WPCg0 .FF△7ӳFW 9gz2%)'+h}VO\'bZ = 4h>h ܺ9&ք~`Rra` ЛˢCzO>ωHW|RDmr^KF)B0jq $#vcuFTw7`M-|"7"/hmEOrv&,-'cuqQ~-v4!;;Ѳ;牳+") 0v 0`d! 0`! 0`$" 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 mP0\\LABPRINT\PARKING-LAB,,,,0(hH  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`Arialk. D-_25_20PY3|xU !UKUS.,  _ COMMITTEEONTHEELIMINATIONOFRACIALDISCRIMINATION  _Sadic_Ԁv.Denmark  CommunicationNo25/2002 ` 21March2003 8  _CERD_/C/62/D/25/2002  ` ADMISSIBILITY  $  Submittedby:Ahmad_Najaati_Ԁ_Sadic_Ԁ(representedbycounsel)   Allegedvictim:Thepetitioner p Stateparty:Denmark H Dateofcommunication:25May2002  p    Decisiononadmissibility  4   1.1ThepetitionerisMr.Ahmad_Najaati_Ԁ_Sadic_,aDanishcitizenofIraqiorigin,bornin1955,who  claimstobeavictimofviolationsbyDenmarkofarticle2,paragraph1(d),andarticle6ofthe  Convention.Heisrepresentedbycounsel,theDocumentationandAdvisoryCentreonRacial  Discrimination(_DRC_). l 1.2Inconformitywitharticle14,paragraph6(a),oftheConvention,theCommitteetransmittedthe D! communicationtotheStatepartyon16August2002. 0"   Factsofthecase  $X" 2.1On25July2000,thepetitionerwasworkingonaconstructionsiteinapublichousingareain %4!$ Randers,Denmark,forthecompany"_Assentoft_ԀPaintersandDecorators"ownedby_Jesper_ & "% Christensen.WhenthepetitionerapproachedMr.Christensentoclaimoverduepayments,their ' #& conversationdevelopedintoanargumentduringwhichMr.Christensenreportedlymadethe (#' followingcommentstothepetitioner:"Pushoffhome,youArabpig","Immigrantpig","Bothyou )$( andallArabssmell","Disappearfromhere,Goddamnedidiotsandpsychopaths."Theargument *%) betweenthecomplainantandMr.Christensenwasoverheardbyatleasttwootherworkers,Mr. l+&* _Carsten_Ԁ_Thomassen_ԀandMr.Frank_Lasse_Ԁ_Hendriksen_. X,'+  D-(, 2.2On1March2001,the_DRC_,onbehalfofthepetitioner,informedthepolicein_arhus_Ԁofthe  incident,arguingthatsection266b1/oftheDanishCriminalCodehadbeenviolatedbythe  petitioner'sbythenformeremployer.  2.3On9July2001,Frank_Lasse_Ԁ_Henriksen_ԀwasinterviewedbytelephonebythepoliceofRanders. ` Theinterviewreportstates: L  0  "Thewitnessstatedthathewasworkingwhenhisboss,Mr.Christensen,cameandpresented $ t anewapprentice;alsopresentwasthevictim,Ahmad.Adiscussion/quarrelarosebetween  ` Mr.Christensenandthevictim,andthediscussionconcernedholidaypay,wagesand  L  missingwageslips[...].[_T]he_ԀwitnesswenttoMr.Christensen,whoatthispointwasangry  8  aboutthequarrelwiththevictim,andfeltatleasthesaidsothat,ifthewitnessfeltlike $  thevictim,hecouldconsiderhimselfsacked.Thewitnesswassoinfuriatedwiththe   treatmentthathetookhisbossathisword.Mr.Christensennowshoutedthatitwasalljust   aboutanArabbastardwhich,inthewitness'opinion,wasfartoorude.Accordingtothe   witness,Mr.Christensenwentfarbeyondtheline.Thewitnesswasreadtheraciststatements   mentionedinthecomplaintandstatedthattheycorrespondedtowhatMr.Christensenhad p calledthevictim.Afterthis,thewitnessimmediatelylefttheworkplaceandhasnotworked \ forMr.Christensensince[...]".H(#(# 2.4On12July2001,_Carsten_Ԁ_Thomassen_Ԁwasinterviewedbytelephonebythepoliceof_arhus_.The  p interviewreportstates:  \ 0  "Ontherelevantday,atabout10.30a.m.,Mr._Sadic_Ԁandhisbosswerestandingonthe 4 externalgalleryonthefirstfloorbelowthewitness.Thewitnesscouldhearthattheywere   quarrellingaboutbothworkandmoney.However,thewitnesshadonlyheardfragmentsof   thequarrel,inwhichbothpartieshadobviouslybecome'overexcited'.Atsomestage,the  witnessheardMr.Christensensaysomethinglike:'Youcanjustgohome''blackbastard'.  ThewitnesscouldnothearwhatMr._Sadic_ԀsaidashedidnotspeakDanishverywellandwas  difficulttounderstandparticularlywhenhewasupset,asinthatmoment.However,toa l largeextent,thewitnesstookthequarreltobeonethatmayariseonceinawhileatthe X  workplace[...]."D!(#(# 2.5Mr.ChristensenwasinterviewedbythepoliceofRanderson23July2001,withoutanycharges #l! beingbroughtagainsthimandwithoutprejudicetohisrighttorefusetestimony.Theinterview $X" reportstates: $D # 0  "Mr.Christensenstatedthat,ontherelevantday,hehadaquarrelwiththevictimabout &"% paymentforovertime[...].Mr.Christensenandthevictim[...]usedabusivelanguage[...]. '#& Mr.Christensenneverused[...]wordslike'Arabbastard','Pakibastard','Arabssmell',etc., (#' towardsthevictim.Mr.ChristensenwasconfrontedwiththewitnessstatementofMr. )$( _Henriksen_.Tothis,Mr.ChristensenstatedthathehadpreviouslysackedMr._Henriksen_Ԁdue |*%) todisagreements.[...]AfterMr._Henriksen_Ԁhadbeensacked,helefttheworkplaceand, h+&* consequently,cannothaveoverheardtheconversationwiththevictim.[...]Onthebasisof T,'+ theinformationpresented,Mr.Christensencannotadmit[a]violationofsection266bofthe @-(, CriminalCode.[...]."(#(# 2.6Byletterof24August2001,theChiefConstableofthe_arhus_Ԁpoliceinformedthe_DRC_Ԁthat  theinvestigationofthecasehadbeendiscontinued,statingthatitcouldnotreasonablybepresumed t thatacriminaloffencesubjecttoexofficioprosecutionhadbeencommitted.Thediscontinuation ` oftheinvestigationwasmainlybasedonthefactthattheargumentbetweenthepetitionerandMr. L  Christensenhadtakenplaceatwork,"whereonlytwootherpersonswerepresent".Apartfromthe 8  questionwhetherornotMr.Christensenhadmadethestatementsinquestion,theChiefConstable $ t foundthat,inanyevent,thesestatementshadnotbeenmadepubliclyorwiththeintentionofwider  ` dissemination.Astoaclaimfordamages,thepetitionerwasadvisedtopursuecivilproceedings.  L  2.7On28September2001,thepetitionerappealedthedecisiontodiscontinueinvestigationsbefore $  theRegionalPublicProsecutorin_Viborg_,arguingthatthepetitioner'sformeremployerhadmade   hisstatementsonaconstructionsiteinapublichousingareaand,therefore,hadatleastacceptedthe   possibilitythatotherpeoplewouldhearhiscomments.Moreover,thepetitionerreferredtoseveral   judgementsofDanishcourtswhichconstruedtherequirement,insection266boftheCriminal   Code,ofstatementsbeingmadepubliclyquitebroadly.HechallengedtheChiefConstable'sfinding p thatonlytwootherpersonswerepresentattheincident.Thepetitionerquotedfromawritten \ statementinwhichMr._Thomassen_Ԁassertedthat"[_o]n_ԀTuesday,25July2000,atabout10.30a.m., H I,_Carsten_Ԁ_Thomassen_,wasstandingtogetherwiththreeothercolleagues[...]ontheexternalgallery 4 forashortbreak,when,toourgreatsurprise,weoverheardaconversation/quarrelbetweenthe  p master[...]andAhmad".  \ 2.8Byletterof27November2001,theRegionalPublicProsecutorof_Viborg_Ԁdismissedtheappeal, 4 arguingthat,althoughitcouldnotbeestablishedwithcertaintythatonlytwootherpersonswere   presentattheincident,thestatementsbyMr.Christensenweremadeinconnectionwithadispute   betweenthepetitionerandhisemployeratastagewherebothpartieshadbecomeoverexcitedand  thatthewitnessesweresomedistanceawayfromtheexactplaceofthequarrelandonlyheard  fragmentsofthedispute.Giventhat"thiswasonlyaloudvoicedquarrelwhichothershappenedto  overhearatadistance[...]",theRegionalPublicProsecutorconcludedthattheemployer's l statementscouldnotbeconsideredpublic.Sincetheargumentwasnotlikelytodisturbthepublic X  peaceorcauseanuisancetootherpeoplepresent,thepoliceregulationshadnotbeenviolatedeither. D! Thepetitionerwasthusadvisedtopursueanyclaimfordamagesthroughcivilproceedings.The 0"  decisionoftheRegionalPublicProsecutorwasfinalandcouldnotbeappealed. #l!  Thecomplaint  $D # 3.1Thepetitionerclaimsthathehasexhausteddomesticremedies,asthereisnopossibilityto & "% appealthedecisionoftheRegionalPublicProsecutorandhecannotbringthecasebeforetheDanish ' #& courts.Hesubmitsthat,undersection275oftheDanishCriminalCode,violationsofsection266 (#' baresubjectonlytoprosecutionexofficioandthatdirectlegalactionagainsthisformeremployer )$( wouldhavebeenwithoutprospect,giventhatthepoliceandtheRegionalPublicProsecutorhad *%) rejectedhiscomplaint.Insupportofthelatterclaim,thepetitionersubmitsthat,pursuanttoa l+&* decisionoftheEasternHighCourtdated5February1999,anincidentofracialdiscriminationdoes X,'+ notinitselfconstituteaviolationofthehonourandreputationofapersonwithinthemeaningof D-(, section26oftheLiabilityforDamagesAct.  3.2ThepetitionerclaimsthattheStatepartyhasviolateditsobligationsunderarticles2,paragraph  1(d),and6oftheConventionbynotinvestigatingeffectivelytowhatextenttheconstructionsite t wasaccessibletothepublic,howmanypeoplewerepresentattheincidentandtowhatextentit ` wouldhavebeenpossibleforotherstooverheartheemployer'sstatements.Thepetitionerargues L  that,followingthedecisionoftheCommitteein_L.K._Ԁv.TheNetherlands(caseNo.4/1991,Opinion 8  adoptedon16March1993),Statespartieshaveapositiveobligationundertheaboveprovisionsto $ t takeeffectiveactionagainstreportedincidentsofracialdiscrimination.  ` 3.3ByreferencetoanothercasedecidedbytheCommittee(_Kashif_ԀAhmadv.Denmark)(caseNo.  8  16/1999,Opinionadoptedon13March2000)[inwhichracistcommentsweremadeinahallway $  outsideaclassroom],thepetitionersubmitsthattheStatepartydidnotclaiminthatcasethatthe   statementshadnotbeenmadepubliclyandthataviolationwasfoundbytheCommittee.He   furthermorereferstotwocasesinwhichDanishcourtsfoundviolationsofsection266bofthe   CriminalCodeinwhatheconsiderssimilarcircumstances.   3.4ThepetitioneraskstheCommitteetorequesttheStatepartytocarryoutafullinvestigationinto \ theincidentreportedbyhimandtoawardhimfinancialcompensation,inaccordancewitharticle H 6oftheConvention. 4  TheStateparty'ssubmissionontheadmissibilityandthemeritsofthecommunication   \ 4.1Bynote_verbale_Ԁof20November2002,theStatepartymadeitssubmissionsontheadmissibility 8 and,subsidiarily,onthemeritsofthecommunication. $ 4.2Onadmissibility,theStatepartysubmitsthatthepetitionerfailedtoexhaustdomesticremedies.  Contrarytoviolationsofsection266b,whicharesubjecttoprosecutionexofficio,violationsof  section2672/oftheCriminalCodethegeneralprovisionondefamatorystatementswhich  supplementssection266bareprosecutedonlyattherequestoftheindividualconcerned,pursuant p tosection2753/oftheCriminalCode.Thepetitionercouldhaverequestedtheinstitutionof \  criminalproceedingsundersection267againsthisemployerand,bydoingso,couldhaveobtained H! adecisiononwhetherhisformeremployerhadmadethereportedstatementsand,subjectto 4"  fulfillingtheconditionsofsection267,aconvictionofMr.Christensen.  #p! 4.3TheStatepartycontendsthattheinstitutionofcriminalproceedingsundersection267ofthe $H # CriminalCodeisaneffectiveremedy.Moreover,thedecisionoftheDanishauthoritiesto %4!$ discontinueinvestigationsundersection266bwaswithoutprejudicetotheeffectivenessofthat & "% remedy,sinceneithertheChiefConstablenortheRegionalPublicProsecutorhadtakenanyposition ' #& onthequestionwhetherMr.Christensenhadmadethestatementscomplainedof.TheStateparty (#' arguesthat,forthesamereason,thediscontinuationofinvestigationsundersection266bdidnot )$( precludealegalactionfornonpecuniarydamagesagainsthisformeremployer,undersection26of *%) theLiabilityforDamagesAct.4/ l+&* 4.4TheStatepartyarguesthatthecommunicationisincompatiblewiththeConvention_ratione_ D-(, _materiae_,sincethecentralclaimisthattheDanishauthoritiesdidnotinterpretandapplysection266  boftheCriminalCodecorrectly.Theconcreteelementswhich,accordingtothepetitioner,should  havebeeninvestigatedallrelatetotheconditionsforpunishmentundersection266b,i.e.theplace  wherethestatementsweremade,thenumberofpersonswhoheardormighthaveheardMr. t Christensen'sstatements,etc.intheStateparty'sopinion,thelegalassessmentbytheChief ` ConstableandtheRegionalPublicProsecutorof_Viborg_Ԁthattherequirementsofsection266bwere L  notmetinthepresentcaseisprimarilyamatterwhichrelatestointerpretationandapplicationof 8  domesticlegislationandwhichtheCommitteehasnocompetencetoreview. $ t 4.5Onthebasisoftheabovearguments,theStatepartyconcludesthatthecommunicationshould  L  bedeclaredinadmissibleunderarticle14,paragraphs1and7(a),oftheConvention.  8  4.6Subsidiarilyandonthemerits,theStatepartysubmitsthattheDanishauthoritiestookthe   petitioner'scomplaintseriously,astheyinitiatedinvestigationsandinterviewedwitnesses,aswell   asthepetitioner'sformeremployer,asaresultofthecomplaint.Itconcludesthattheprocessingand   assessmentofthecomplaintbytheChiefConstableandtheRegionalPublicProsecutortherefore   fullycomplieswiththeStateparty'sobligationsunderarticle2,paragraph1,andarticle6ofthe p Convention. \ 4.7Withregardtotherequirementthatastatementshouldbemade"publiclyorwiththeintention 4 ofwiderdissemination",theStatepartyadmitsthatgreyzonesinthedelimitationbetweenpublic  p andprivateareunavoidableandarguesthatitshouldthereforebeforthenationalauthoritiesto  \ assesswhethertheserequirementshavebeenmetinaspecificcase. H 4.8TheStatepartysubmitsthatthetwojudgementsadducedinsupportofhisargumentsbythe   petitionercouldnotberelieduponbecause,inonecase,thejudgementcontainednospecific   informationonthenumberofpersonspresentinthenewsstoreand,intheothercase,thecourt  observedthat"manypersonsmusthaveoverheard[...]theincident".  4.9TheStatepartyargues,moreover,thatsection266boftheCriminalCodeisnottheonly l provisiondesignedtoensurecompliancewiththeStateparty'sobligationsundertheConvention, X  sinceitissupplementedbyotherprovisions,includingsection267ofthesameCode. D! 4.10TheStatepartyconcludesthat,eveniftheCommitteeweretodeclarethecommunication #l! admissible,itdoesinanyeventnotdiscloseaviolationoftheConvention. $X"  Commentsbythepetitioner  %0!$ 5.1Thepetitionersubmitsthatsection267oftheCriminalCode,aswellassection26ofthe ' #& LiabilityforDamagesAct,donotaddresstheissueofracialdiscriminationandthereforedonot (#' provideaneffectiveremedyagainstactsofracialdiscrimination,asrequiredbyarticle2,paragraph )$( 1(d),andarticle6oftheConvention.Heclaimsthattheonlyrelevantremedyissection266bof *%) theCriminalCode,indicatingthat,inpreviouscases,itwasnotheldbytheCommitteethat,inorder l+&* toexhaustdomesticremedies,apetitionershouldhaveinitiatedcriminalproceedingsundersection X,'+ 267oftheCriminalCodeorcivilproceedingsundersection26oftheLiabilityforDamagesAct. D-(, Ї5.2Astotherequirementsofsection266boftheCriminalCode,thepetitionerreiteratesthat  Danishcourtsfoundviolationsofthatprovisioninthepastevenwhereonlyoneotherpersonapart  fromthevictim(s)hadbeenpresentduringanincidentofracialdiscrimination.Healsoreferstothe  Opinionin_Kashif_ԀAhmadv.Denmark(caseNo.16/1999,para.6.1),wheretheCommitteefounda t violationofarticle6oftheConventiononthebasis"thattheauthorwasinsultedinpublic",since ` therelevantstatementsweremade"inaschoolcorridorandinthepresenceofseveralwitnesses". L  5.3BasedonthewrittenstatementofMr._Thomassen_,thepetitionerclaimsthatatleastfivepersons $ t overheardhisargumentwithhisemployerandthatthepolicefailedtocontacttheotherthree  ` colleaguesmentionedinthatstatement.  L  5.4ThepetitionerrejectstheStateparty'sargumentthatthecoreofhiscommunicationisrelated $  totheinterpretationofdomesticlegislationandtheevaluationoffactsandevidence.Hearguesthat   thelackofaneffectiveinvestigationiscloselyconnectedtothefactthattheDanishauthorities   concludedthathiscomplaintfelloutsidethescopeofsection266boftheCriminalCode.    IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee  p 6.1Beforeconsideringthesubstanceofacommunication,theCommitteeontheEliminationof L RacialDiscriminationmust,inaccordancewithrule91ofitsrulesofprocedure,examinewhether 8 ornotthecommunicationisadmissible. $t 6.2TheCommitteenotesthatthepetitionerbroughtacomplaintundersection266boftheCriminal L CodebeforethepoliceandtheRegionalPublicProsecutor;andthattheseauthorities,afterhaving 8 interviewedtwowitnessesandthepetitioner'sformeremployer,decidedtodiscontinuecriminal $ proceedingsundersection266b,astheyconsideredthattherequirementsofthisprovisionwerenot  satisfied.IthastakennoteoftheStateparty'sargumentthat,despitethediscontinuationof  proceedingsundersection266boftheCriminalCode,thepetitionercouldhaverequestedthe  institutionofcriminalproceedingsagainsthisformeremployerunderthegeneralprovisionon  defamatorystatements(sect.267oftheCriminalCode).Thepetitionerdoesnotdenytheavailability p ofthisremedy,butquestionsitseffectivenessinrelationtoincidentsofracialdiscrimination. \  6.3TheCommitteeobservesthatthenotionof"effectiveremedy",withinthemeaningofarticle6 4"  oftheConvention,isnotlimitedtocriminalproceedingsbasedonprovisionswhichspecifically,  #p! expresslyandexclusivelypenalizeactsofracialdiscrimination.Inparticular,theCommitteedoes  $\" notconsideritcontrarytoarticles2,paragraph1(d),and6oftheConventionif,asintheState $H # party'scase,theprovisionsofcriminallawspecificallyadoptedtooutlawactsofracial %4!$ discriminationaresupplementedbyageneralprovisioncriminalizingdefamatorystatementswhich & "% isapplicabletoraciststatementseveniftheyarenotcoveredbyspecificlegislation. ' #& 6.4Astothepetitioner'sargumentthatcriminalproceedingsagainsthisformeremployerunder )$( section267wouldhavebeenwithoutprospectbecausetheauthoritieshadalreadyrejectedhis *%) complaintundersection266boftheCriminalCode,theCommitteenotes,onthebasisofthe l+&* materialbeforeit,thattherequirementsforprosecutionundersection266barenotidenticaltothose X,'+ forprosecutionundersection267oftheCriminalCode.ItthereforedoesnotappearthattheDanish D-(, authorities'decisiontodiscontinueproceedingsundersection266bonthegroundoflackof  evidenceastowhethertheemployer'sstatementsweremadepubliclyorwiththeintentionofwider  disseminationhaveprejudicedarequestbythepetitionertoinstitutecriminalproceedingsunder  section267(togetherwithsection275)oftheCriminalCode.TheCommitteethereforeconsiders t thattheinstitutionofsuchproceedingscanberegardedasaneffectiveremedywhichthepetitioner ` failedtoexhaust. L  6.5Astothequestionofdamages,theCommitteerecallstheStateparty'sargumentthatthe $ t petitionerdidnotinstitutecivilproceedingsagainsthisformeremployerundersection26ofthe  ` LiabilityforDamagesActandthereforedidnotexhaustdomesticremedies.Withregardtothe  L  petitioner'sargumentsthatapreviousdecisionoftheEasternHighCourtheldthatanincidentof  8  racialdiscriminationdoesnotinitselfconstituteaviolationofthehonourandreputationofaperson, $  theCommitteeconsidersthatmeredoubtsabouttheeffectivenessofavailablecivilremediesdonot   absolveapetitionerfrompursuingthem(seecommunicationNo.19/2000,_Sarwar_Ԁ_Seliman_Ԁ_Mostafa_   v.Denmark,decisionadoptedon10August2001,para.7.4).   6.6Accordingly,theCommitteeconsidersthat,bynotexhaustingtheavailabledomesticremedies, p thepetitionerhasfailedtomeettherequirementsofarticle14,paragraph7(a),oftheConvention. \ 6.7TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationthereforedecides: 4 (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible;  \ (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtothepetitioner. 4 6.8However,theCommitteeinvitestheStatepartytoreconsideritslegislation,sincetherestrictive   conditionof"broadpublicity"or"widerdissemination"requiredbyarticle266boftheDanish  CriminalCodeforthe_criminalization_Ԁofracialinsultsdoesnotappeartobefullyinconformitywith  therequirementsofarticles4and6oftheConvention.  [DoneinArabic,Chinese,English,French,RussianandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginal.] D!  Notes $X"  1/Section266boftheCriminalCodereads,inpertinentparts:"(1)Anypersonwho,publiclyor %0!$ withtheintentionofwiderdissemination,makesastatementorimpartsotherinformationbywhich &"% agroupofpeoplearethreatened,insultedordegradedonaccountoftheirrace,colour,nationalor '#& ethnicorigin,religion,orsexualinclinationshallbeliabletoafineortoimprisonmentforanyterm (#' notexceedingfourmonths. )$( (2)[88] h+&* (3)[88]." @-(, Ї2/Section267oftheCriminalCodereads,inpertinentparts:"(1)Anypersonwhoviolatesthe  honourofanother[person]byoffensivewordsorconduct,orbymakingorspreadingallegationsof  anactlikelytodisparage[thatperson]intheesteemofhisorherfellowcitizens,shallbeliableto  afineortoimprisonment[...]notexceedingfourmonths. t (2)[88] L  (3)[88]." $ t 3/Section275oftheCriminalCodereads,inpertinentparts:"(1)Theoffencescontainedinthis  L  Partshallbeprosecutedattherequestoftheindividualconcerned,exceptfortheoffencesreferred  8  toinsections[...]266b. $  (2)[88]."   4/Section26,paragraph1,oftheLiabilityforDamagesActreads:"(1)Apersonwhoisliablefor   unlawfulviolationofanotherperson'sfreedom,peace,characterorpersonshallpaycompensation p totheinjuredpartyfornonpecuniarydamage." \ :