should be respected. The statements made by Mr. Sarrazin should be assessed in the framework of the special social context of Germany, adding to the general pattern of incitement to racial hatred against the Turkish population, which in the circumstances can be even more dangerous than openly flaunted racism, which is easier to combat. With the termination of the investigation against Mr. Sarrazin, the petitioner claims that it was arbitrarily denied protection against racially discriminatory statements directed against it as a group of individuals of Turkish heritage and as the representative of this group and the propagation thereof represents a violation of articles 2 (1 (d), 4, (a) and 6. 3.4With regard to article 4 (a), of the Convention, the petitioner notes that an effective criminal prosecution had not taken place when the Public Prosecution refused to introduce criminal proceedings against Mr. Sarrazin and the State party implicitly tolerates a repetition of similar statements. Therefore, in violation of article 6 of the Convention, effective protection has been denied. State party’s observations on admissibility and merits 4.1On 23 December 2010, the State party submits its observations on admissibility and merits. The State party recalls the facts and adds that, at the time of the interview, Mr. Sarrazin was working on his book “Germany is self-destructing”, which was published in August 2010. In his book, Mr. Sarrazin gave an opinion on the situation of Germany. He predicted future developments concerning poverty and inequality, the job market, motivation to work, equality in education, the demographic development, immigration and integration. In all these areas, he made direct and controversial statements. 4.2The State party notes that it does not in any way share or condone Mr. Sarrazin’s views as expressed in his interview with the Lettre international, however it submits that this does not mean that it was under an obligation to prosecute Mr. Sarrazin for uttering them. The State party submits that the Committee should find the communication inadmissible, as the petitioner lacks standing to submit a communication, pursuant to article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention in conjunction with article 91 (b) of the Committee’s Rules of Procedure. Being a legal entity, the petitioner is not in a position to claim that it is the victim of a violation of any of the rights set forth in the Convention. The Turkish Union in Berlin-Brandenburg is not directly affected in its own rights by the statements of Mr. Sarrazin. The integrity of the complainant as a legal entity is not a right that can be violated. The petitioner does not mention any concrete influence of the statements in its work. It notes that in this respect, the case differs from the facts in communication No. 30/2003 (Jewish Community of Oslo et al v. Norway). In that case, on a march in commemoration of the Nazi leader Rudolf Hess, a racially discriminating speech was made. As a result of this, there was increased “Nazi” activity, and a marked increase in violence against blacks and political opponents. This understandably instilled fear and had a serious influence on the Jewish community and its work. In the present communication, no effects of the interview can be noted that would make the petitioner a “victim” and the e-mails the petitioner received after the interview do not amount to such serious adverse effect.