CERD/C/71/D/36/2006 Page 8 of the Administration of Justice Act6, public prosecutors have a duty to observe the principle of objectiveness. They cannot prosecute a person unless they are of the opinion that the prosecution will lead to conviction with a reasonable prospect of certainty. This principle is designed to protect innocent persons from prosecution. 4.5 The State party is aware that it has a duty to initiate an investigation when complaints related to acts of racial discrimination are filed. An investigation must be carried out with due diligence and expeditiously, and must be sufficient to determine whether or not an act of racial discrimination has occurred. 4.6 The State party points out that upon receipt of the complaint regarding Ms. Frevert’s website, the Copenhagen Police initiated an investigation of the case. When interviewed, both Ms. Frevert and Mr. T. stated that the webmaster had created the website and that he had uploaded the relevant material without Ms. Frevert’s knowledge. The agreement was that only articles and contributions approved by Ms. Frevert were to be posted on the website. By mistake, 35 articles by Mr. T. were posted on the website in unedited form and without Ms. Frevert’s prior approval. When the mistake was discovered, the articles were removed. The webmaster was charged with violation of section 266b of the Criminal Code. 4.7 The State party contends that the police investigated the matter thoroughly. Once it appeared that the articles were posted without Ms. Frevert’s knowledge, the public prosecutors rightly assessed that it would not be possible to prove that she had intended a wide dissemination of the statements. Criminal proceedings could therefore not be expected to result in her conviction and the public prosecutors therefore decided not to prosecute her. That the investigation against Mr. T. remains pending shows that the police takes reported acts of racial discrimination seriously and investigates them thoroughly and effectively. The State party argues that the police made a thorough investigation of the matter, that the material was examined in full and that the arguments presented by the DACoRD were taken into consideration, in accordance with article 6 of the Convention. The investigation revealed Ms. Frevert’s lack of intent to violate section 266b of the Criminal Code. The fact that the case had another outcome than wished by the petitioner is irrelevant. Ms. Frevert’s book 4.8 Under section 749(1)7 and section 742(2)8 of the Administration and Justice Act, the public prosecutor must assess whether a criminal offence subject to public prosecution was 6 “Section 96. (1) It is the duty of the public prosecutors, in cooperation with the police, to prosecute offences according to the rules of this Act. (2) The public prosecutors shall dispatch any one case at the speed permitted by the nature of the case, and shall thus ensure not only that guilty persons are held responsible, but also that prosecution of innocent persons does not occur.” 7 See above. 8 “Section 742. (1) Criminal offences must be reported to the police. (2) The police shall institute investigations upon a report lodged or on its own initiative when it may reasonably be presumed that a criminal offence subject to prosecution has been committed.”