CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence. The Committee’s case law also suggests that article 20 (2) cannot be invoked under the Optional Protocol.5 4.4 Joining the criminal proceedings against Mr. Wilders as aggrieved parties amounted to bringing a civil action in the context of a criminal case. Since Mr. Wilders was not convicted, the civil claim could not be examined. However, the authors could have brought a separate civil action against Mr. Wilders before a civil court pursuant to article 6:162 of the Civil Code.6 A person is liable under that article if an unlawful act was committed, the perpetrator is at fault, there is pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage and there is a causal link between the act and the damage done. An unlawful act or omission is committed if a right is violated, the act or omission is contrary to a statutory duty or the act or omission is contrary to a rule of unwritten law pertaining to proper social conduct. Statutory duties include treaty provisions with direct effect, including most provisions of the Covenant. A civil suit on the grounds of an unlawful act can be effective even after an acquittal in a criminal proceeding, and some cases to determine whether statements are lawful have been successful. Even if the authors do not seek compensation, a successful civil action could give them the opportunity to ask for a ban on future statements by Mr. Wilders or to request a declaratory judgment that Mr. Wilders’ statements were unlawful. A decision of a civil court is open to appeal. The authors still have the possibility of bringing a civil action against Mr. Wilders. 4.5 Mr. Rabbae has not shown that he is a victim of a violation of the Covenant. He simply states that he chairs a national consultative body of Moroccans and that he spoke at Mr. Wilders’ trial. The second and third authors claim that they have been deprived of their undisturbed lives as members of the Muslim community without any protection by the State party. Nevertheless, they have failed to establish that the statements in question had specific consequences for them, or that such consequences were imminent, would personally affect them and that they needed the State’s protection. Had they needed such protection, they could have lodged a criminal complaint. The understanding of a victim by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination is not comparable to the definition of a victim by the Human Rights Committee, particularly since the authors of the communication that was brought before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, The Jewish Community of Oslo et al. v. Norway,7 were not permitted to join the criminal proceedings and had no remedy in that State party. The fact that the authors joined the criminal proceedings as aggrieved parties also cannot be equated with recognition of victim status by the domestic court. In that proceeding, their victim status would be assessed only after the defendant was convicted. The trial court thus did not have the opportunity to assess their victim status under domestic law. 4.6 The communication is in essence an actio popularis,8 as the authors failed to establish that the statements would personally affect them. The authors sought only €1 each 5 6 7 8 See communication No. 1570/2007, Vassilari et al. v. Greece, Views adopted on 19 March 2009, para. 6.5. Article 6:162 provides that: (a) a person who commits an unlawful act that can be attributed to him against another person must repair the damage that the other person has suffered as a result thereof; (b) a tortious act is regarded as a violation of someone else’s right (entitlement) and an act or omission in violation of a duty imposed by law or of what according to unwritten law has to be regarded as proper social conduct, always as far as there was no justification for the behaviour; (c) a tortious act can be attributed to the person committing the tortious act if it results from his fault or from a cause for which he is accountable by virtue of law or generally accepted principles (common opinion). See Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, communication No. 30/2003, The Jewish Community of Oslo et al. v. Norway, Views adopted on 15 August 2005. See communication No. 1868/2009, Andersen v. Denmark, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 26 July 2010, para. 6.4. 7