petitions, and the Government refused to pay compensation in the follow-up procedure.
In the Committee’s views on case no. 40/2007, Murat Er v. Denmark, the Committee similarly held, that the State party should grant the petitioner adequate compensation for the moral injury caused by the violations under art. 2 (1)(d),5(e) and 6 of the ICERD. Again the State party refused. DACoRD had submitted a Note of 14. December 2007 to the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights Entity, containing a statement of claims under three headings (compensation in tort, costs at the High Court level in the domestic proceedings for the opponent according to the judgment and for own costs) totaling a compensation of DKR 115.000. The case was further complicated by the fact that the Complaints Committee for Ethnic Equal Treatment of the Danish Institute of Human Rights– which had originally found a discrimination on ground of ethnicity in the case in a decision of 20 December 2007 on its own motive submitted a recommendation to the Ministry of Justice against compensation in case, without knowing the claim and acting ultra vires, as it was outside the competence of the Committee to consider, whether a person, who has been subjected to discriminatory treatment on account of race or ethnic origin, is entitled to damages for economic loss or compensation for non-economic injury. The Government submitted the Statement by the Complaints Committee to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination as its first response and subsequently refused to comply with the Views of CERD. This appears in part to be at the strong urging of the Technical School, which was responsible for the original discrimination in the case, which was concerned over ramifications in similar cases, including the pending Gavrani case. In DACRD’s reply in the follow-up procedure reference was also made to a general survey from the research entity of the Rockwool Foundation, that the issue in the Murat Er case is part of a much broader and persistent practice. Consequently, DACoRD requests the Committee to remain seized with the Murat Er case in the follow-up procedure and to consider the dialoque with the State party as ongoing with a view to implementation. DACoRD is of the view that failure to implement the Views of the Committee is incompatible with the obligation to respect in good faith the procedure of individual communication established by the Convention, cf. General Comment No. 33 of the Human Rights Committee (2008) on the Obligations of the State Parties under the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, para. 16ff.13
Far from not cooperating with the Views of Treaty bodies the official Danish posture was stated in February 2007, when Denmark was a candidate for a seat on the Human Rights Council. Denmark assured its respect for human rights and pledged “to ensure effective enjoyment of human rights domestically: …By submitting fully to independent monitoring of human rights protection domestically through cooperation with international and national monitoring bodies as well as by complying with their recommendations."14
For further information relevant to the status of the Convention, please see the specific observations on Article 6 below.
13 DACoRD points to A.K.H.A. v. Norway case, Com. No. 1542/2007 as an effective follow-up procedure and the response of the Norwegian authorities as a model dialogue, see CCPR/C/98/3, p. 11.
14 Note verbale dated 2 February 2007 from the Permanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations addressed to the President of the General Assembly. UN Doc. A/61/742 Agenda item 105 (2) …election of fourteen members of the Human Rights Council.