5 April 2013 Original: English Committee on the E limination of Racial Discrimination Communication No. 48/2010 Individual opinion of Committee member Mr. Carlos Manuel Vazquez (dissenting) 1.This Communication concerns the relation between a State party’s obligation under the Convention to combat hate speech and its obligation to protect the freedom of opinion and expression. On the one hand, “[f]reedom of opinion and freedom of expression are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person” and “constitute the foundation stone for every free and democratic society.” On the other hand, article 4 of the Convention provides that States parties are to “declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred [and] incitement to racial discrimination.” Under this provision, “States parties have not only to enact appropriate legislation but also to ensure that it is effectively enforced.” The question before the Committee is whether the State party violated article 4 by failing to prosecute Mr. Sarrazin for certain statements he made in an interview published in the cultural journal Lettre Internationale. 2.The interview with Mr. Sarrazin contains statements that are bigoted and offensive. The Convention, however, does not require the criminal prosecution of all bigoted and offensive statements. In Zentralrat Deutscher Sinti und Roma v. Germany, for example, the Committee found no violation of the Convention even though the State party had declined to prosecute statements that the Committee found to be “discriminatory, insulting and defamatory.” The German government has disavowed and criticized Mr. Sarrazin’s statements. Chancellor Merkel has denounced them as “simple blanket judgments” and “stupid.” The Berlin Office of Public Prosecution investigated his statements but decided to terminate the investigation upon concluding that the statements did not amount to incitement to racial hatred or qualify as an insult under German criminal law. The General Procurator reviewed the decision of the Berlin Office of Public Prosecution and determined that the investigation had been correctly terminated, noting, inter alia, that Mr. Sarrazin did not characterize members of the Turkish minority as “inferior beings” or “bereave [sic] them of their right to life as an equally worthy person.” Both decisions were extensively explained in writing. The Committee, on the other hand, has concluded that the State party violated its obligation under the Convention when it decided not to pursue further the criminal prosecution of Mr. Sarrazin. Standard of Review 3.As the Committee recognizes, to find a violation the Committee must conclude that the State Party acted arbitrarily or denied justice. In the context of speech prohibitions, this deferential standard is particularly appropriate. The pertinent officials of the State party