in the instant case has been slow and ineffective from the very time of the demonstration and the Danish authorities have failed in their positive duty to conduct effective investigations. Fourthly, when it comes to filing of international communications DACoRD is specifically mentioned in the explanatory report for the Act no. 940 on assistance to victims of human rights violations of 20 Dec. 1999 as an example of an organization bringing complaints to international bodies. In cases under Section 266b it is therefore only logic that DACoRD has the requisite capacity to assist victims of transgressions in bringing complaints to the Danish Police on behalf of the affected victims, having received a power of attorney to do so.
Furthermore, in the view of DACoRD the object of Section 266b of the Criminal Code is to protect the interests and safety of whole groups, Jews or other minority groups in Denmark. This is in contrast to Section 266 (individualized threats) and it is the very reason for the introduction into the law in 1939 of Section 266b since Section 266 did not cover statements like “We will kill all Jews”. The minority groups in question cannot in Denmark initiate proceedings according to 266b in a Danish Court, as this competence is entirely with the Danish Public Prosecution. As long as the prosecution takes the cases to court this is not a problem, because this correspond with the international human rights standards by which the State party is obliged to secure the human rights. It is then up to the Danish Courts to decide whether or not a violation took place or not. The problem is the fact that the Danish prosecution over a longer period of time systematically has barred the Danish Courts from having the possibility to look into the cases and strike the right balance between the freedom of association and expression and the right not to be subjected to hate speech and incitement to violence, simply because of your belonging to a minority group, religion etc. Thus, it is a prerequisite for effective victim status at the international level, that the victim also has an effective legal interest at the domestic level with a right to be informed of the status of the report to the police and a right to complain. It cannot be presumed – as suggested by the Director of Public Prosecution in his 18 Feb. 2010 decision - that an individual member of a minority group or a representative organization should be joined by all other group members to have a special interest in the case in order to complain. The protected interest in Section 266b is an objective, general community interests on which the aggrieved party should be able to rely.
Those individuals and individual members of groups of individuals, who are ‘victims’ are indeed those persons who suffers from the effect of the crime/human rights violation. Consequently, those individuals who are ‘victims’ under ICERD art. 14 or Article 1 of the First Protocol to ICCPR must also be considered ‘victims’ according to national law. However according to the prosecution authority the complainants in the two cases above only have a “reasonable interest” to be informed of the decision to discontinue the investigation (Sec. 749 § 3 of the Administration of Justice act), but no “legal interest” in the case and thus she do not qualify to the right to appeal the administrative decision. A proposition that the ‘interest’ of the complainants should also be ‘legal’ (not only ‘reasonable’) is not meaning full at all. Standing as a party with a right to complain in the administrative phase of the decision to investigate or not is determined by the relevance of the interest which the aggrieved person wishes to protect seen in relation to the object and purpose of the legislation in question. In the instant case the object of Section 266 b is to protect racially or ethnically delimited groups against hate speech, threats, propaganda, incitement and violence. If the consequences of the act in question has a certain weight is surpasses the balance of what should be endured. If there is no right to complain, there is no remedy and accordingly no protected right under Section 266b and ICERD Art. 4. Ubi jus, ibi remedium. In other words the right to complain – which is not