CERD/C/71/D/40/2007 Page 7 submitted to it.3 It further recalls that the issue is to determine whether the applicant was offered effective protection and remedies against an alleged and concrete act of racial discrimination. It considers that the more general and abstract issues raised by the petitioner should more rightly be dealt with by the Committee, in connection with the examination of Denmark’s periodic report under article 9 of the Convention. 4.6 The State party recalls that article 2, paragraph 1 (d), is a policy statement and that the obligation contained therein is, by its nature, a general principle. In the State party’s view, this article does not impose concrete obligations on the State party and, even less, specific requirements on the wording of a possible national statute on racial discrimination. On the contrary, State parties enjoy a significant margin of appreciation in this regard. Concerning article 5 (e) (v), the State party notes that, although being more concrete in obliging States parties to guarantee equality before the law in relation to education and training, it also leaves a significant margin of appreciation to them with regard to the implementation of this obligation. 4.7 The State party notes that the Act on Ethnic Equal Treatment offers individuals a level of protection against racial discrimination which, in certain aspects, such as the rule of shared burden of proof of section 7 and the explicit protection against victimisation of section 8, goes further than the protection required by the Convention. It notes that this law was effectively implemented by both national courts in examining the petitioner’s case. It further notes that both the City Court and the High Court thoroughly assessed the evidence submitted and heard the petitioner and all key witnesses. Therefore, these Courts had an adequate and informed basis for assessing whether the petitioner had been a victim of racial discrimination. The State party adds that the petitioner’s complaint was also examined by the Complaints Committee for Ethnic Equal treatment and, even if it does not constitute an “effective remedy within the meaning of article 6, by the Technical School at a Manager’s meeting, which resulted in a warning to the training instructor and a written reply to the petitioner. 4.8 According to the State party, the fact that the applicant was not granted legal aid in the High Court proceedings does not imply that these proceedings cannot be considered an effective remedy. 4.9 With regard to the petitioner’s claim that the Danish courts do not interpret Danish legislation in accordance with the Convention, the State party notes that this is a general statement and does not refer to the petitioner’s own case.4 It further notes that, in any event, it is not the Committee’s task to review the interpretation of Danish law made by national courts. Nevertheless, the State party contends that both national courts in the petitioner’s case 3 The State party refers to the Human Rights Committee’s Views in MacIsaac v Canada (Communication No. 55/1979), adopted on 14 October 1982, para. 10. 4 The State party invokes the Committee’s Views in Michel Narrainen v Norway (Communication No. 3/1991), adopted on 15 March 1994, paras. 9.4 and 9.5.