In the opinion of DACoRD on behalf of our client it is stressed that this argument by the Director for Public Prosecution will deny all victims of racial discrimination in connection to racial profiling etc. from the effective protection of the Danish law that was passed in order to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Since the prosecution does not consider such episodes whether carried out by the police or teachers or any others as falling within the scope of the 1971 Act, then the Danish Courts are prevented examining such cases, because only the public prosecution can take such cases to courts.
It is however clear that ICERD intends to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination including “ethnic profiling” by the police or other actors who undertakes visitation, and thus covers victims of such acts. Consequently, the interpretation by the prosecution of the Danish legislation - that was intended to implement all aspects of ICERD – effectively stops victims from the protection of the Danish Court system in this regard. It is the viewpoint of DACoRD that this interpretation is not correct, however, the Danish Court can not change this practice since they are never asked to look into the matter.50
50 See on ethnic profiling the decision by the Human Rights Committee in Com. No. 1493/2006 Williams v. Spain. See also the Euiropean Court of Human Rights, judgement of 12 Jan. 2010 in the case of Gillan and Quinton v. United Kingdom, Appl. No. 4158/05, where the Court warned of the risk of discrimination in the practice of general powers: “In the Court's view, there is a clear risk of arbitrariness in the grant of such a broad discretion to the police officer. While the present cases do not concern black applicants or those of Asian origin, the risks of the discriminatory use of the powers against such persons is a very real consideration” (para. 85)