2.4On 21 December 2009, the petitioner submitted a written complaint, challenging the decision of the Office of Public Prosecution. On 24 February 2010, the Prosecutor General informed the petitioner that it was not entitled to file a formal complaint against the decision of the Office of Public Prosecution, because it was not the “injured party” within the meaning of article 172 (1), sentence 1, of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Prosecutor General, however, reviewed the facts of the case in his supervisory role and decided that the Office of Public Prosecution in Berlin had correctly terminated the proceedings. He established that Mr. Sarrazin’s comments were made in the context of a critical discussion about; inter alia, structural problems of an economic and social nature in Berlin. 2.5In addition to the petitioner, two individual members of the petitioner, Ms. C.B. and Mr. S. Y. filed a complaint against Mr. Sarrazin to the Office of Public Prosecution. These proceedings were also terminated. The complaints against the termination of investigative proceedings against Mr. Sarrazin were rejected in an identical way by the Prosecutor General. Due to personal reasons, these individuals have not taken any further legal action. 2.6Domestic remedies have been exhausted with the termination of the investigative proceedings on the basis of article 170 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Further legal action is not available and the six-month deadline for the submission of an individual communication to the Committee should be counted from 16 November 2009, despite the review of the complaint by the Prosecutor General in his supervisory role. 2.7According to article 172 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, proceedings aimed at forcing the public prosecution service to initiate criminal charges are not available to the petitioner as a union or association. For the same reason, it cannot file a constitutional complaint to the Federal Constitutional Court. According to the decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 22 June 2006 (the umbrella organization in the Sinti und Roma case), only individual members of a group, not the association itself, can be affected in their human dignity within the meaning of article 130 of the Criminal Code. An institution cannot initiate legal proceedings to obtain criminal prosecution, since only natural persons can invoke human dignity. 2.8With regard to the victim status pursuant to article 14, paragraph 1, of the Convention, the petitioner argues that the association’s aim is the conduct of events, conferences, forums, working groups on various topics, counselling of institutions and authorities on the topic of integration policy, dissemination about issues of concern to persons of Turkish heritage, support for persons in Berlin and Brandenburg on legal and social questions through counselling, courses, seminars, as well as the holding of cultural events, discussions etc. and counselling in and out of court against discrimination (see 1.1 above). The association represents persons of Turkish heritage and works towards equality and non-discrimination in society, in particular for persons of Turkish heritage. In line with the Committee’s jurisprudence in communications No. 28/2003, Documentation and Advisory Centre on Racial Discrimination v. Denmark, No. 30/2003, Jewish community of Oslo v. Norway and No. 38/2006, Central Council of German Sinti und Roma et al. v. Germany, TBB, as a legal entity representing the interests of the Turkish citizens and citizens of Turkish