E/CN.4/1996/72/Add.3 page 50 The examination proceedings will come up against the problem of determining the public nature of the offence and classifying the acts reported in criminal terms as incitement to racism. On 9 November 1992, an association was registered with the sub-prefecture of Fontainebleau for the purpose “of holding an open debate and conducting a scientific investigation into the question whether gas chambers were used to kill people during the Second World War” and “of obtaining the rehabilitation of persons prosecuted for contesting those facts”. Following proceedings in which a number of incidents occurred, the Fontainebleau High Court found the association to be invalid and ordered that it should be dissolved on the basis of article 7 of the Act of 1 July 1901. Since the lawful nature of its purpose is a basic condition for the validity of an association, the court considered that, on the basis of its statutes, this association had been established publicly to contest the existence of the crimes against humanity committed by the National Socialists during the Second World War, an activity prohibited by article 24 bis of the Act of 28 July 1881 on Freedom of the Press (No. 93-127 A4). B. Manifestations of racism punished by the criminal courts An analysis of the case law identified by the criminal courts applying anti-racist legislation to specific cases helps to understand the situation with regard to racist behaviour and ways of, and the problems involved in, punishing them. It may be useful to look at some examples taken from proceedings and decisions on racism. (1) Proceedings on charges of incitement to discrimination, hatred or racial violence On 6 January 1994, the fourth correctional division of the Lyon Court of Appeal sentenced the mayor of a small town in central France to a 10,000 franc fine with a suspended sentence and the publication of the judgement because, in June 1993, he published an article in the town newsletter of the commune which contained the following passages: “Immigration is flooding our commune. What is worse, the immigrants are all of one nationality, and this encourages an anti-French feeling of duality. Why this proliferation of immigration, this occupation? What has happened to integration? Insecurity is already partly the results of this immigration: problems in school, bullying, attacks (...). From the time of Charles Martel to that of Charles de Gaulle, the French have been capable of making a clean sweep when necessary. I think they still could if they were asked to”. The court, upholding the ruling in first instance, recalled that it was not unlawful for a mayor to state his views on immigration and crime. However, “he should do so without naming the Turkish settlement in X... as being the cause of all the unpleasantness in the commune and without using pejorative terms”. The court concluded that an article of this kind was liable to “stir up hatred between the two communities” and held that the accused was guilty on the grounds of incitement to racial hatred. The sentence is now final (No. 93-1013 A4).