X hits on this document





33 / 38

on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination which have involved restrictions on the access to satisfaction. We should like to illustrate by recent examples.


On January 10, 2009 a pro-Israeli demonstration took place at the City Hall Square in Copenhagen. A pro-Palestinian counter-demonstration took place and was separated from the first demonstration by the police. A group of the participants in the latter demonstration was shouting “Death to Jews” and “All Jews must be exterminated all over the World”. They flashed Nazi-Heil salutes. The incident was shown on national television news the same evening. One of the shouting demonstrators was using a megaphone for his shouts, and the news report showed several police officers were standing nearby.


On 22 January 2009 DACoRD made a formal report of the incident to the Copenhagen Police stating a violation of The Danish Criminal Code Section 266b, and added a link to a video sequence in evidence. DACoRD also asked if the Police had taken the matter under examination by its own motion since there had been an opportunity for direct intervention. DACoRD further asked for reasons if no such intervention had taken place.


The incident gave rise to several reports to DACoRD, and the initial report to the Police was later supplemented by a report by DACoRD on behalf of Mosaisk Troessamfund [The Jewish Community], which added the observation that the threats apparently were made by one of the organizers of the demonstration, and not by a stray demonstrator. The President of the Jewish Community later also complained on his own behalf, since he had been present at the City Hall Square and he was thereby directly affected by the death threats. DACoRD further submitted a separate individual complaint on behalf of an individual from Funen, who had also been present at the square.


In the first (collective) complaint the Copenhagen Prosecuting Authority on 18 May 2009 notified DACoRD that the Regional Public Prosecutor on 12 May had decided to close the investigation into the case, The reason stated was that the police had not been able to ascertain to identity of the perpetrator. The only evidence was a video sequence where the perpetrator could be seen and heard, but this had not sufficed for identification. A similar decision was made by the Regional Public Prosecutor on 14 December 2009 in the individual complaint. It was added here that the police was not in possession of personal information on any of the participants in the demonstration, including the demonstration leader.


In the individual complaint DACoRD had also specified a complaint over the police omission during the demonstration to take action against the criminal acts, either by arresting the perpetrator or at least securing information on his identity – which is a general power of the police in any situation. This part of the complaint was referred to the Police Director. The deputy director of the Copenhagen Police replied on this part on 22 Dec. 2009 recognizing that there was a clear violation of the Criminal Code Section 266b, but noting on the other hand that the primary task of the police during the demonstration had been to secure law and order. In view of the noisy and aggressive mood of the demonstration and its subsequent [DACoRD clarification] violent character, the Deputy Director, however, did not find reason to criticise the police for insufficient attention to the threats in question. DACoRD appealed the decision on 19 January finding that it would hardly be a compelling reason not to add a single additional arrest – to the other 75 arrests made in later incidents. Furthermore, an arrest had not been necessary, if the person in question had been asked to identify himself. The Regional Public Prosecutor

Document info
Document views126
Page views126
Page last viewedMon Jan 16 11:44:55 UTC 2017