CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 injured parties may submit evidence in support of their civil claim, but may not present witnesses or give their opinion on the merits of the criminal case.4 2.4 The authors and several other individuals and organizations of Muslims and migrants joined the criminal proceedings as injured parties, claiming from Mr. Wilders symbolic compensation of €1 each, with the aim of influencing the judicial decision by arguing that Mr. Wilders’ statements fell within the definition of criminal incitement. Their purpose was to clarify the limits of what can be said in political debate and to establish the practical meaning of their right to be protected from incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence. The claim for symbolic compensation was intended to convince the judge that Mr. Wilders had crossed the boundaries between what is acceptable in a democratic society and what is liable to punishment because of the harm it causes to society as a whole, to ethnic and religious minorities and to the authors personally. Such a pronouncement from the court would not have been possible in civil proceedings. 2.5 During the courtroom debate, the prosecutor asked for the dismissal of the authors’ claim on the grounds that they had not suffered direct damage as a result of a violation of articles 137c and 137d of the Criminal Code. Mr. Wilders asked for several experts to be heard, some of whom were refused by the court and others were questioned by an investigating judge. The authors’ lawyers were not allowed to attend the questionning. Initially, the court wanted to restrict the authors’ lawyers’ oral intervention to a strict explanation of their damages, but in the end it allowed them to speak about whether the facts of the charge were subject to punishment, since that was the basis of their civil claim for compensation under tort law, which supposes an unlawful act. The lawyers pleaded that Mr. Wilders’ statements violated articles 137c and 137d, but they were not allowed to address the prosecutor’s unwillingness to prosecute or to argue that the charge should lead to a conviction. Subsequently, after the composition of the court had changed, the authors were not allowed to present arguments concerning whether Mr. Wilders’ statements were against the law. 2.6 In its verdict of 23 June 2011, the court, after examining each of the statements set forth in the indictment, decided that the elements of the indictment could not be proven and acquitted Mr. Wilders of all charges. Consequently, the authors’ claims as injured parties were declared inadmissible. Neither the prosecutor nor Mr. Wilders appealed the judgment. The authors did not have a right to appeal and therefore have no further domestic remedies to exhaust. 2.7 The authors’ claims in the domestic proceedings and before the Committee relate to Mr. Wilders’ statements, which in their view, go beyond being insulting and amount to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence. They are statements that are not directed against Islam as a religion but against Muslims as human beings or against non-Western migrants, although the distinction between attacking Islam and attacking Muslims is hard to draw. The statements in question are as follows: (a) In an interview in de Volkskrant of 7 October 2006, responding to a question about what he would change if he were in power the following day, Mr. Wilders answered: (i) 4 “The borders will be closed the very same day for all non-Western residents”. Sect. 334 provides that at the court session, the injured party may submit documents as evidence of the damage or loss incurred as a result of the criminal offence, but may not present witnesses or expert witnesses. The injured party or the person who is assisting him may pose questions to the witnesses and expert witnesses, but only in regard of his claim for compensation. The injured party may explain and clarify or instruct a third party to explain and clarify his claim after the public prosecutor has addressed the court. He may again address the court each time the public prosecutor has addressed the court, or has been given the opportunity to address the court. 3