Communication No. 38/2006

UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

The authors claimed that P. L.’s letter contained numerous discriminatory statements against Sinti and Roma. They argued that P. L. used racist and degrading stereotypes, going as far as stating that criminality was a key characteristic of Sinti and Roma. The Committee held that the State Party did provide effective legal sanctions to combat incitement to racial discrimination and that it is not the task of the Committee to be a trier of fact. To this end it found no violation of, amongst others, Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Link: https://juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/1732

Theme(s): Ethnic Hatred

Date: 22 February 2008

Description of applicant(s): Association

Brief description of facts: The authors claimed that P. L.’s letter contained numerous discriminatory statements against Sinti and Roma. They argued that P. L. used racist and degrading stereotypes, going as far as stating that criminality was a key characteristic of Sinti and Roma. In particular, they noted that the terms “maggot” and “parasitism” were used in the Nazi propaganda against Jews and Sinti and Roma. The authors claim that such a publication fuels hatred against the Sinti and Roma community, increases the danger of hostile attitude by police officers and reinforces the minority’s social exclusion. The authors claim that the decision of German courts not to initiate criminal proceedings left Sinti and Roma unprotected against racial discrimination and violated their rights as individuals and groups of, amongst others, Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination.

(Alleged) target(s) of speech: Roma, Sinti

The Committee’s assessment of the impugned speech:

The Committee held that the State Party did provide effective legal sanctions to combat incitement to racial discrimination and that it is not the task of the Committee to be a trier of fact. To this end it found no violation of, amongst others, Article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

Important paragraph(s) from the decision:

7.7 On the merits, the main issue before the Committee is whether the provisions in the GCC provide effective protection against acts of racial discrimination. The petitioners argue that the existing legal framework and its application leave Sinti and Roma without effective protection. The Committee had noted the State party’s contention that the provisions of its Criminal Code are sufficient to provide effective legal sanctions to combat incitement to racial discrimination, in accordance with article 4 of the Convention. It considers that it is not the Committee’s task to decide in abstract whether or not national legislation is compatible with the Convention but to consider whether there has been a violation in the particular case. The material before the Committee does not reveal that the decisions of the District Attorney and General Prosecutor, as well as that of the Brandenburg Supreme Court, were manifestly arbitrary or amounted to denial of justice. In addition, the Committee notes that the article in “The Criminalist” has carried consequences for its author, as disciplinary measures were taken against him.

ICERD Article: 4

Decision: No violation