4.3The State party acknowledges the possibility that an association can act on behalf of a member or a group of its members, provided it is authorized to do so. However, the State party submits that even if all or some members of the petitioner might be victims, the petitioner itself is not authorized to submit an individual communication and the bylaws of the petitioner do not provide any basis for such authorization. Furthermore, the petitioner does not provide any justification as to why it is acting on behalf of its members without due authorization. Although the Turkish Union supports equitable co-existence in society without discrimination, it only gives legal support against discrimination and the members do not join the organization to be legally represented. 4.4With regard to the merits, the State party submits that the goal of German policy is to create a climate where racist statements and crimes are proscribed and thus deterred. Racially motivated crimes are prosecuted and punished with determination. On the other hand, freedom of speech is even applicable to information or ideas that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population. With regard to the petitioner’s claim of a violation of article 4 (a) of the Convention, the State party notes that the focus of this provision is on legislative action and that the provisions of the German Criminal Code (GCC) are sufficient to provide effective legal sanctions to combat incitement to racial discrimination. The four categories of misconduct mentioned in article 4(a) of the Convention are penalized: (1) dissemination of ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred; (2) incitement to racial hatred; (3) acts of violence against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin; and (4) incitement to such acts. It explains that in order to find someone guilty of a crime under § 130 GCC, the existence of each required element of the crime must be established beyond reasonable doubt. By finding that, in this case, the prerequisites of § 130 GCC were not fulfilled, the State party did not violate the Convention. It notes that the order of termination of 16 November 2009 by the Office of Public Prosecution held that the statements did not reach the threshold of intensity which would amount to incitement. The interview – although polemical - did not call for particular actions such as violence or arbitrary measures. The Office of Public Prosecution clearly stated that the language used in the interview was inappropriate; however, it did not brand segments of population as “inferior” and the right to exist as equally worthy persons was not contested. Moreover, the statements did not qualify as an insult (§ 185 GCC), considering the context and the freedom of speech. The Prosecutor General shared this point of view in his decision of 22 February 2010. He added that the statements were made in the context of a critical discussion of economic and social problems in Berlin. There were no indications that Mr. Sarrazin intended to foment hostility against the groups described. 4.5The State party further maintains that the decisions by the criminal prosecution authorities were in conformity with article 4 (a) of the Convention. They were neither manifestly arbitrary nor did they amount to a denial of justice. As a consequence of the interview, there were several complaints from organizations and individuals of different nationalities; however the authorities concluded that considering the context, purpose and content of the statements, an offence of incitement to racial or ethnic hatred could not be established. It further notes that the context of the interview shows that Mr. Sarrazin expressed his personal views rather than giving any official or semi-official view. There