthepetitioner  werenotgrantedcompensation.Inaddition,theStatepartyarguesthatthroughsuchanactionthe  petitionercouldhaveestablishedwhethershehadbeenexposedtodiscriminationatthesametime  asreceivingredress.Ifthepetitionerhadbeenabletoproveonthebalanceofprobabilitiesthatshe p hadbeenexposedtodiscriminationonthebasisofraceetc.itwouldbeuptothedefendantto `  substantiate,underthegeneralrulesofDanishlaw,ontheburdenofproofandstandardofevidence, P  thatthediscriminationwasnotunlawful. @  4.5Furthermore,theStatepartyclaimsthatthepetitionercouldhaveinstitutedanactionagainstthe  p  bankundertherulesoftheDanishMarketingPracticesAct,asaprivatebusinessmaynotperform `  actscontraryto"goodmarketingpractices".Inthiscase,thepetitionercouldhavearguedthatthe P  bankactedincontraventionoftheActagainstDiscriminationinitstreatmentofherloanapplication @  andthatthebankhadthusalsoactedincontraventionof"goodmarketingpractices".Inthisregard, 0  theStatepartypointstostatementsmadebytheConsumerOmbudsmanwhostatedinalettertothe   _DRC_ԀthatifdiscriminationcontrarytotheActagainstDiscriminationorthe_ICERD_Ԁoccurred,such  discriminationmightatthesametimebeaviolationofsection1oftheMarketingPracticesAct.If  aviolationofthisactisfounditmaygiverisetoaliabilityindamages.  4.6Onthemerits,theStatepartyconteststhattheinvestigationscarriedoutbytheStatepartywere  inadequate.Initsview,theywerecarriedoutwithduediligenceandexpeditionandweresufficient p todeterminewhetherornotanactofracialdiscriminationhadtakenplace.5/AccordingtotheState ` party,aspartofitsinvestigation,thepoliceexaminedallthedocumentationattachedtothereport P lodgedonthepetitionersbehalf,thecorrespondencebetweenthe_DRC_Ԁandthebank,andinterviewed @ theemployeeofthebankwhohadspokentothepetitioner.Duringthisinterview,theywere 0 informedofthebank'sviewsonthespecificcaseandprovidedwithinformationontheloanpolicy  p ofthebankgenerally,includingtheuseofnationalityasacriterion. ` 4.7Inresponsetothepetitioner'sclaimthatcertainissues(outlinedinparagraph3.5)werenot @ raisedbytheinvestigationauthorities,theStatepartyrespondsasfollows.Ontheissueofwhether 0 theauthoritiesshouldhaverequestedinformationontheextenttowhichotherapplicantswere   requestedforacopyoftheirDanishpassport,andtheextenttowhichthebankhadgrantedloansto ! foreignersandDanishnationalsabroad,theStatepartyisoftheviewthatitwasnotthetaskofthe "  policetoinvestigatethepolicyofthebankgenerallyasitrelatestotherequestforpassportsorthe #! grantingofloanstoforeigners,butratherwhetherthebankviolatedtheActagainstDiscrimination $" withrespecttothepetitioner'sloanapplication. % # 4.8Ontheissuewhythepolicedidnotinvestigatethegroundsuponwhichthepetitionerwas `'"% informedthatshecouldnotapplyforaloan,theStatepartynotesthatboththepoliceandthePublic P(#& Prosecutorfoundthatthepetitionerhadbeenofferedaloanandthat,inaddition,thePublic @)$' Prosecutoremphasisedthattheinformationconcernedwasgivenbytelephone/orally,whereitmay 0*%( bedifficultinconnectionwithcriminalproceedingstoprovewhatwasinfactsaidincluding  +p&) whetherwhatwassaidwastakenoutofcontext.Healsofoundthathecouldnotprecludethe ,`'* possibilitythattheinformationonnationalitywasprovidedasapieceofinformationamongother -P(+ elementsincreditassessmentandnotanexpressionofacondition.AccordingtotheStateparty,this -@), positionisclearlysupportedbythepoliceinterviewofthebank'semployee.  4.9Onthequestionastowhethertheauthoritiesshouldhaveinvestigatedwhetherindirectand  unintentionaldiscriminationhadtakenplacetheStatepartyarguesthattheActagainst  Discriminationonlycoversintentionalviolationsanddoesnotdistinguishbetweendirectand p indirectdiscrimination. `  4.10TheStatepartysubmitsthatnotonlydoestheGovernmentfindthatthepoliceconducteda @  seriousandthoroughinvestigationbutthatthePublicProsecutorcorrectlyassessedthecase.The 0  StatepartyexplainsthatArticle1oftheActagainstDiscriminationcomprisescaseswhereaperson  p  "refusestoserve"anotherpersononthesameconditionsasothersduetoraceetc.TheStateparty `  notesthatthepetitionerbelievedthatherchancesofobtainingaloanwereslimandthattherefore P  shedidnotforwardtheapplicationtothebank.However,itappearsfromtheinvestigationsthatthe @  petitionerreceivednodefinitiveansweronwhetherhernonDanishnationalitywouldbeused 0  againstherinitscreditassessment.Thepetitioner'sonlydirectcontactwiththebanktookplaceon   28June2000,whichwasanintroductoryinquiryendinginarequesttoforwardaloanapplication.  TheStatepartyarguesthatasthepetitionerdidnotactuallyforwardherloanapplicationtothebank  itwasneverinapositiontorefusetheapplicationandthereforedidnotrefusetoserveheronthe  sameconditionsasothers.   Commentsbythepetitioner  p 5.1OntheStateparty'sreferencetothe_Habassi_Ԁv.Denmark6/communication,thepetitioner P conteststhatthefactsofthiscasediffersubstantially.Intheopinionofthepetitioner,theobjective @ ofthecomplaintwasnot,astheStatepartyclaims,toseekcompensation.Inheropinion,itisclear 0 fromthecomplaintsenttothepolicefromthe_DRC_Ԁwhichstatesthatitbelievesthatthebankhad  p violatedtheActagainstDiscrimination. ` 5.2OntheissueofthepossibilityoftakinganactionundertheMarketingPracticesAct,the @ petitionerassertsthatthe_DRC_Ԁalsorequestedthepolicetoinvestigateunderthisact.Subsequently, 0 inaletterfromtheOmbudsmantothe_DRC_Ԁitwasstatedthattheinclusionofthequestionof   citizenshipwithregardtocreditassessmentviolatestherulesoftheMarketingPractisesAct (7) . ! Therefore,inthepetitioner'sviewdomesticremedieshavebeenexhaustedinthiscase. "  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee $"  6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinacommunication,theCommitteeontheElimination p&!$ ofRacialDiscriminationmust,inaccordancewithrule91ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhether `'"% ornotitisadmissibleundertheConvention. P(#& 6.2TheCommitteenotesthatthepetitionerreceivedaloanapplicationformfrom_Sparekassen_ 0*%( _Vestsj__lland_Ԁ[_Vestsj_llandSavingsBank],containingtheclauseagainstwhichsheobjects,butthat  +p&) shewassubsequentlyorallyinformedthatthebank'sassistantdirectorwouldtrytofindasolution, ,`'* sinceshewasgoingtobeemployedbyNovo_Nordisk_Ԁ(paras.2.3and2.4).However,thepetitioner -P(+ didnotsendintheapplicationform,believingthatshehadonlyaslightchanceofobtainingtheloan. -@), Consideringthepetitioner'slackofperseveranceandnotwithstandingtheeventualdeficienciesin  thebank'sform,theactofrefusalbythebankwhich,accordingtothepetitioner,wouldhavebeen  contrarytotheprovisionsoftheInternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacial  Discrimination,wasnotaccomplished.Intheabsenceoftheestablishmentoftheexistenceofthe  factsgivingrisetothecomplaint,theCommitteeconcludesthatthecommunicationisinadmissible. p 6.3TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationthereforedecides: P  (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible; 0  (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbetransmittedtotheStatepartyandtothepetitioner `  __________________ @  *ThefollowingmembersoftheCommitteeparticipatedintheexaminationofthepresent   communication:Mr.Mahmoud_Aboul_Ԅ_Nasr_,Mr._Nourredine_ԀAmir,Mr.Marc_Bossuyt_,Mr.Ion  _Diaconu_,Mr.Mohamed_Aly_Ԁ_Thiam_,Mr._Rgis_Ԁde_Gouttes_,Mr.Kurt_Herndl_,Ms.Patricia_Nozipho_  January_Bardill_,Mr.JosAugusto_Lindgren_ԀAlves,Mr._Raghavan_Ԁ_Vasudevan_Ԁ_Pillai_,Mr.YuriA.  _Rechetov_,Mr._Agha_Ԁ_Shahi_,Mr._Linos_ԀAlexander_Sicilianos_,Mr.Patrick_Thornberry_,Mr.Luis  ValenciaRodriguez,Mr.Tang_Chengyuan_,Mr.MarioJorge_Yutzis_.  Notes `     1/TheDocumentationandAdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscriminationisanindependentinstitution @ workingwithracialdiscriminationunderrelevantrulesofinternationallaw.TheDocumentationand 0 AdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscriminationcarriesoutfactfindinginreportedcasesofracial  p discriminationandgivesadvice,guidanceandlegalassistancetopersonswhoclaimtobevictims ` ofracialdiscriminationorhavewitnessedracialdiscrimination. P 2/Thisamountstoaround1,990.34CHF. 0 3/CaseNo.4/1991,Viewsadoptedon16March1993. ! 4/CaseNo.10/1997,Viewsadoptedon17March1999. #! 5/TheStatepartyreferstotheCommittee'sjurisprudenceonthisissue:CaseNo.1/84,A._Yilmaz_ % # v.theNetherlands,Viewsadoptedon10August1988,CaseNo.4/1991,_L.K._Ԁv.theNetherlands, p&!$ Viewsadoptedon16March1993,CaseNo.10/1997,_Habassi_Ԁv.Denmark,Viewsadoptedon17 `'"% March1999,andCaseNo.16/1999,Ahmadv.Denmark,Viewsadoptedon13March2000. P(#& 6/Supra. 0*%( 7/Thepetitionermakesnoreferencetothequestionofcompensationinthisregard. ,`'*