CERD/C/71/D/36/2006 Page 7 State party’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication 4.1 On 10 November 2006, the State party made its submissions on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On admissibility, it submits that the claims fall outside the scope of the Convention and that the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case for purposes of admissibility, as a large number of the various statements comprised by the communication concerns persons of a particular religion and not persons of a particular “race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin” within the meaning of article 1 of the Convention. However, the State party acknowledges that it is possible to argue to a certain extent that the statements refer to second-generation immigrants and set up a conflict between “the Danes” and them, thereby falling to some degree within the scope of the Convention. 4.2 The State party further submits that the part of the communication relating to the statements in Ms. Frevert’s book is inadmissible under article 14, paragraph 7 (a), of the Convention, as the petitioner has not exhausted all available domestic remedies. When the Commissioner of the Copenhagen Police decided, on 18 October 2005, to discontinue investigation of the case against Ms. Frevert in relation to the publication of her book, the petitioner did not appeal the decision to the Regional Public Prosecutor. Thus, he has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and the part of the communication concerning the statements in the book should be declared inadmissible. 4.3 On the merits, the State party disputes that there was a violation of articles 2, paragraph 1 (d), 4 and 6 of the Convention. On the claim that the documentation presented to the police should have motivated it to initiate a thorough investigation of the matter, the State party argues that the Danish authorities’ evaluation of the petitioner’s reports of alleged racial discrimination fully satisfies the requirements of the Convention, even though they did not produce the outcome wanted by the petitioner. The Convention does not guarantee a specific outcome of cases on alleged racially insulting statements, but sets out certain requirements for the authorities’ investigation of such alleged statements. The State party argues that these requirements have been satisfied in the case, as the Danish authorities did take effective action, by processing and investigating the reports lodged by the petitioner. Ms. Frevert’s website 4.4 The State party indicates that under section 749(2) of the Administration and Justice Act5, the police may discontinue an investigation already initiated when there is no basis for continuing the investigation. In criminal proceedings, the prosecutor has the burden of proof that a criminal offence was committed. It is important for the sake of due process that the evidence is of certain strength for the courts to convict an accused. Pursuant to section 96(2) 5 “Section 749. (1) The police shall dismiss a report lodged if it deems that there is no basis for initiating investigation. (2) If there is no basis for continuing an investigation already initiated, the police may decide to discontinue the investigation if no charge has been made (…). (3) If the report is dismissed or the investigation is discontinued, those who may be presumed to have a reasonable interest therein shall be notified. The decision can be appealed to the superior public prosecutor under the rules of Part 10.”