PART II – CERD AND ITS WORK d) Follow-up procedure to the opinion of CERD In 2005 CERD adopted a new rule to more effectively follow-up on any suggestions and recommendations adopted under the Individual Communication procedure. According to this rule, CERD may designate one or several special Rapporteurs60 who should monitor the States parties’ efforts in implementing Committee’s suggestions and recommendations. To fulfil its mandate the Rapporteur(s) will establish contacts, take appropriate actions and report to the Committee, if necessary with recommendations for further actions to be taken by CERD. Such recommendations reflect all cases in which CERD found violations of ICERD or otherwise provided suggestions or recommendations. Information on follow-up activities is included in CERD’s annual report. e) Recommendations in case of non-violation of the Convention or inadmissible communication As a special feature of CERD’s individual communication procedure, as compared to similar procedures of other Treaty Bodies, the Committee sometimes provides suggestions or recommendations even in case of no violation, when it considers it appropriate or necessary. By its 75th session the Committee had provided suggestions or recommendations in 9 cases, which did not establish a violation of the Convention. Moreover, when cases have been considered as inadmissible, CERD has taken action by providing suggestions or recommendations to the State concerned in order to draw its attention to the issue. Illustration 11: CERD’s action in a case without any violation of ICERD61 During its 75th session (2009) CERD considered communication No. 41/2008 (Ahmed Fara Jama v. Denmark), which concerned alleged discriminatory statements by a Danish Member of Parliament against individuals of Somali origin. Due to the ambiguity of the statements in question and based on the information at its disposal, CERD found no violation of any of the provisions of ICERD. Nevertheless, the Committee called on the State to ensure that its police and judicial authorities conduct thorough investigations into the alleged acts of racial discrimination. It also drew the attention of politicians and members of political parties to the particular duties and responsibilities incumbent upon them under ICERD Article 4. Illustration 12: CERD’s decision on an inadmissible case62 During its 72nd session (2008) CERD considered communication No. 38/2006 (Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma et al. v. Germany), which concerned alleged hate speech against the Roma and Sinti community through a letter by a police officer published in the journal of the Association of German Detective Police Officers (BDK). Although it decided that the claim was inadmissible regarding Article 4 (c) of ICERD and found no violation of Article 4 (a) or 6, the Committee called the State party’s attention to the discriminatory, insulting and defamatory nature of the comments and of the particular weight of such comments if made by a police officer, whose duty is to serve and protect individuals. 60 This term should not be confused with the Special Rapporteur established within the framework of Human Rights Council Special Procedures. 61 CERD annual report 2009, A/64/18, paras. 62 and 63 and Annex III 62 CERD annual report 2008, A/63/18, paras. 532 and 533 and Annex III 19 ICERD & CERD: A GUIDE FOR CIVIL SOCIETY ACTORS