10.Even if I agreed that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements incited to racial discrimination or contained ideas of racial superiority, I would not agree that the State party violated the Convention by failing to prosecute him. The Convention does not require the criminal prosecution of every expression of ideas of racial superiority or every statement inciting to racial discrimination. Rather, the Convention leaves States parties with discretion to determine when criminal prosecution would best serve the goals of the Convention while safeguarding the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 of the Convention. In past decisions, the Committee has recognized the “principle of expediency,” which it has defined as “the freedom to prosecute or not prosecute.” The Committee has explained that this principle “is governed by considerations of public policy” and that “the Convention cannot be interpreted as challenging the raison d'être of [this] principle.” In the light of these decisions, commentators have correctly noted that “[t]he obligation to criminalize should not be understood as an absolute duty to punish.” Rather, “[t]he Committee . . . acknowledge[s] a margin of appreciation for prosecuting authorities.” 11.In its General Recommendation 15, the Committee has asserted that “the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the right to freedom of opinion and expression.” This is far from saying, however, that the right to freedom of expression is irrelevant to the construction or implementation of article 4. As explained above, in the light of the “due regard” clause, concerns about freedom of opinion and expression are directly relevant to the interpretation of the term “ideas based on racial superiority.” Furthermore, even if the “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred” is not protected by the right to freedom of opinion and expression, it does not follow that the criminal prosecution of such dissemination poses no risks to the freedom of opinion and expression. Criminal punishment is the most severe form of punishment the State can impose. A threat of criminal prosecution has the distinct tendency to cause persons to forgo conduct that the law does not prohibit, particularly if the statutory language is unclear. In the context of laws prohibiting speech, this phenomenon is known as the “chilling” effect of such laws. Thus, even if the types of speech described in article 4 are not protected by freedom of expression, an aggressive approach to enforcement can deter people from exercising their right to engage in speech that is protected. For this reason, application of the principle of expediency to the “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred” does not contradict General Recommendation 15. 12.A State party might permissibly decline to prosecute on the ground that criminal prosecution in a particular case would impede rather than advance the goals of the Convention. For example, criminally prosecuting statements that are not clearly prohibited could have the perverse effect of making a “freedom of expression” martyr of the speaker, who could claim governmental heavy-handedness and imposition of “political correctness.” If the initial statement was not widely disseminated, criminal prosecution could make matters worse by giving undue prominence to a statement that might otherwise have been quickly forgotten. Criminal prosecution might, indeed, magnify the psychic pain experienced by the targeted groups by giving wider publicity to the denigrating statements. Depending on the circumstances, a State party might reasonably conclude that criminal