CERD/C/71/D/36/2006 Page 9 committed. If there is no basis for assuming that a criminal offence has been committed, the public prosecutor has to dismiss the report. The Commissioner of the Copenhagen Police discontinued the investigation concerning the book as it had been published for the purpose of generating a political debate, and as it contained no specific statements that might fall under section 266b of the Criminal Code. In addition, the DACoRD did not mention in its report which statements it considered to fall within the scope of that provision. 4.9 The State party emphasises that there were no problems of evidence and no need for the police to continue the investigation, as the police was in possession of the book in question, and both Ms. Frevert and Mr. T. were interviewed on this matter. Both stated that the disputed contribution to the book was written by Mr. T., but that this contribution had been edited and approved by Ms. Frevert, who was responsible for the publication of the book. The only question left for the Police Commissioner was whether there were statements in the book that could be considered to fall within the scope of section 266b of the Criminal Code. After a thorough analysis of the book’s contents, he considered that the statements were broad and clearly published as part of a political debate in anticipation of the upcoming election. This legal assessment was thorough and adequate, and the public prosecutor’s handling of the case satisfied the requirements that can be inferred from article 2, paragraph 1(d), and article 6 of the Convention. Statements made by Ms. Frevert in the newspaper “Politiken” on 30 September 2005 4.10 The State party recalls that it does not follow from the Convention and the jurisprudence of the Committee that prosecution should be initiated in all cases reported to the police, in particular if no basis is found for prosecution. In this case, there were no problems of evidence, as the statements were printed in the newspaper as quotations of Ms. Frevert, and therefore there was no need for the police to initiate an investigation to identify the specific contents or the originator of the statements. 4.11 The State party argues that the legal assessment made by the public prosecutors was thorough and adequate. They evaluated the statements in the light of the fact that they were made by a politician in the context of a political debate about religion and immigrants, and balancing the protection of the right to freedom of expression, protection of the freedom of religion and protection against racial discrimination. The statements must be seen in the context in which they were made, namely as contributions to a political debate about religion and immigrants, and without regard as to whether the reader supports Ms. Frevert’s viewpoint on these issues. A democratic society has to make room for a debate about such viewpoints, within certain limits. The prosecutors considered that the statements were not so gross that they could be deemed “insulting or degrading” within the meaning of section 266b of the Criminal Code. 4.12 The State party argues that the right to freedom of expression is particularly imperative for an elected representative of the people. She represents her electorate, draws attention to their preoccupations and defends their interests. Accordingly, interferences with the freedom of expression of a Member of Parliament, like Ms. Frevert, call for close scrutiny on the part of public prosecutors. In this case, they interpreted section 266b in the light of the context in which the statements were made and with due consideration of the fundamental principle of the right to freedom of expression for a Member of Parliament. The State party concludes that the public prosecutors’ handling of the case satisfies the requirements that can be inferred from article 2, paragraph 1(d), and article 6 of the Convention.