CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 appealed because the Procurator General concluded that the case was not suitable for such an application. 8.3 In national criminal proceedings, the victim does not have a status equivalent to the defendant and is not a party to the proceedings. There is no obligation under the Covenant to make victims equivalent parties to criminal proceedings. Giving victims a separate right to prosecute would undermine the prosecutor’s monopoly on prosecutions and the pursuit of prosecutions in the public interest. Accordingly a victim cannot produce witnesses at trial, question them or have them questioned. However, victims can make their views known to the public prosecutor before the trial and can request that a particular witness be summoned. 8.4 There is no clear dividing line between social criticism and incitement to violence, hostility and discrimination. Under European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence in Perinçek v. Switzerland, establishing whether certain statements constitute incitement to hatred or violence requires a case-by-case approach based on the nature and the potential effects of the statements and the context in which they are made. Statements made in the context of public debate are entitled to a large measure of protection. 8.5 The assessment of a statement must be objective and cannot depend on the perception or degree of injury, since they differ from one person or group to another. The assessment is made on the basis of the meaning of the words on their own and the meaning of the statement in conjunction with the rest of the utterance. Possible recipients of the message are also taken into account, because to interpret statements it may be necessary to view them within the circumstances of the case and in the light of the associations they evoke. 8.6 The distinction between statements relating to persons and statements relating to a religion is essential, inter alia, for freedom of expression to allow criticism of religions or the behaviour of individuals. Moreover, although the district court gave no further reasons for its decision that the race component of the charge could not be proven, that does not mean that the court disregarded the definition employed by the Supreme Court, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, on which the prosecutor relied. It is likely that the court concluded that the component “on account of their race” was not proven. 8.7 The authors do not substantiate their claim under article 17. Their view that article 17 protects the right to collective identity is not supported. In addition, the authors have not demonstrated that Mr. Wilders’ utterances hindered them in the enjoyment of their religion or cultural customs and traditions in community with others. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 9.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with article 93 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 9.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 9.3 With regard to the exhaustion of domestic remedies under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the Committee notes the State party’s contention that because Mr. Wilders was not convicted, the authors’ civil claim within the criminal proceedings could not be examined. Moreover, it is uncontested that the authors can still bring a separate civil action against Mr. Wilders before a civil court on the grounds of an unlawful act, pursuant to article 6:162 of the Civil Code, even if they do not seek compensation. A 13