12.2The issue before the Committee is whether the State party fulfilled its positive obligation to take effective action against reported statements of racial discrimination, having regard to the extent to which it investigated the petitioner’s complaint under paragraphs 130 and 185 of the Criminal Code. Paragraph 130 of the Criminal Code criminalizes any manner of expression that is capable of disturbing the public peace by incitement to hatred against segments of the population or calling for violent or arbitrary measures against them; or by assaulting the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments of the population. It also criminalizes incitement of hatred against segments of the population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by its folk customs, calls for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated group. Paragraph 185 of the Criminal Code criminalizes insult. 12.3The Committee recalls its earlier jurisprudence according to which it does not suffice, for the purposes of article 4 of the Convention, merely to declare acts of racial discrimination punishable on paper. Rather, criminal laws and other legal provisions prohibiting racial discrimination must also be effectively implemented by the competent national tribunals and other State institutions. This obligation is implicit in article 4 of the Convention, under which States parties undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, racial discrimination. It is also reflected in other provisions of the Convention, such as article 2, paragraph 1 (d), which requires States to prohibit and bring to an end, by all appropriate means, racial discrimination, and article 6, which guarantees to everyone effective protection and remedies against any acts of racial discrimination. 12.4The Committee notes the petitioner’s claim that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements in the magazine “Lettre international” No. 86 (2009) discriminated against it and its members, who are all of Turkish heritage, as the Turkish population was presented as a segment of the population who live at the expense of the State and who should not have the right to live on the territory of the State party and that the State party failed to provide protection against such discrimination. It also notes the petitioner’s argument that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements had led to public vilification and debasement of Turks and Muslims in general. It further notes the petitioner’s claims that the absence of criminal prosecution of Mr. Sarrazin amounts to a violation by the State party of articles 2, paragraph 1(d); 4, paragraph (a), and 6, of the Convention, as the domestic legislation was narrowly interpreted. The Committee notes that the State party disapproves of Mr. Sarrazin’s opinion, but argues that the provisions of its Criminal Code sufficiently translate its obligations to provide effective legal sanctions to combat incitement to racial discrimination and that the State party’s authorities correctly assessed that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements are protected by the right to freedom of expression and do not amount to incitement, nor do they refer to segments of the population as inferior. The Committee further notes the State party’s argument that the decisions by its criminal prosecution authorities were neither manifestly arbitrary nor did they amount to a denial of justice and that there was no indication of an increased risk for the petitioner or its members of becoming victims of future criminal acts.