CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 during the proceedings. The authors claim that their aim was to clarify the boundaries of the law, and the court’s judgment means that they succeeded. The fact that the ultimate outcome of the court’s assessment was not in the authors’ favour does not constitute ineffective enforcement of legislation. Article 2 (3) does not guarantee the authors a favourable outcome of the available remedy, let alone the right to a conviction. Any guarantee of a conviction would be incompatible with the fundamental principle of the right to a fair trial. Thus there has been no violation of article 2 (3). 6.2 With respect to article 14 (1), national criminal law allows anyone who has suffered direct damage as a result of a criminal offence to join the criminal proceedings as an aggrieved party to claim compensation. Article 14 does not require greater protection for the rights of an aggrieved party in criminal proceedings than the rights recognized under domestic law. Those rights under domestic law include the rights to submit evidence of damage suffered, to question witnesses and experts in relation to compensation and to explain the claim. The authors’ aim was to influence the criminal proceedings and convince the court that Mr. Wilders had exceeded the limits of what is permissible in public debate. However, the norm that the legislator aimed to protect through the proceeding was the right to compensation for damage suffered. Under domestic law the authors are not permitted to play any other role, such as influencing the criminal proceedings. 6.3 The authors’ contention that no arguments in favour of conviction were presented to the court is incorrect and they ignore the central role of the court in criminal proceedings. A criminal court seeks to independently establish the truth and is responsible for ensuring a full examination at the trial. The submissions of the prosecution and the defence are not decisive. The judge presides over the hearing, questions the defendant, examines witnesses, enters into discussions with parties and responds to all those factors in the judgment. 6.4 In 2008, three legal academics issued separate reports on the legal merits of prosecution in order to assist the Public Prosecution Service in deciding whether or not to prosecute. The reports were added to the case file. A full examination subsequently took place at the trial and witnesses were questioned. Everything that the authors wished to put forward came before the court. Thus there has been no violation of article 14. 6.5 Regarding the claim under article 20, it is not disputed that that provision has been implemented correctly through section 137d of the Criminal Code. The aim of both article 20 of the Covenant and section 137d of the Criminal Code is to outlaw incitement to hatred, but it is for the national courts to decide whether incitement to hatred has actually occurred. Article 20 has been highly controversial among States, resulting in very different forms of implementation. Domestic courts are best placed to assess whether specific utterances are punishable, as they possess the entire case file and can fully assess the criminality of the acts concerned. If review by the Committee is possible, it must be restricted; it is not for the Committee to re-evaluate the findings of the court on whether Mr. Wilders’ acts and statements are punishable under criminal law. That is particularly pertinent since article 20 does not provide for individual rights. 6.6 Article 20 (2) does not prohibit all negative statements concerning national groups, races or religions. However, a statement that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence must be banned. That provision is controversial owing to the underlying fear that a broad ban will be abused by governments or will discourage citizens from engaging in legitimate democratic debate. The distinction between articles 19 and 20 is that it is only the specific forms of expression indicated in article 20 that States must prohibit by law. Under the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression, even statements that offend, shock or disturb are permissible. In principle, great value should be attached to statements by politicians, parliamentarians, trade union leaders or other public figures, but it is also vital that elected representatives avoid public utterances that could foster intolerance. Inciting the exclusion of foreigners fundamentally undermines human rights and thus everyone, including parliamentarians, should be extremely cautious in their utterances. At the same time, those who choose to 9