It exerts permanent influence in all political questions regarding Sinti and Roma and therefore has the authority to speak for the group it represents. In contrast, the petitioner criticized Mr. Sarrazin’s statements about “Turks” and “Arabs” without authorization to speak for these groups in general. The petitioner’s activity is restricted to the region of Berlin-Brandenburg and it represents only 26 Turkish organizations and many other Turkish and Arab organizations in the communities of Berlin and Brandenburg have no connection with the petitioner. Moreover, pursuant to rule 91 (b), of the Committee’s rules of procedure, the submission on behalf of the alleged victim(s) without authorization is only allowed in exceptional cases and the only reason why Ms. C.B. and Mr. S.Y. did not submit their communication to the Committee is because they had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. It submits that their fear of hostilities and attacks appears to be exaggerated, as their criminal complaint did not have such consequences and there was no reason to assume that the continuation of the proceedings would change that. 6.2On the merits, the State party reiterates that it has noted Mr. Sarrazin’s statements with great concern and that it disapproves of his opinion and welcomes the protests lodged against the statements from all sectors of society. Nevertheless, the State party reiterates that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements are protected by the freedom of speech and expression, which is guaranteed under German Basic Law. As his statements cannot be classified as hate speech, they are not punishable under criminal law. It notes that Mr. Sarrazin talked about his personal views and did not advocate for particular action such as violence or arbitrary measures against certain segments of the population, such as “Turks” and “Arabs”, and although he made negative statements about them, he did not express racial hatred. Referring to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the State party submits that the domestic authorities have the advantage of evaluating the facts and assessing Mr. Sarrazin’s statements, and therefore their decisions should be scrutinized only insofar as they may have infringed rights and freedoms of the European Convention on Human Rights. During the procedure for exclusion from the Social Democratic Party, to which Mr. Sarrazin belongs, he issued a declaration on 21 April 2011 clarifying that he did not want to discriminate against any groups but wanted to underline the necessity of integration of immigrants. 6.3The State party further submits that punishment for the expression of a personal opinion is one of the greatest encroachments on the freedom of expression and criminal law and should be used only as a last resort. Mr. Sarrazin did not express any form of hatred against Turks and Arabs, nor did he say that he regards them as inferior. His statement is not hostile and does not advocate for hostility or violence. With regard to the consequences of Mr. Sarrazin’s statement, the State party notes that the petitioner’s description is exaggerated and partial. It notes that, even if true, it is not a consequence of Mr. Sarrazin’s statement or book. The State party argues that there is no indication that the number of attacks against immigrants increased after Mr. Sarrazin’s statement. The State party observes that the various figures the petitioner puts forward are not comparable; there may have been an increase in negative attitudes against Muslims but not all of these are tantamount to racial discrimination and there is no indication that they increased after Mr. Sarrazin’s statements. With regard to the attacks against immigrants, death threats and hate mails against social scientists, the State party assures the Committee that every