CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 races; and (d) it created a kind of general and absolute exception (“the public debate”) to the crime of incitement to discrimination or hatred. As for the film Fitna, the court considered that “the movie viewed as a whole does not incite to hatred, in the context of the public debate, in which the necessary warning, in the view of the defendant, against Islam as a religion is stressed”. The court made that finding despite the future Netherlands it depicted, with people hanged because of their homosexuality and women killed for not obeying the laws of Allah. 3.2 The acquittal deprived article 137d of the Criminal Code of its meaning and effectiveness, although it was intended to implement article 4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and article 20 of the Covenant. The acquittal is also not consistent with other judgments of national courts in relation to hate speech. Because of Mr. Wilders’ position as a politician and his role in the public debate, the Court gave priority to freedom of expression and failed to protect the authors from increasing racism and hatred against Muslims. While article 20 of the Covenant is couched in terms of the State’s obligations rather than the rights of individuals, that does not imply that those matters are left to the internal jurisdiction of States and are, as such, immune from review under the Optional Protocol. If that were the case, the protection regime established by the Covenant would be significantly weakened. 3.3 Given the link between article 20 and articles 26 and 27 of the Covenant, the authors, as members of a minority in the Netherlands, are also victims of a violation of those provisions, as they have been deprived of the right to live their lives as members of the Muslim community undisturbed owing to increased intolerance, racism, xenophobia and anti-Muslim violence. The judgment did not balance their interests against Mr. Wilders’ freedom of expression. 3.4 Victims of a crime have a poor legal position under domestic law. They do not have the right to have witnesses heard and to discuss the facts and merits of the criminal case as such. They are allowed only to explain their claim for damages. As the issue at stake in the present case was whether Mr. Wilders’ statements constituted hate speech within the meaning of the law, and the authors were excluded from litigation of that issue in the courtroom, they have not been provided with an effective remedy pursuant to article 2 (3) of the Covenant, nor have they had a fair hearing regarding their claim for compensation within the criminal case, in accordance with article 14 (1). The violation of their right to a fair hearing was amplified by the fact that the prosecutor requested Mr. Wilders’ acquittal and, therefore, did not argue the case against him. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 The State party submitted observations on admissibility on 24 February 2012 and 28 May 2015. It disputes the admissibility of the communication for failure to exhaust domestic remedies, lack of victim status and ratione materiae. 4.2 On 31 March 2008, Mr. Rabbae lodged a criminal complaint against Mr. Wilders, but the prosecutor decided not to institute proceedings. On 21 September 2009, following a complaint by other parties (none of whom are authors of the present communication), the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered the prosecutor to start proceedings against Mr. Wilders for discrimination and incitement to hatred. On 21 February 2010, the authors joined the proceedings as aggrieved parties. On 23 June 2011, Mr. Wilders was acquitted. The authors’ claims were therefore declared inadmissible. 4.3 Article 20 of the Covenant is cast not in the form of a human right, but as an obligation on States to put in place legislation prohibiting the conduct described. Other articles use terms such as “all persons” and “everyone”. Reading article 20 in terms of a justiciable human right would, in essence, result in a human right to specific legislation, and no such right is recognized. Paragraph 2 has been duly implemented in the Netherlands through legislation that prohibits any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that 6