offence is criminally prosecuted and that there is no need to punish Mr. Sarrazin, as he did not cause or advocate for these offences. Petitioner’s further comments 7.1On 8 January 2012, the petitioner submits that it is not a quantifiable number of victims that determines the victim status of the petitioner but the way the acts were committed. The petitioner is an umbrella organization for persons of Turkish descent and represents a number of individuals and 27 member organizations. With regard to issues of migration and integration, the petitioner is the most visible and attentively heard voice in public and supports an independent project against all forms of discrimination. On these grounds it is entitled to represent the demographic group that has become a victim of a violation of the Convention. With regard to the fear of Ms. C.B and Mr. S.Y., the petitioner notes that it is not hypothetical, as a Social Democratic City Council member, Mr. D., has received a number of death threats since 17 May 2011 further to his demand that statements such as Mr. Sarrazin’s be categorized as incitement to ethnic hatred. It further observes that the police notified the petitioner on 21 November 2011 that it is on the list of the National Socialist Underground (NSU), as supposed enemies of Germany. The NSU is responsible for at least eight murders of individuals originally from Turkey. The public therefore considers that the petitioner represents persons from Turkey living in Germany. 7.2On the merits, the petitioner reiterates its previous submissions and reiterates that in light of the domestic jurisprudence, Mr. Sarrazin’s statements would have been treated differently if he had denigrated the population group of “Jews”. Mr. Sarrazin’s explanatory statement in the exclusion proceedings of the Social Democratic Party was demanded of him in order to prevent his exclusion and in order that criminal liability of racist incitement should not depend on a claim made two years after the initial statement. In domestic criminal proceedings, the motivation to incitement of ethnic hatred is an inner attitude, measured objectively by actions and not by statements of the perpetrator. 8.1On 20 January 2012, the petitioner submitted an amicus curiae brief by the German Institute for Human Rights (GIHR). GIHR notes that the term “racism” is often used in the context of organized right-wing extremism only. This perception has been criticized by the Committee and other international bodies. It notes that some prominent public figures supported Mr. Sarrazin and that he and the Social Democratic Party received a great number of approving letters and emails. Right-wing extremists espoused Mr. Sarrazin’s positions. In the internal sanction procedure by the Social Democratic Party, of which Mr. Sarrazin is a member, a scientific opinion was produced which described his statements in the interview as racist. The fact that the party procedure did not lead to his exclusion was met equally with criticism and approval. After the publication of Mr. Sarrazin’s book, he was presented as a political realist who breaks taboos on integration and immigration policy. In a number of magazines, newspapers and television shows, the alleged intellectual, social and character deficits of the Muslim population were discussed in a generalized fashion. The labels “Turks” or “Arabs” are applied as synonyms for Muslims. Occasionally, even public office-holders took up Mr. Sarrazin’s positions and thereby contributed to the stigmatization and stereotyping of Muslims in Germany. The debates