CERD/C/71/D/36/2006 Page 6 covered under the Criminal code section 266b. The DACoRD did not appeal the Commissioner’s decision. 2.9 The third complaint (relating to the interview) was rejected by the Commissioner of the Copenhagen Police on 9 February 2006, as there was no reasonable evidence to support that an unlawful act had been committed. In reaching this decision, the Commissioner took into consideration the principles of freedom of expression and free debate. He also took into account that the statements were made by a politician in the context of a public debate on the situation of foreigners. He considered that in light of the right of freedom of expression, the statements made by Ms. Frevert were not offensive enough to constitute a violation of section 266b of the Criminal Code. 2.10 On 19 May 2006, the Regional Public Prosecutor confirmed the police’s decision not to prosecute Ms. Frevert for the statements in the interview. He considered that the representation of Muslims and second generation immigrants by Ms. Frevert in the interview was not so offensive as to be considered insulting or degrading to Muslims or second generation immigrants within the meaning of section 266 b of the Criminal Code. This decision is final and cannot be appealed. 2.11 The petitioner argues that questions relating to the pursuance by the police of charges against individuals are entirely discretionary, and that there is no possibility to bring the case before Danish courts. Legal actions against Ms. Frevert would not be effective, given that the police and prosecutor have rejected the complaints against her. The petitioner refers to a decision of the Eastern High Court of 5 February 1999, where it was held that an incident of racial discrimination does not in itself imply a violation of the honour and reputation of a person under section 26 of the Act in Civil Liability4. The petitioner concludes that he has no further remedies under national law. 2.12 The petitioner indicates that he has not availed himself of any other procedure of international investigation or settlement. The complaint 3.1 The petitioner claims that the decision of the Copenhagen police no to initiate an investigation on the alleged facts, violates articles 2, paragraph 1(d); 4(a); and 6 of the Convention, as the documentation presented by the petitioner should have motivated the police to make a thorough investigation of the matter. He contends that there have been no effective means to protect him from racist statements in this case. 3.2 The petitioner further claims that the decisions of the Copenhagen police and the prosecutor to reject his complaints violate article 6 of the Convention. He contends that the Danish authorities did not examine the material in full and did not take his arguments into account. 4 See Communication No. 17/1999, B.J. v Denmark, Opinion adopted on 17 March 2000, paras. 2.4 to 2.6.