WPCA y(iSSg zPo,~yUv%z#ҩr C$d.3JFDPwwMK&:pQvp74,DA )Zre!2j׼z9Vv-;,nq+K(lxŪA4ABX|4]i-)ˣ DhxeºdsbzO2!ذdwV[CWYfM%y=20] &/{$Ik+ zjV3H[ZNP|'M8%M.tDEQ[J3啯[E; cmd&@n]a.GQc"7 )S8~v`0nj)gJ xBr*܆zl=Is bv,M~?KGd+< 0U[<UH<^ <w=4= 0U= D+q= Aw=> 0U">w> Ay> m????1? 0(? AM@@@@@@ B-l@ 0C@@@@@ 0D@@@ 0 A BA B/AAAAAANA\\YORK_UNIVERSITY\q_hrts_hp4000tnV,,,,V0(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  6 4heading 1   /% > hp x /  FR ]@\  `0Times New Roman Gras]    US XXXS>\  `&Times New RomanS  /% > hp x /  <:Default Para<$$:footnote tex  XXX  <:footnote ref0;;.footer    XXX    XXX:8page number6$$4Body Text  XXX  XXX:@@8Body Text 2  XXX  XXX0;;.header    XXX    XXX<ew:Balloon Text  A= $TahomaAXXXS>\  `&Times New RomanS  <S1M :Outline001_1  , 5+ ` hp x 5d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <S1M :Outline001_2  , 5+ ` hp x 5d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <P1M :Outline001_3  X 2( ` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <P1M :Outline001_4  X 2( ` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <P1M :Outline001_5 |  2(4 4` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 | <M1M :Outline001_6 P  /%` ` hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 P <M1M :Outline001_7 P  /%` ` hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 P <M1M :Outline001_8 $  /% hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 $ <M1M :Outline001_9 $  /% hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 $ <S1M :Outline002_1  , 5+ ` hp x 5d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <S1M :Outline002_2  , 5+ ` hp x 5d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <P1M :Outline002_3  X 2( ` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <P1M :Outline002_4  X 2( ` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <P1M :Outline002_5 |  2(4 4` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 | <M1M :Outline002_6 P  /%` ` hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 P <M1M :Outline002_7 P  /%` ` hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 P <M1M :Outline002_8 $  /% hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 $ <M1M :Outline002_9 $  /% hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 $ (-2F$ !UKUS.,  $Tahoma\  `&Times New Roman(-2F$ !UKUS.,  ݤ\  `0Times New Roman Grasg/ f/ff Italz(-2F$ !UKUS.,  'dxdDEo&"D&raw Object Text <C HKKKK3|x(-2F$ !UKUS.,  E&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKKU Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5($ODPEA<< c)Hairline d($    ($$  0  (B2$ !UKUS.,    0    d+Hairline1 d !UKUS.,  _ COMMITTEEONTHEELIMINATIONOFRACIALDISCRIMINATION  Kamal_Quereshi_Ԁv.Denmark  CommunicationNo.27/2002 X 19August2003 , | _CERD_/C/63/D/27/2002*  P VIEWS      Submittedby:Kamal_Quereshi_Ԁ(representedbycounsel,Eddie_Khawaja_,oftheDocumentationand z  AdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscrimination)) c  Allegedvictim:Thepetitioner 5 StateParty:Denmark W Dateofthecommunication:23October2002 ) TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscrimination,establishedunderarticle8ofthe  InternationalConventionontheEliminationofAllFormsofRacialDiscrimination, } Meetingon19August2003, O Adoptsthefollowing: !q    Opinion  !,  1.ThepetitionerisKamal_Quereshi_,aDanishnationalborn29July1970andamemberofthe $# DanishParliamentfortheSocialistPeoplesParty.Heclaimstobeavictimofaviolationby % $ Denmarkofarticles2,subparagraph1(d),4and6oftheConvention.Heisrepresentedbycounsel. j&!% Thefactsaspresented <(#' 2.1On26April2001,PiaAndersen,amemberoftheExecutiveBoardoftheProgressiveParty, *^%) faxedapartypressreleasetomedia,withtheheadline"NotomoreMohammedanrapes!".It *G&* includedthefollowingstatements: +0'+ 0  "Culturalenrichmentstakingplaceintheshapeofnegativeexpressionsandrapesagainst -)- _usDanishwomen,towhichweareexposedeveryday8Nowit'stoomuch,wewillnot  acceptmoreviolationsfromourforeigncitizens,cantheMohammedansnotshowsome  respectforusDanishwomen,andbehavelikethegueststheyareinourcountry,thenthe  politiciansintheparliamenthavetochangecourseandexpelallofthem."k(#(# 2.2On15May2001,MsAndersenfaxedanotherpressrelease,inrelationtoneighbourhood =  disturbancesinOdense,whichincludedthefollowing: & v 0  "EngagethemilitaryagainsttheMohammedanterror!8Dearfellowcitizen,itisthat  H war-likeculturetheseforeignersenrichourcountrywith8Disrespectforthiscountry's  1  laws,mass-rapes,violence,abuseofDanishwomenbyshoutingthingslikehorse',Danish    pigs'etc..Andnowthiscivilwar-likesituation." (#(# 2.3Forthesetwoactions,theOdensepolicechargedMsAndersenwithaviolationofsection   266(b)oftheDanishCriminalCode("section266(b)").1/Shewaslaterconvicted(seeparagraph n  2.8).On5September2001,theProgressivePartyplacedanewspaperinvitationtoalecturebythe W  formerpartyleader,_Mogens_Ԁ_Glistrup_,whichreadthat:"TheBibleofthe_Muhamedans_Ԁrequires:The @ infidelshallbekilledandslaughtered,untilallinfidelityhasbeenremoved." )y 2.4From20to22October2001,theProgressivePartyhelditsannualmeeting.Thismeeting,of K apartyrunningforParliament,wasrequiredbylawtobebroadcastonpublictelevision.Anumber 4 ofspeakerspresentedthefollowingviews:  0  _Margit_Ԁ_Guul_Ԁ(memberoftheparty):"I'mgladtobearacist.WeshallfreeDenmarkof  Mohammedans","theblackbreedlikerats","theyshallhaveahandcutoffiftheysteal"(#(# 0  BoWarming(memberoftheparty):"TheonlydifferencebetweenMohammedansandrats Z isthattheratsdonotreceivesocialbenefits"C(#(# 0  _Mogens_Ԁ_Glistrup_Ԁ(formerpartyleader):"Mohammedansaregoingtoexterminatethe e populationsinthosecountriestheyhaveforcedthemselvesinto"N(#(# 0  Peter_Rindal_Ԁ(memberoftheparty):"RegardingMuslimgraveyards,thatisabrilliantidea, !   andpreferablyofsuchsizethattheyallfitinthem,andpreferablyatonce"" !(#(# 0  ErikHammer_Srensen_Ԁ(memberoftheparty):"5thcolumnistsarewalkingaroundamong $# us.Theoneswehavereceivedcommitviolence,murderandrape"t% $(#(# 0  _Vagn_ԀAndersen(memberoftheparty):"TheStatehasgiventheseforeigners/strangersjobs. F'"& Theyworkinourslaughterhouses,wheretheywithoutproblemscanpoisonourfood,and /(#' endangerouragriculturalexport.Anotherformofterrorismistobreakintoourwatersupply )h$( facilitiesandpoisonthewater"*Q%)(#(# 2.5Afterwitnessingthismeeting,thepetitionerrequestedtheDocumentationandAdvisoryCentre +#'+ onRacialDiscrimination("_DRC_Ԁ")tofileacriminalcomplaintagainsttheProgressivePartyfora , (, violationofsection266(b).The_DRC_ԀfiledacomplaintwiththeChiefConstableofthe_Thisted_ -(- _police,thecityofresidenceoftheProgressivePartyleader.On31October2001,thecomplaintwas  rejectedonthebasisthatsection266(b)didnotapplytolegalpersonssuchasapoliticalparty.On  3December2001,theAalborgRegionalPublicProsecutorupheldthisdecision.  2.6Thereupon,thepetitionerrequestedtheDRCtofileacriminalcomplaintagainsteachmember T oftheexecutiveboardoftheProgressiveParty,forviolationofsections23and266(b)ofthe =  CriminalCode.On11December2001,theDRCcomplainedthatMsAndersen,asamemberofthe & v party'sexecutiveboard,hadparticipatedinaviolationofsection266(b),asaresultofthepress  _ releases,newspaperinvitationandcommentsoftheannualmeetingalldescribedabove.TheDRC  H considereditrelevantthattheProgressivePartyhadallegedlysetupcoursesallegedlyteaching  1  membershowtoavoidviolationsofsection266(b),byavoidingtheuseofcertainphrases.    2.7On7January2002,theChiefConstableoftheOdensepolicerejectedthepetitioner'scomplaint,   consideringthattherewasnoreasonableevidencetosupporttheallegationthatanunlawfulacthad   beencommitted.2TheChiefConstableconsideredthatmembershipofapoliticalparty'sexecutive n  doesnotofitselfcreateabasisforcriminalparticipationinrelationtopossiblecriminalstatements W  madeduringtheparty'sannualmeetingbyotherpersons. @ 2.8On22January2002,theDRCreferredthedecisiontotheFunenRegionalPublicProsecutor, b challengingtheChiefConstable'srejectionofthecomplaintonthebasisstated.Itcontendedthat K MsAndersenherselfwasdirectlyinvolvedinthedispatchofthepressreleases,inrespectofwhich 4 theOdensepolicehadchargedherwithviolationsofsection266(b),andthatitwouldthereforebe  difficulttoarguethatshehadnotdirectlyorindirectlycalleduponotherpartymemberstosay  similarthings.Therefore,accordingtotheDRC,thepoliceshouldataminimumhaveconducted  aninvestigationtoclarifythesematters.On25January2002,theOdenseDistrictCourtconvicted  MsAndersenofoffencesagainstsection266(b)oftheCriminalCodeforthepublicationofthepress q releases. Z 2.9On11March2002,theFunenRegionalPublicProsecutorrejectedthecomplaint,findingthat ,| neitherthepetitionernortheDRChadtherequiredessential,direct,individualorlegalinterestto e becomepartiesinthecase.Whilethepolicehadtakentheviewthatthepetitioner,onaccountofthe N natureofthecomplaint,hisethnicbackgroundandmembershipofParliament,hadstandingto  7 pursueacomplaint,theStateAttorneyconsideredthattheseelementsdidnotsupportsucha !   conclusion. " ! Thecomplaint $# 3.1ThepetitionerarguesthatthedecisionoftheOdenseChiefConstablenottoinitiatean ]&!% investigationconstitutedaviolationofarticles2,subparagraph1(d),4and6oftheConvention. F'"& ReferringtotheCommittee'sjurisprudence,hearguesthatStatespartieshaveapositiveobligation /(#' totakeserious,thoroughandeffectiveactionagainstallegedcasesofracialdiscrimination.The )h$( policedecisionthattherewasnoinformationtosuggestMsAndersenincitedotherspeakersatthe *Q%) annualmeetingfellshortofthatstandard,asthepolicedidnotquestionMsAndersenoranyother *:&* speaker.Thus,thepolicecouldnotexamineissuessuchaswhetherthespeechescouldbeseeaspart +#'+ ofanorganizedattemptsystematicallytospreadracistviews,whetherMsAndersenparticipatedin , (, theselectionofthespeakers,whethershehadseenatranscriptorknewofthecontentofthe -(- speeches,andwhethershe,asamemberoftheExecutiveBoard,triedtopreventexpressionsof  racistviews.  3.2ThepetitionerallegesthatthedecisionoftheFunenRegionalPublicProsecutorthathehadno k standingviolatesarticle6oftheConvention.Hethusconsidershimselfdeprivedofactionin T responsetoanactofracialdiscriminationtowhichhefeelshewasexposed.Evenifthespeeches =  werenotdirectedagainsthim,theysubjectedagrouptowhichhefeelsconnectedtoracial & v discrimination.Further,assection266(b)istheonlycriminalprovisionconcerningracial  _ discrimination,itisessentialtoholdnotonlyindividualsbutalsopoliticalparties,asidentifiedby  H membersoftheirExecutiveBoard,responsibleforexpressionofracistviews.  1  3.3Astotheexhaustionofdomesticremedies,thepetitionercontendsthatundertheStateparty's   law,theRegionalPublicProsecutor'sdecisioncannotbeappealed,andthusthereisnopossibility   thatthepolicewillinitiatecriminalproceedings.Hearguesthatprivatelegalactionbroughtbyhim   directlyagainstMsAndersenwouldnotbeeffective,giventhatthepoliceandRegionalPublic n  Prosecutorhadrejectedthiscomplaint.Inaddition,theEasternHighCourt,inadecisionof5 W  February1999,hasdecidedthatracialdiscriminationdoesnot,initself,infringeaperson'shonour @ andreputationintermsofsection26oftheActonCivilLiability. )y 3.4Thepetitionerobservesthatthesamematterhasnotbeensubmittedtoanotherinternational K procedureofinvestigationorsettlement. 4 TheStateparty'ssubmissionsontheadmissibilityandmeritsofthepetition  4.1Bysubmissionsof29January2003,theStatepartydisputedboththeadmissibility,inpart,and  themeritsofthepetition. q 4.2TheStatepartyunderstandsthepetitioner'sobservationontheimpossibilityofapplyingsection C 266(b)tolegalpersonsasraisingaseparateclaim,whichshouldbedeclaredinadmissibleforfailure ,| topresentthepetitiontotheCommitteewithintherequiredsixmonthstimelimit.TheAalborg e RegionalPublicProsecutor'sdecisionfinallytorejectthecomplaintagainsttheProgressiveParty N wastakenon3December2001,oversixmonthspriortothesubmissionofthepetition,andthis  7 claimshouldthereforebedeclaredinadmissible.TheStatepartynoteshoweverthatduetoan !   amendmenttothecriminalcode,legalpersonsmaybeheldliableforoffencesagainstsection266(b) " ! since8June2002. #" 4.3OnthemeritsoftheclaimsconcerningthehandlingofthecomplaintagainstMsAndersenby t% $ theOdenseChiefConstableandinturntheFunenRegionalPublicProsecutor,theStatepartyargues ]&!% thattheseprocessesfullysatisfytherequirementsthatcanbeinferredfromtheConvention,andas F'"& interpretedintheCommittee'spractice.Thisissoeventhoughthepetitionerdidnotachievethe /(#' resulthewanted,thatistheinitiationofcriminalproceedings,fortheConventiondoesnotguarantee )h$( aspecificoutcome,butrathersetsdowncertainrequirementsforthehandlingofsuchcomplaints, *Q%) whichweremetinthiscase. *:&* 4.4AstothedecisionoftheOdenseChiefConstablepolicerejectingthecomplaintagainstMs , (, Andersen,theStatepartynotedthat,onthebasisoftheDRC'sdetailedreporttohim,hehadabroad -(- basisfordecidingwhethertherewasreasonforinitiatingafullinvestigation.TheStateparty  emphasisesthattheChiefConstable'staskwasnottoassesswhetherthestatementsmadeatthe  annualmeetinginvolvedaviolationofsection266(b),butwhetheritcouldreasonablybepresumed  thatMsAndersen,asamemberoftheparty'sexecutiveboard,couldbepunishedforparticipation k inaviolationofsection266(b)onthegrounds,interalia,ofstatementsmadebythirdparties. T 4.5Whileatthetimeacriminalreporthadbeenlodgedagainstthespeakersattheconferenceand & v criminalproceedingshadbeenseparatelyinitiatedbythepetitioneragainstMsAndersenconcerning  _ thetwopressreleases,thepetitioner'scomplaintcontainednoinformationthatMsAndersenhad  H encouragedotherstomakecriminalstatementsorhadotherwiseparticipatedinthem;rather,it  1  simplymadeageneralallegationthatasamemberoftheexecutiveboard,shewascriminallyliable    forparticipation,anditwasinrespectofthischargethatthedecisionwasmade.Itwouldhavebeen   opentotheauthortobringchargesagainsttheindividualswhohadpersonallyengagedinthe   conductinquestion.Accordingly,theStatepartyfindsnobasisforcriticizingtheChiefConstable's   decisionconcerningMsAndersen,andthedismissalofareportfoundtobewithoutbasisis n  consistentwiththeConvention. W  4.6ConcerningthespecificissuesthatthepetitionercontendstheChiefConstableshouldhave )y investigated,theStatepartypointsout,ontheargumentthatthepoliceshouldhaveinvestigated b whethertherostrumstatementsamountedtopropagandaactivities,thatpropagandaactivityis K consideredanaggravatingcircumstanceatthesentencingstage(seesection266(b)(2)).Itisnota 4 constitutiveelementoftheoffencecharged,andasithadbeendeterminedthattherewerenot  reasonablegroundstosuspectMsAndersenhadcommittedanoffenceagainstsection266(b),there  wasnoneedtofurtherinvestigatethisaspect.  4.7Astothefurtherissuesthatthepetitionerclaimsshouldhavebeeninvestigated,theStateparty q recallsthattheChiefConstabledismissedthecaseonthegroundthatmembershipofaparty's Z executivecommitteedoesnotperseinvolvecriminalparticipationinstatementsmadebyothersat C apartyconference.Astheinformationgiventothepolicesuppliednobasisforinitiatingan ,| investigation,therewasnoconcretereasonforpresumingMsAndersenwasliableforcriminal e participationin,orencouragementof,statementsmadebythirdparties.Therewasnoreasonto N investigatethefurthermattersraised.  7 4.8Astotheargumentofaviolationoftherighttoaneffectiveremedyprotectedbyarticle6, " ! becauseoftherefusaloftheFunenRegionalPublicProsecutortoconsiderthepetitioner'scase,the #" StatepartyobservesthattheRegionalPublicProsecutorfoundthattheDRChadnomateriallegal $# interestthatwouldentitleittoappeal,andthatitcouldnotbeassumedthattheauthorhadsuch t% $ interest.Shefurtherstatedthatareviewofthecasedidnototherwisegiverisetoanycomments, ]&!% and,thus,shealsoconsideredthecaseonthemerits.AstheauthoritysuperiortotheChief F'"& Constable,theRegionalPublicProsecutormaypropriomotuassessthecorrectnessofadecision /(#' onthemeritsevenwhenformalentitlementstoappealarenotsatisfied.Indeed,onthebasisofthe )h$( specialnatureoftheviolation,andgiventhatsection266(b)oftheCriminalCoderelatestopublic *Q%) statements,theremaywellbespecialreasontoconsiderthemeritsofacaseinvolvingaviolation *:&* ofsection266(b)despitethefactthatanapplicantcannotbeconsideredpartytotheparticular +#'+ proceedings.Thisiswhattranspiredinthepresentcase.AstheRegionalPublicProsecutorassessed , (, themeritsofthecase,theStatepartyarguesithasensuredeffectiveprotectionandremediestothe -(- petitioner,consistentwitharticle6oftheConvention.  4.9TheStatepartypointsoutthatitsatisfieditsobligationsunderarticle6,inaddition,bytheChief  Constable'sdeterminationonwhetherornotaninvestigationshouldbeinitiated,andbyproviding k forrecoursetotheindependentParliamentaryOmbudsmanifitwasthoughtthatthedecisionsofthe T ChiefConstableortheRegionalPublicProsecutorwereinvalid,insufficientlyreasonedorcontrary =  tothelaw.Inaddition,undersection63oftheConstitution,decisionsofadministrativeauthorities, & v includingtheChiefConstableandtheRegionalPublicProsecutor,maybechallengedjudicially  _ beforethecourtsonthesamegrounds.Whilethispossibilityexists,theStatepartycannotreferto  H aninstancewherethishasbeenresortedto.  1  4.10Inconclusion,theStatepartyconsidersthatitisnotpossibletoinferanobligationunderthe   Conventiontocarryoutaninvestigationinsituationsthatprovidenobasisforit.TheAdministration   ofJusticeActprovidesfortheappropriateremediesinaccordancewiththeConvention,andthe   competentauthoritiesfullydischargedtheirobligationsinthespecificcase. n  Thepetitioner'scomments @ 5.1Byletterof10March2003,thepetitionerrespondedtotheStateparty'scomments,clarifying b thathedidnotcontendtheStatepartywasinbreachofarticle6bynotprovidingforcorporate K liabilityundersection266(b).Giventhissituation,however,itwasofgreatimportancethatthere 4 beaneffectiveinvestigationastowhethermembersoftheexecutiveboardofalegalentitycould  beheldresponsiblefortheconductinquestion.  5.2Onthemerits,thepetitionercontendsthatthereisabreachofarticle6duetoaninabilityto  appealdecisionsoftheRegionalPublicProsecutor.Hereferstoapreviousdecisionofthe q CommitteetotheeffectthatthepossibilitytoappealtotheParliamentaryOmbudsmandidnot Z amounttoaneffectiveremedy,forpurposesofarticle6.3/TheOmbudsmanhasfulldiscretionas C towhethertopursueacase,andtheStatepartydoesnotrefertoasingleoccasionwherethe ,| OmbudsmanhasinvestigatedaRegionalPublicProsecutor'srefusaltoinitiateaninvestigation.In e addition,theStateparty'sowninabilitytoinvokeacasewherejudicialreviewundertheConstitution N wasinvokedinsuchacasesuggeststhisrecourseisineffective.  7 5.3AstotheRegionalPublicProsecutor'sreviewoftheChiefConstable'sdecision,thepetitioner " ! arguesthatboththeconductandoutcomeoftheappealviolatedarticle6.Firstly,non-mandatory #" reviewofthemeritsofthedecisionissaiditselftobreacharticle6oftheConvention,asitdoesnot $# involveamandatoryexaminationofthecase.EveniftherewasameritsreviewbytheRegional t% $ PublicProsecutor,thepetitionerconsidersitunclearwhythecasedidnotgiverisetoanycomments, ]&!% andtheactualgroundfordismissaloftheappealwasthelackofstanding.Thus,therejectionofthe F'"& appealalsobreachedarticle6. /(#' 5.4Thepetitioneragreesthatarticle6doesnotguaranteeaspecificoutcomeofaagivencase. *Q%) However,hiscaserelatesnottotheoutcomeoftheinvestigation,buttotheinvestigationitself.He *:&* disagreesthattheChiefConstable'sdecisionnottoinitiateaninvestigationwas"acceptable",asit +#'+ wasbasedontheDRC'sdetailedreport.Inhisview,theChiefConstabledidnotascertainimportant , (, issues;inparticular,thefactthatMsAndersenhadalreadybeenindictedfordisseminatingracist -(- viewsmadeaninvestigationintopossiblyorganizedandsystematicconductonthepartofthe  executiveboardmembersimportant.  5.5ThepetitionerrejectsthattheDRC'sreportcontainedonlya"generalallegation"againstMs k Andersen,asitspecificallydetailedanallegedcriminaloffence.Aneffectiveinvestigationwould T haverequiredatleastquestioningtheallegedperpetratorbeforedecidingwhetherornotto =  prosecute.Inaddition,ifmembershipoftheexecutiveboarddidnotitselfimplycomplicityin & v criminalconductofthepartyoritsmembers,andnocomplaintcouldbedirectedagainsttheparty  _ itself,therewasallthemorereasonindividuallytoassesstheextent,ifany,ofMsAndersen'srole  H intheallegedactsofracialdiscrimination.  1  5.6Thepetitionerobservesthatcriminalcomplaintswereindeedbroughtagainsttheindividuals   personallyresponsiblefortheconductinquestion,assuggestedbytheStateparty,butcontendsthat   thisdoesnotaffecttheissueofMsAndersen'sallegedparticipationtherein,ortheeffectivenessof   theinvestigationinrespectofthechargesagainsther.HethusconsidersthattheStatepartyhas n  failedtoshowthatthedecisionnottoconductaninvestigation,theRegionalPublicProsecutor's W  rejectiononformalgroundsoftheappealagainsttheChiefConstable'sdecision,andtheinability @ toappealtheRegionalPublicProsecutor'sdecision,wereconsistentwitharticles4and6ofthe )y Convention. b IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee 4 Considerationofadmissibility  6.1Beforeconsideringanyclaimscontainedinapetition,theCommitteeontheEliminationof  RacialDiscriminationmust,inaccordancewithrule91ofitsrulesofprocedure,decidewhetheror o notitisadmissibleundertheConvention. X 6.2TheCommitteenotesthatthepetitionerdisclaimsanycontentionthattheinability,atthe *z materialtime,tofileacriminalcomplaintofracialdiscriminationwasinviolationofthe c Convention.Thus,theCommitteeneednotdecidewhethersuchaclaimwouldbeinadmissiblewith L referencetothesixmonthsruleapplicabletothetimeframewithinwhichapetitionmaybebrought.  5 Intheabsenceofanyfurtherobjectionstotheadmissibilityofthepetition,theCommitteedeclares !  itadmissibleandproceedstoitsexaminationofthemerits. "! Considerationofthemerits $# 7.1Actingunderarticle14,paragraph7(a),oftheInternationalConventionontheEliminationof Y&!% AllFormsofRacialDiscrimination,theCommitteehasconsideredtheinformationsubmittedbythe B'"& petitionerandtheStateparty. +({#' 7.2TheCommitteenotesthatthepresentcaseinvolvestwodifferentsetsofactsbydifferentactors: )M%) ontheonehand,MsAndersenherselftransmittedpressreleasesbyfacsimile,inrespectofwhich *6&* shewassubsequentlyconvicted.Ontheotherhand,speakersatthepartyconference(ofwhichMs +'+ Andersenwasnotone)madetheseriesofraciststatements,contrarytoarticle4,paragraphb,ofthe ,(, Convention,describedinparagraph2.4,concerningwhichcriminalcomplaintswerelodged_(see -(- paragraph5.6).  7.3Againstthisbackground,theCommitteeconsidersthatgiventhecomplaintagainstMs  Anderseninconnectionwiththepartyconferencewasnotaccompaniedbyanyevidencesuggesting k thatshewasanaccomplicesoliciting,directingorotherwiseprocuringthespeakersattheparty T meetingtoengageintheimpugnedconduct,itisreasonabletoconclude,asdidtheStateparty's =  authorities,thatthecomplaintdidnotmakeoutacasethatMsAndersen,asopposedtothespeakers & v themselves,hadengagedinanyactofracialdiscrimination;indeed,asamatterofcriminallaw,  _ liabilityofamemberofaparty'sexecutiveboardcouldnotattach,withoutadditionalevidence,in  H respectofstatementsmadebythirdparties.  1  7.4IntheCommittee'sview,thiscasemayaccordinglybedistinguishedfrompreviouscaseswhere,   onthefacts,theCommitteehasonoccasionconsideredthataninvestigationintotheallegedacts   ofracialdiscriminationthathadtakenplacewasinsufficientforthepurposesofarticle6.4/Ineach   ofthosecases,infact,theinvestigationwasinrespectoftheindividual(s)directlycommittingthe n  allegedactofracialdiscrimination,ratherthanathirdparty,withtheresultthatnopersonwasheld W  criminallyresponsiblefortheactsinquestion;inthepresentcase,ontheotherhand,criminal @ complaintswerelodgedagainstthosedirectlyresponsible.Itcannotthereforebeconsideredthat )y therewasnoeffectiveactiontakeninresponsetotheactsinquestion. b 7.5Astothereviewofthedecisionsnottoprosecuteinthepresentcase,theCommitteerefersto 4 itsjurisprudencethat"thetermsofarticle6donotimposeuponStatespartiesthedutytoinstitute  amechanismofsequentialremedies"incasesofallegedracialdiscrimination.5/Accordingly,even  ifarticle6mightbeinterpretedtorequirethepossibilityofjudicialreviewofadecisionnottobring  acriminalprosecutioninaparticularcaseallegingracialdiscrimination,theCommitteereferstothe  Stateparty'sstatementthatitisopen,undernationallaw,judiciallytochallengeaprosecutor's q decision. Z 8.TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscrimination,actingunderarticle14,paragraph ,| 7,oftheConvention,isoftheopinionthatthefactsbeforeitdonotdiscloseaviolationofthe e ConventioninasmuchastheStateparty'sactionwithrespecttoMs.Andersonisconcerned. N 9.InthelightoftheStateparty'sobligationunderarticle4,paragraph(b),oftheConvention, !   however,theCommitteewouldwishtoremainapprisedastotheresultsofthecriminalcomplaints " ! lodgedagainstthespeakersatthepartypoliticalconferenceinviewoftheracistnatureoftheir #" remarks,contrarytoarticle4,paragraphb,oftheConvention.TheCommitteedrawstheattention $# oftheStatepartytotheneedtobalancefreedomofexpressionwiththerequirementsofthe t% $ Conventiontopreventandeliminateallactsofracialdiscrimination,particularlyinthecontextof ]&!% statementsmadebymembersofpoliticalparties. F'"& [DoneinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequentlyto )h$( beissuedinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommittee'sannualreporttotheGeneral *Q%) _Assemby_.] *:&* *MadepublicbydecisionoftheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscrimination. , (,  -(- ЇNotes:  1/Section 266(b) oftheCriminalCodeprovidesasfollows:  0  (1)Anypersonwho,publiclyorwiththeintentionofwiderdissemination,makesa W statementorimpartsotherinformationbywhichagroupofpeoplearethreatened,insulted @  ordegradedonaccountoftheirrace,colour,nationalorethnicorigin,religion,orsexual ) y inclinationshallbeliabletoafineortoimprisonmentforanytermnotexceedingtwoyears. b(#(# 0  (2)Whenthesentenceismetedout,thefactthattheoffenceisinthenatureofpropaganda  4  activitiesshallbeconsideredanaggravatingcircumstance.  (#(# 2/TherelevantsectionsoftheAdministrationofJusticeActregulatingtheinvestigationofcriminal   complaintsprovideasfollows:   0  742(2): Thepoliceshallinstituteinvestigationsupona[criminal]reportlodgedoronits Z  owninitiative,whenitmayreasonablybepresumedthatacriminaloffencesubjectto C prosecutionhasbeencommitted.,|(#(# 0  743: Thepurposeoftheinvestigationistoclarifywhethertheconditionsforimposing N criminalliabilityorotherlegalconsequencesundercriminallawarefulfilled,andtoprovide 7 informationforuseinthedeterminationofthecaseandpreparetheconductofthecase   beforethecourt. (#(# 0  749(1): Thepoliceshalldismissareportlodgedifitdeemsthatthereisnobasisfor  initiatinginvestigation.t(#(# 3/_Habassi_ԀvDenmarkCaseNo10/1997,Opinionadoptedon17March1999. F 4/See,forexample,AhmadvDenmarkCaseNo16/1999,Opinionadoptedon13March2000,and h _Habassi_,_op.cit_.  Q 5/_Dogan_ԀvTheNetherlands,CaseNo1/1984,Opinionadoptedon10August1988,at9.4(finding !#  noviolationofarticle6). " ! CEUK.,UK.,CE.,J