CERD/C/71/D/36/2006 Page 10 4.13 The State party concludes that it is not possible to infer an obligation under the Convention to prosecute in situations that have been found not to provide a basis for prosecution. The Administration of Justice Act offers the requisite remedies compatible with the Convention and the relevant authorities have fully met their obligations in this case. Petitioner’s comments: 5.1 On 29 December 2006, the petitioner commented on the State party’s submissions. On the argument that domestic remedies were not exhausted with regards to the complaint about Ms. Frevert’s book, it is submitted that the text of the book was also published on her website. The report to the police was meant to cover the whole website, not only the articles under the heading “Articles that nobody dares to publish”. When she was interviewed about the website, the police failed to ask her if she was the author of the book, which had been posted as a document on the website. The police apparently based its decision on a very small part of the material placed on the website. 5.2 The petitioner acknowledges that no appeal was filed against the decision of 18 October 2005 of the Copenhagen Police to discontinue the investigation of the case in relation to the book. However, the day before, a complaint was filed against the website, which included the text of the book. Consequently, an appeal of that decision would only have been a duplication of the complaint already sent to the regional prosecutor’s office. Therefore, the final decision by the Regional Prosecutor of 13 December 2005 is a final decision both regarding the statements posted on the website and contained in the book. The petitioner therefore considers that he exhausted domestic remedies in respect of all parts of the complaint. 5.3 With respect to the argument that the communication falls outside the scope of the Covenant, the petitioner contends that Islamophobia, just like attacks against Jews, has manifested itself as a form of racism in many European countries, including Denmark. After 11 September 2001, attacks against Muslims have intensified in Denmark. Members of the Danish People’s Party use hate speech as a tool to stir up hatred against people of Arab and Muslim background. In their view, culture and religion are connected in Islam. The petitioner argues that CERD already concluded that Danish authorities do not ensure an effective implementation of criminal law in relation to hate speech against Muslims and Muslim culture, especially by politicians. He invokes CERD’s 2002 Concluding Observations on Denmark9: [“16.] The Committee is concerned about reports of a considerable increase in reported cases of widespread harassment of people of Arab and Muslim backgrounds since 11 September 2001. The Committee recommends that the State party monitor this situation carefully, take decisive action to protect the rights of victims and deal with perpetrators, and report on this matter in its next periodic report”. [“11.] The Committee, while taking note of the State party’s efforts to combat hate crimes, is concerned about the increase in the number of racially motivated offences and in the number of complaints of hate speech. The Committee is also concerned about hate speech by some politicians in Denmark. While taking note of the 9 CERD/C/60/CO/5, 21 May 2002 and CERD/C/CO/DEN/17, 19 October 2006