Sarrazin debate were assessed to be held by 55% of the population and social scientists who publicly criticized Mr. Sarrazin received death threats and hundreds of hate e-mails. The petitioner disagrees with the State party and notes that Mr. Sarrazin’s statements in the interview led to public vilification and debasement of “Turks”, “Arabs” and Muslims and it became socially acceptable to have these types of opinions. 5.2With regard to the admissibility, the petitioner recalls the Committee’s jurisprudence and notes that it represents the Turkish community and as a consequence of Mr. Sarrazin’s statements, all “Turks” have been vilified through insulting and racist statements. The petitioner therefore notes that all members of the ethnic group “Turks” are victims or potential victims in the sense of article 14 of the Convention. It notes that the increase in racial hatred in society has a direct consequence on the mandate of the petitioner whose work is to promote a climate of mutual respect and of freedom from discrimination. Furthermore, it is not necessary to have been subjected to a physical attack to become a victim under the Convention. Referring to the Committee’s jurisprudence, the petitioner submits that, in accordance with its by-laws it supports its members against discrimination in and outside court and that the by-laws of the association can be interpreted to the effect that the petitioner should take any necessary action on behalf of its members to fight against discrimination and support them when they are victims of discrimination. Its two members, who are listed by name, decided not to continue proceedings out of fear of verbal attacks, abuses or threats in public, as even well-known persons and academics were victims of such abuses. 5.3.With regard to the merits, the petitioner recalls that Mr. Sarrazin, as a former finance senator of Berlin and thereafter Board member of the German Central Bank, should be considered as a State party official. Even if he did not make the statements in his official capacity, the State party should be obliged to prohibit such statements. As a consequence of the publication of his book, Mr. Sarrazin voluntarily resigned from the Board of the German Central Bank, however only after receiving an increase in his pension. The petitioner reiterates that it considers articles 2, 4 and 6 to have been violated, as the authorities narrowly interpreted the domestic legislation, contrary to other cases concerning similar statements made by right-wing extremists against Jews. This amounts to unequal treatment. It also notes the statement of the right-wing extremist National Democratic Party (NPD), which stated that after the dismissal of the investigative process against Mr. Sarrazin, it will be difficult to sentence members of the NPD on grounds of incitement to ethnic hatred. Lastly, no other domestic remedies were available to the petitioner. Further observations by the State party on admissibility and merits 6.1On 1 June 2011, the State party submitted further observations on admissibility and merits and compares the present communication with communication No. 38/2006. The State party reiterates that the petitioner does not become a victim pursuant to article 14, paragraph 1, because of its nature or activities. It notes that there are important differences between the petitioner and the petitioner in communication No. 38/2006, as the Central Council of German Sinti and Roma is the biggest and most important organization representing Sinti and Roma in Germany and there are regional groups all over the country.