WPCB w[6`PUj5Ά7` P1}4a.q{ z **~o4+&wݍ59͒k`%V 깯G-&+xpwV5T|]+ OR*#&Oq A gFj~h2lG_ HŦY²SvjV%kc7rA6T@ƎQτcP/MZ,n2zw@_`r?O) ݽ"f1$u d{yN$@7dđTâv)[*.joL؎$C,youIRF|lCua6vNORo" ٠G :n+W-ِ2bO3άnqb#\UN% %s 0:y  y ?   A 1u0 72 0 0 0 0 0 0} 0b 0D 0# 0 0 0 0 0u 0K 0 0 0 0 0f 0D! 0" 0" 0# 0$ 0m% 09& 0F' 0<H( 0( 0B) 0J) 0:) 0** 0 * 0+ 0, 0- 0. 0/ 00 01 02 0 3 0 4 0 5 0 6 0 7 0 8 09 0; 0< 0U= 0Ud= 1= 7,~> B-> 0C> 1g? 7? 0?U*@U><@^ z@w@4@@N@@@@ m@ 0w@ 0c?A?A?A BAA 0VA D5BBBB D-JB 0KwB\\YORK_UNIVERSITY\q_hrts_hp4000tnV,,,,V0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($UKUS.,ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5[a` I&mage <=8C HKKKK3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) i)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       ?J%2A`Arial?     XXXSK\  `&Times New RomanS  <:Default Para<$$:footnote tex  XXX  <:footnote ref0;;.footer    XXX    XXX:8page number0;;.header    XXX    XXX<P1M :Outline001_1  X 2( ` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <M1M :Outline001_2   /%` ` hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <J1M :Outline001_3 j  ," hp x ,d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <G1M :Outline001_4  ` ) hp x )d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <D1M :Outline001_5   &hhp x &d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <A1M :Outline001_6 j  #p x #d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <>1M :Outline001_7  h  p x d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <;1M :Outline001_8   pp x d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <81M :Outline001_9 j   x d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 j <P1M :Outline002_1  X 2( ` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5  <P1M :Outline002_2  X 2( ` hp x 2d23  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 | <P1M :Outline002_6 |  2(4 4` hp x 2d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 | <M1M :Outline002_7 P  /%` ` hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 P <M1M :Outline002_8 P  /%` ` hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 P <M1M :Outline002_9 $  /% hp x /d23  d..  5+ ` hp x 5 $ (-2F$ !UKUS.,  (-2F$ !UKUS.,  89:;<=>? 359AM]q111.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1C@1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1)Hairline d($    /0123456 35=CIOU[a2(a)a.i.1.a.i.1.a.G7i.(B2$ !UKUS.,    0  %2A`Arial\  `&Times New Romanhg/ f/ecP3|xU(O;$0  2#  a  .3  0` (#(#(;3$2#  0  .3  0   d(.3=$ !UKUS.,  YYYY)!dxdx)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  !UKUS.,  _ COMMITTEEONTHEELIMINATIONOFRACIALDISCRIMINATION  DocumentationandAdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscriminationv.Denmark  CommunicationNo.28/2003 X 19August2003 , | _CERD_/C/63/D/28/2003*  P ADMISSIBILITY    CEUK.,  Submittedby:TheDocumentationandAdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscrimination z  Allegedvictim:Thepetitioner H StateParty:Denmark f Dateofcommunication:3December2002(initialsubmission) 4    Decisiononadmissibility   1.1ThepetitioneristheDocumentationandAdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscrimination,represented Y byMs._Fakhra_ԀMohammad,bornon6May1960,whoistheheadoftheboardoftrusteesofthe B Centre.ThepetitionerallegesviolationsbyDenmarkofarticles2,paragraph1(d),4,5and6ofthe +{ Convention. d 1.2Inconformitywitharticle14,paragraph6(a),oftheConvention,theCommitteetransmitted  6 thecommunicationtotheStatepartyon14April2003. !  Thefactsassubmittedbythepetitioner: #" 1.1On27January2002,aprivatecompany, _Torben_ԀJensenA/S,publishedajobadvertisement s% $ intheDanishnewspaper _Jyllands_Ԁ_Posten_.Theadvertisementreadasfollows: \&!% 0  TheconstructioncompanyBAC_SIA_Ԁseeks.(~#'(#(# 0  Danishforeman)g$((#(# 0  who,incooperationwithaLatvianconstructionexpert,willbeassignedthegeneral *9&* responsibilityofrenovatingandconstructingalargeragriculturalbuildingapproximately +"'+ 80_kilometers_ԀfromRiga., (,(#(#  -(- 1.2Byletterof30January2002,thepetitionerreportedtheincidenttotheChiefConstableofthe  policeinVejle,thedistrictwhere _Torben_ԀJensenA/Swaslocated.Intheletter,thepetitioner  allegedaviolationbythecompanyofSection51/ofActNo.459of12June1996onprohibition  againstdiscriminationinrespectofemploymentandoccupationetc.onthelabourmarket,arguing k thatthewords Danishforemanintheadvertisementamountedtodiscriminationonthegroundof T nationalorethnicorigin. =  2.3On5February2002,thepoliceinterviewedMr._E.H._,accountantof _Torben_ԀJensenA/C.On  _ thebasisofthisinterview,theChiefConstable,byletterof13March2002,informedthepetitioner  H thathehaddecidedtodismissthecomplaint:  1  0  Inmydecision,Ihavenotablygivenweighttothefactthat,basedonthepolices   questioningof_Torben_ԀJensen,and,moreover,fromreadingtheadvertisement,itis,inmy   view,quiteclearthatthereisnoviolationofthesaidAct.Whatissoughtforthepositionin   LatviaisaDanishresident,andthispersoncouldeasilybeofanethnicityotherthanDanish. n  Intheworstcase,itisamatterofanunfortunatechoiceofwords,butnotofacontentwhich W  constitutesgroundsforfurtheractioninthiscase.@(#(# 2.4On22March2002,thepetitionerappealedtheChiefConstablesdecisiontotheRegional b PublicProsecutorof_Snderborg_.Accordingtothepetitioner,itwasirrelevantwhetherthecompany K hadactuallyintendedtorecruitaDanishresident,asthedecisivequestionunderSection5ofAct 4 No.459waswhetherthewordingofthejobadvertisementcouldbeperceivedasindicatinga  preferenceforaforemanofDanishorigin.SinceSection5alsocriminalizesnegligence,this  provisionwouldalsobeviolated,iftheunintendedeffectoftheadvertisementhadbeentoexclude  agroupdefinedbyoneofthecriteriaenumeratedinSection1,paragraph1,2/ofthesameActfrom  applyingforthejob.However,theChiefConstabledidnotappeartohaveinvest_igated_Ԁthis q possibility.Moreover,thepetitionercontestedthattheterm Danishforemanwassupposedtorefer Z toaDanishresident,assuchresidencecouldnotberegardedalogicalrequirementforthe C constructionjobinLatviaandbecauseitfollowedfromthepublicationoftheadvertisementina ,| DanishnewspaperthatthegroupofrecipientswouldessentiallybelimitedtoDanishresidentsin e anyevent. N 2.5Byletterof3June2002,theRegionalPublicProsecutorof_Snderborg_Ԁinformedthepetitioner !   thathehaddismissedtheappeal,basedonthesamereasonsasthosementionedinthedecisionof " ! theChiefConstable. #" 2.6On3December2002, theDocumentationandAdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscrimination t% $ [represented]by_Fakhra_ԀMohammad,headoftheboardoftrustees,submittedthepresent ]&!% communication. F'"& Thecomplaint: )h$( 3.1Thepetitionerclaimsthat,astheheadoftheboardoftrustees,Ms._Fakhra_ԀMohammad *:&*  representsthe[DocumentationandAdvisoryCentre]whencomplaintsarefiledinhername. +#'+ AlthoughneitherMs._Fakhra_ԀMohammadnoranyotherpersonofnon-Danishoriginappliedforthe , (, advertisedjob,sheshouldbeconsideredavictimofthediscriminatoryadvertisement,sinceitwould -(- havebeenfutileforhertoapplyforthepost.Moreover,thepetitioneritselfshouldberecognized  ashavingstatusofvictimunderarticle14oftheConvention,sinceitrepresents alargegroupof  personsofnon-Danishorigindiscriminatedagainstbythejobadvertisementinquestion.Insupport  ofthisclaim,thepetitionerstatesthatboththepoliceandtheRegionalPublicProsecutorhave k accepteditasapartytodomesticproceedings. T 3.2Thepetitionerclaimstohaveexhausteddomesticremedies,asthereisnopossibilitytoappeal & v thedecisionoftheRegionalPublicProsecutorof3June2002,andsincethecasecannotbebrought  _ beforetheDanishcourts.Directlegalactionsagainst_Torben_ԀJensenA/Swouldbeineffective,given  H thatthepoliceandtheRegionalPublicProsecutorbothrejectedthecomplaint.Moreover,the  1  EasternHighCourt,inadecisionof5February1999,heldthatanincidentofracialdiscrimination    doesnotinitselfconstituteaviolationofthehonourandreputationofaperson,withinthemeaning   ofSection26oftheActonCivilLiability.   3.3ThepetitionerclaimsthattheStatepartyhasviolateditsobligationsunderarticles4and6of n  theConvention,asitfailedtoinvestigatewhetherthejobadvertisementconstitutedanactofracial W  discrimination,punishableunderSection5ofActNo.459,andinsteadadmittedthecompanys @ explanationthatwhatwasmeantby DanishforemanwasapersonresidinginDenmark.In )y particular,theStatepartyshouldhaveinvestigatedthefollowingquestions:(1)whethertheperson b eventuallyemployedwasofDanishnational/ethnicoriginornot;(2)whethertheintendedmeaning K oftheadvertisementshouldbetakenintoaccount;(3)whethertheexplanationprovidedby_Torben_ 4 JensenA/Cwaslogical;(4)whetherthepublishingoftheadvertisementconstitutedindirect  discrimination;and(5)whetherthepublishingoftheadvertisementwaspunishableasnegligence.  3.4Thepetitionerarguesthatthecompanysallegedintentiontor_ecruit_ԀaDanishresidentwas  irrelevant,sincetheobjectivemeaningoftheterm Danishintheadvertisementclearlyrelatedto q thenational/ethnicoriginofthepersonsought.Thedefactoeffectoftheadvertisementthuswasto Z depriveapplicantsofnon-Danishoriginofequalopportunities.Whetherthiseffectwasintendedor C notplayednorole,sinceSection5ofActNo.459alsocriminalizednegligence.Moreover,it ,| followedfromSection1,paragraph1,oftheActthatSection5alsocoveredindirectdiscrimination, e amodalitywhichtheDanishauthoritieshadequallyfailedtoinvestigate. N 3.5Inaddition,thepetitionerconteststhattheterm Danishforemanwasusedasasynonymfor !    Danishresidentbythecompany,andreiteratestheargumentsalreadystatedbeforetheRegional " ! PublicProsecutor(seepara.2.4above). #" TheStatepartyssubmissionontheadmissibilityandmeritsofthecommunication: t% $ 4.1Bynote_verbale_Ԁof7July2003,theStatepartymadeitssubmissionsontheadmissibilityand, F'"& subsidiarily,onthemeritsofthecommunication. /(#' 4.2Onadmissibility,theStatepartydeniesthatthepetitionerhaslegalstandingtosubmita *Q%) communication,underarticle14,paragraph1,oftheConvention,asitisalegalentityandnotan *:&* individualorgroupofindividuals.Assuch,thepetitionerisnotinapositiontoclaimthatitisthe +#'+ victimofaviolationofanyoftherightssetforthintheConvention.Furthermore,thepetitioner , (, failedtopresentitspowerofattorneyfromoneormoreindividuals,claimingtobevictimsofsuch -(- aviolation,whichwouldauthorizeittosubmitacommunicationontheirbehalf.TheStateparty  concludesthatthecommunicationisinadmissible_ratione_Ԁpersonaeunderarticle14,paragraph1,  oftheConvention.  4.3WhileconcedingthatthedecisionoftheRegionalPublicProsecutor,actingonappealcannot T beappealedtoahigherauthority,andthatprivatepartiescannotbringchargesunderSection5of =  ActNo.459beforethecourts,theStatepartydeniesthatthepetitionerhasexhaustedavailable & v domesticremedies,sincesuchremedieshavetobeexhaustedbythepetitionersthemselvesandnot  _ byotherorganizationsorindividuals.Thefactthatthepetitionerparticipatedindomestic  H proceedingsbylodgingacomplaintwiththeDanishauthoritieswasirrelevant,giventhatthe  1  petitioner,beingalegalperson,hadnovictimstatusundertheConvention.TheStateparty    concludesthatthecommunicationisalsoinadmissibleunderarticle14,paragraph7(a),ofthe   Convention.   4.4TheStatepartyfurtherarguesthatthedeterminationmadebytheChiefConstableandthe n  RegionalPublicProsecutorthattherequirementsofSection5ofActNo.459werenotmetinthe W  presentcasewasprimarilyamatterofinterpretationandapplicationofdomesticlegislation,which @ theCommitteehasnocompetencetoreview.Thecommunicationisthereforealsoincompatible )y _ratione_Ԁ_materiae_ԀwiththeConvention. b 4.5Subsidiarilyandonthemerits,theStatepartysubmitsthatthepetitionerhasfailedto 4 substantiatethattheDanishlegislationassuchwasnotinconformitywithitsobligationsunder  article4oftheConvention.Onthecontrary,thecommunicationwasbasedontheassumptionthat  theDanishauthoritiesdidnotapplyActNo.459correctly.  4.6TheStatepartyarguesthat,whilerequiringthataninvestigationmustbecarriedoutwithdue q diligenceandexpeditionandmustbesufficienttodeterminewhetherornotanincidentofracial Z discriminationhasoccurred,article6oftheConventiondoesnotguaranteetheinitiation,letalone C aspecificoutcome,ofsuchaninvestigationinallcasesreportedtothepolice.Ifnobasiscanbe ,| foundtoinitiateaninvestigation,itisnotcontrarytotheConventiontodismissacomplaint.Inthe e presentcase,thedecisionsoftheDanishauthoritieswerebasedonsufficientinformation,namely N theinterviewofthecompanysaccountantbythePoliceConstable.Thiswasalsoreflectedbythe  7 factthatthepetitionerdidnotconsiderfurtherinformationnecessarytodeterminethatthe !   advertisementwasinviolationofSection5ofActNo.459.However,theabovequestionagain " ! relatedtotheinterpretationandpracticalapplicationoftheDanishlegislation,thusfallingoutside #" theCommitteescompetence. $# 4.7Withregardtothespecificquestionsraisedbythepetitioner(seepara.3.3above),theState ]&!% partyargues:(1)thattheemploymentofapersonofDanishoriginorethnicityinDenmarkcannot F'"& initselfbeconsideredtosubstantiateanallegationofdiscrimination;(2)thattheintentionof_Torben_ /(#' JensenA/Cwasrelevanttotheinterpretationofthewordingoftheadvertisement,whileitslegal )h$( assessmentfallsoutsidethetraditionalfieldofpoliceinvestigation;(3)thatthequestionofwhether *Q%) theexplanationprovidedbythecompanywasconvincingalsoisnotamatteroftraditionalpolice *:&* investigation,butratheramatterofassessingcriticallytheinformationalreadyprovidedbythe +#'+ police,aswellasbythepetitioner;thatthequestionswhethertheadvertisementconstituted(4) , (, indirectdiscriminationor(5)negligence,punishableunderSection5oftheAct,wasnotforthe -(- policetoinvestigate,sinceitrelatedtotheapplicationandinterpretationofDanishlegislation,and  canthereforenotbereviewedbytheCommittee.  4.8Withoutprejudicetotheabovearguments,theStatepartysubmitsthattheChiefConstableand k theRegionalPublicProsecutorof_Snderborg_Ԁmadeacorrectassessmentwhentheyconsideredthat T theadjective DanishintheadvertisementreferredtoDanishresidents,sincethenatureofthe =  relationshiptoDenmarkrequiredbythatwordingwasnotpreciselydetermined.Theadvertisement & v wasthereforenotcoveredbySection5oftheAct,giventhataDanishresidentmaybeofany  _ ethnicityornationalorigin.  H 4.9TheStatepartyconcludesthatarticle6hasnotbeenviolated,asthepetitionerhadaccessto    effectiveremedies,resultingindecisionsoftheDanishauthorities,whichweretakenonanadequate   andinformedbasisinaccordancewiththerequirementsoftheConvention.   Commentsbythepetitioner n  5.1Bysubmissionof18July2003,thepetitionercommentedontheStatepartysobservationsand @ extendedtheclaimcontainedinthecommunicationof3December2002totheeffectthattheState )y partysallegedfailuretocarryoutaneffectiveinvestigationalsoamountedtoaviolationofarticles, b 5and2,paragraph1(d),inadditiontotheinitialclaimofaviolationofarticles4and6,ofthe K Convention. 4 5.2Whileconcedingthatthecommunicationwassubmitted by_Fakhra_ԀMohammadactingasthe  headoftheboardoftrusteesoftheDocumentationandAdvisoryCentreandtherefore byalegal  person,thepetitionerconteststheStatepartysconclusionthatlegalentitiescannotfile  communications,norclaimvictimstatus,underarticle14oftheConvention.2Thepetitionerargues q thatitfollowsfromthe_travaux_Ԁ_prparatoires_ԀtotheConventionthatthewords individualsor Z groupsofindividualsinarticle14,paragraph1,shouldbeinterpretedbroadlysoastobeableto C includenon-governmentalorganizationsamongthoseentitledtobringacomplaintbeforethe ,| Committee. e 5.3Asto_itsthe_Ԁstatusofvictim,thepetitionersubmitsthatsuchstatuscannot,underSection5of  7 ActNo.459,berestrictedtooneormoreindividuals,sincethatprovisiongenerallycriminalizes !   discriminationofnon-Danishapplicantsinjobadvertisements,therebyprotectingeveryoneof " ! non-Danishoriginagainstsuchdiscrimination.Giventhepetitionersspecificmandatetoassist #" victimsofracialdiscrimination,theethniccompositionofitsboardoftrustees2/,aswellasits $# recordinrepresentingallegedvictimsofracialdiscriminationbeforetheCommittee,itshouldbe t% $ consideredasavictimorasrepresentinganunspecifiednumberofunidentifiedvictimsofa ]&!% violationofSection5oftheActand,accordingly,ofarticles2,4,5and6oftheConvention.The F'"& petitionerconcludesthatthecommunicationisadmissible_ratione_Ԁpersonaeunderarticle14ofthe /(#' Convention,reiteratingthattheChiefConstableandtheRegionalPublicProsecutorrecognizedit )h$( asapartytodomesticproceedings(eitherasavictimorashavingaparticularinterestinthe *Q%) outcomeofthecase),whichwasreflectedbythefactthatitsappealtotheRegionalPublic *:&* Prosecutorhadnotbeendismissedonproceduralgrounds. +#'+ Ѐ5.4Thepetitionersubmitsthatithasexhaustedallavailabledomesticremedies,initscapacityas -(- petitioneror,respectively,asrepresentativeof alargegroupofnon-identifiablepetitioners.The  petitioneralsoarguesthatthecommunicationisadmissible_ratione_Ԁ_materiae_,asitdoesnotrelateto  thelegalassessmentoftheallegedincident,buttotheabsenceofaneffectiveinvestigationbythe  Danishauthorities,whichwouldhaveprovidedanadequatefactualbasisforsuchanassessment. k 5.5Withregardtotheallegedviolationsofarticles2,4,5and6oftheConvention,thepetitioner =  similarlybasestheclaimonthelackofaneffectiveinvestigationintothematter,ratherthanonthe & v legalassessmentbytheDanishauthorities.However,itisarguedthattheChiefConstablewould  _ nothavereachedtheconclusionthataDanishresidentwassoughtfortheadvertisedpostinLatvia,  H irrespectiveofthenationalorethnicoriginofthatperson,ifhehadinitiatedaformalinvestigation,  1  ratherthanmerelyrelyingonaninformalinterviewoftheaccountantof _Torben_ԀJensenA/C,on    thereportfiledbythepetitionerandonthewordingofthejobadvertisement.Suchaninvestigation   shouldhaveclarifiedwhohadeventuallybeenrecruitedfortheadvertisedpost,sincesuch   clarificationwouldatleasthaveindicatedwhetheranactofdiscriminationhadoccurred,andwould   haveprovidedanadequatebasistodeterminewhethertheadvertisementconstitutedindirect n  discrimination. W  IssuesandproceedingsbeforetheCommittee )y 6.1Beforeconsideringthesubstanceofacommunication,theCommitteeontheEliminationof K RacialDiscriminationmust,inaccordancewithrule91ofitsrulesofprocedure,examinewhether 4 ornotthecommunicationisadmissible.  6.2TheCommitteenotesthatthecommunicationhasbeensubmittedby theDocumentationand  AdvisoryCentreonRacialDiscrimination.Itfurthernotesthat,initssubmissionsof18July2003,  thepetitionerclarifiedthatMs._Fakhra_ԀMohammad,actingastheheadoftheboardoftrustees, q representedtheDocumentationandAdvisoryCentrewheninitiallysubmittingthecommunication. Z 6.3TheCommitteetakesnoteoftheStatepartysobjectionthat,asalegalpersonratherthanan ,| individualoragroupofindividuals,thepetitionerisnotentitledtosubmitacommunicationorto e claimvictimstatusunderarticle14,paragraph1.Itequallynotesthepetitionersargumentthat N article14,paragraph1,shouldbeinterpretedbroadlytoenablenon-governmentalorganizationsto  7 bringacomplaintbeforetheCommittee,andthatitshouldbeconsideredasavictimofa violation !   ofarticles2,4,5and6oftheConventionor,respectively,asrepresentingalargegroupof " ! unidentifiedvictims,i.e.personsofnon-Danishoriginwhowerediscriminatedagainstbythejob #" advertisementinquestion. $# 6.4TheCommitteedoesnotexcludethepossibilitythatagroupofpersonsrepresenting,for ]&!% example,theinterestsofaracialorethnicgroup,maysubmitanindividualcommunication, F'"& providedthatitisabletoprovethatithasbeenanallegedvictimofaviolationoftheConvention /(#' orthatoneofitsmembershasbeenavictim,andifitisable_atb_Ԁthesametimetoprovidedue )h$( authorizationtothiseffect. *Q%) 6.5TheCommitteenotesthat,accordingtothepetitioner,nomemberoftheboardoftrustees +#'+ appliedforthejob.Moreover,thepetitionerhasnotarguedthatanyofthemembersoftheboard, , (, oranyotheridentifiablepersonwhomthepetitionerwouldbeauthorizedtorepresent,hadagenuine -(- interestin,orshowedthenecessaryqualificationsfor,thevacancy.  6.6WhileSection5ofActNo.459prohibitsdiscriminationofallpersonsofnon-Danishoriginin  jobadvertisements,whethertheyapplyforavacancyornot,itdoesnotautomaticallyfollowthat k personsnotdirectlyandpersonallyaffectedbysuchdiscriminationmayclaimtobevictimsofa T violationofanyoftherightsguaranteedintheConvention.Anyotherconclusionwouldopenthe =  doorforpopularactions(_actio_Ԁ_popularis_)againsttherelevantlegislationofStatesparties. & v 6.7Intheabsenceofanyidentifiablevictimspersonallyaffectedbytheallegedlydiscriminatory  H jobadvertisement,whomthepetitionerwouldbeauthorizedtorepresent,theCommitteeconcludes  1  thatthepetitionerhasfailedtosubstantiate,forpurposesofarticle14,paragraph1,itsclaimthatit    constitutesorrepresentsagroupofindividualsclaimingtobethevictimofaviolationbyDenmark   ofarticles2,paragraph1(d),4,5and6oftheConvention.   7.TheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscriminationthereforedecides: n  (a)Thatthecommunicationisinadmissible_ratione_Ԁpersonaeunderarticle14,paragraph1,ofthe @ Convention. )y (b)ThatthisdecisionshallbecommunicatedtotheStatepartyandtothepetitioner. K [DoneinEnglish,FrenchandSpanish,theEnglishtextbeingtheoriginalversion.Subsequentlyto  beissuedalsoinArabic,ChineseandRussianaspartoftheCommitteesannualreporttothe  GeneralAssembly.]  UK.,CE.,*MadepublicbydecisionoftheCommitteeontheEliminationofRacialDiscrimination. q Notes: ,| 1/Section5ofActNo.459of5July1996reads: Advertisementsmaynotindicatethataperson N ofaparticularrace,colour,religion,politicalopinion,sexualorientationornational,socialorethnic  7 originissoughtorpreferred.Normustitbeindicatedthatapersonwiththecharacteristics !   mentionedinthefirstclauseofthisSectionisnotwanted. " ! 2/Section1,paragraph1,ofActNo.459reads: ForthepurposeofthisAct,theterm $# discriminationmeansanydirectorindirectdiscriminationonthebasisofrace,colour,religion, t% $ politicalopinion,sexualorientationornational,socialorethnicorigin. ]&!% h