The facts as presented

Alleged victim(s) The petitioner

The petitioner's comments on the State party's submissions

The petitioner contends that the following statements were made at the meeting from the podium b

It rejects the petitioner's argument that such an application would be ineffective as a result of the DPP refusal to prefer charges and the Ministry's finding the petitioner's appeal to be inadmissible.

6.2 On the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee notes that the petitioner confines his complaint to the handling of the complaint made against Mr. Andreasen, a case in which he did appeal to the Ministry of Justice.

It argues that the petitioner has failed to exhaust domestic remedies available in criminal proceedings in three respects.

Page limits have been replaced by word limits and the filing party must certify compliance with the word limit.

Admissible communications shall be considered by the Committee in the light of all information made available to it by the petitioner and the State party concerned.

6.3 Turning to the State party's argument that the petitioner should have initiated a private prosecution under the general provisions of section 267 of the Criminal Code, the Committee recalls that, in its Opinion in Sadic,i it indeed required the petitioner in that case to pursue such a course.

3.1 The petitioner alleges two counts of violation of articles 2, subparagraph 1 (d), 4 and 6 of the Convention.

The Committee thus need not address the argument that the petitioner did not also appeal the adverse decisions in certain other cases, though the Committee would note that there is nothing to suggest that the Ministry's decision of lack of standing would have been any different in those cases.

The opinion of the Committee shall be forwarded, through the Secretary General, to the petitioner and to the State party concerned, together with any suggestions and recommendations the Committee may wish to make.

The petitioner is Kamal Quereshi, a Danish national born 29 July 1970 and a current member of the State party's Parliament (Folketinget) for the Socialist Peoples Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti).

5.1 By letter of 2 August 2004, the petitioner disputes the State party's submissions on admissibility and reiterates his earlier submissions on the merits.

So far only one petition has been submitted to the Chancellor or Justice where the petitioner complained that the requirements for applying for Estonian citizenship were discriminating.

Any member of the Committee may request that a summary of his individual opinion be appended to the opinion of the Committee when it is forwarded to the petitioner and to the State party concerned.

The petitioner relies on a decision of the High Court of Eastern Denmark of 1980 for the proposition that such statements do in fact fall within the scope of section 266 (b).

The Committee shall hold closed meetings when examining communications under the present Protocol. After examining a communication, the Committee shall forward its suggestions and recommendations, if any, to the State Party concerned and to the petitioner.

32 2003 (Sefic v.

The Committee may invite the presence of the petitioner or his representative and the presence of representatives of the State party concerned in order to provide additional information or to answer questions on the merits of the communication.

It also follows that the petitioner was not deprived of the right to an effective remedy for an act of racial discrimination in respect of Mr. Andreasen's statement.

7.1 Acting under article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Committee has considered the information submitted by the petitioner and the State party.

2.4 The petitioner asserts that the Progressive Party established courses, parts of which were broadcast on a newsflash on State television, teaching members how to avoid attracting liability under section 266 (b) of the Criminal Code.a

The view was expressed that the flag State's ability to seek redress for non national crew members depended on the facts of each case, the nature of the complaint, the redress sought and the legal regime under which it was sought.

A decision taken by the Committee, in conformity with paragraph 7 (a) of article 14, that a communication is inadmissible, may be reviewed at a later date by the Committee upon a written request by the petitioner concerned.

However, before the Committee considers revoking that decision, the explanations or statements concerned must be transmitted to the petitioner so that he may submit additional information or observations within the time limit set by the Committee.

2.19 On 11 March 2002, the Fyn Regional Public Prosecutor rejected DRC appeal, on the basis that neither it nor the petitioner had the required essential, direct, individual or legal interest in the case to become parties to it.

Firstly, the petitioner only appealed the DPP decision of 14 August 2003 related to Mr. Andreasen, and did not appeal any of the DPP decisions on the other individuals concerned.

The petitioner also rejects any possible constitutional remedy under section 63 of the Constitution (providing for review of scope of executive authority), claiming that it is necessary to have the status of a party to the case in order to bring such an action.

Some countries do offer some leniency to second or third applicants, but there should be a wide gap between the first and subsequent applicants, in order to preserve the strong incentive to be the first.

2.14 On 26 and 28 August 2003, respectively, DRC appealed the DPP decisions regarding Mr. Andreasen (on the petitioner's behalf) and Mr. Sørensen (on its own behalf) to the Ministry of Justice.

2.6 Upon viewing the meeting, the petitioner requested the Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination (DRC) to file complaints against the above individuals, as well as the members of the executive board of the Progressive Party for its approval of the statements made.

The Committee notes, moreover, that the petitioner has questioned the effectiveness of such an application, arguing that as the deadline for prosecution had passed any judicial decision on the legality of action taken would be devoid of practical effect for the proceedings in question.

3.3 As to the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the petitioner argues that to take (unspecified) legal actions directly against Mr. Andreasen would not be effective given the rejection of the complaint by the Regional Public Prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice.

It would thus be unreasonable to expect the petitioner to initiate separate proceedings under the general provisions of section 267 after having unsuccessfully invoked section 266 (b) of the Danish Criminal Code in respect of circumstances directly implicating the language and object of that provision.

Any explanations or statements submitted by a State party pursuant to this rule may be transmitted, through the Secretary General, to the petitioner of the communication who may submit any additional written information or observations within such time limit as the Committee shall decide.

As to the portion of the complaint concerning the petitioner's inability to appeal the decision concerning Mr. Andreasen, the State party refers to its submissions on admissibility concerning the available possibilities of a constitutional complaint and a private prosecution under section 267 of the Criminal Code.

In addition, the Working Group recommended that where Rule 115 motions were filed out of time after an appeals hearing, the standard for admission of that evidence should be heightened such that it will only be admitted where the submitting party demonstrates cogent reasons.

3.2 Secondly, the petitioner argues that the decision of the Public Prosecutor to discontinue Mr. Andreasen's case, confirmed on grounds of lack of standing by the Ministry of Justice, violates the obligation imposed by the same articles, but especially article 6, to ensure effective protection and remedies against any act of racial discrimination.

4.2 Secondly, the State party repeats its argument, also advanced in the petitioner's first petition to the Committee, that section 63 of the Constitution enables decisions of administrative authorities, including DPP and the Ministry of Justice, to be reviewed as to their lawfulness before the courts.

It points out that the 1980 decision of the High Court of Eastern Denmark referred to by the petitioner found that the designation guest worker did fall within a group of persons , within the meaning of section 266 (b).

On the contrary, the petitioner could have applied to the courts for a review of whether the DPP view of the scope of section 266 (b) (1) or of the Ministry's view of his standing was correct. The DPP decisions on the other cases could also have been reviewed.

In Sadic v. Denmark,h the Committee accepted, in circumstances where a complaint under section 266 (b) had not been pursued by the police, that the requirements of section 267 are different and a petitioner should be expected to exhaust that alternative and effective remedy before approaching the Committee.

5.2 Concerning a private prosecution under section 267 of the Criminal Code, the petitioner argues that, whether or not Mr. Andreasen's statement fell within the scope of that provision, a court would reject such a claim on the basis that he had no essential, direct and individual interest in the case.