CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 affected him and continued to affect him personally” to a sufficient degree to establish his status as a victim.14 9.6 In the present case, the Committee notes that the authors do not bring abstract claims as members of the general population of the State party. The authors are Muslims and Moroccan nationals, and allege that Mr. Wilders’ statements specifically target Muslims, Moroccans, non-Western immigrants and Islam. The authors are therefore members of the category of persons who were the specific focus of Mr. Wilders’ statements. They also allege that they feel personally and directly affected by Mr. Wilders’ hate speech and suffer the effects of it in their daily lives, including through attacks on the Internet, and that they have been adversely affected by the signal given to the public, through the acquittal, that Mr. Wilders’ conduct is not criminal. The authors joined the criminal proceedings as alleged injured parties pursuant to section 51 (a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Committee also notes that Mr. Rabbae chairs the national consultation body of Moroccans in the Netherlands, complained about Mr. Wilders’ statements to the police and spoke in court about research data on intolerance and racism and the position of Moroccans in the State party. A.B.S. testified before the court that in 2010, she had been run into by a bicyclist who had screamed at her making explicit reference to Mr. Wilders’ statements. The third author, N.A., after testifying before the court on the impact of Mr. Wilders’ statements, received numerous threatening messages, as a result of which she decided not to testify again. In view of the foregoing, the Committee considers that the authors are members of the particular group targeted by Mr. Wilders’ statements and thus persons whom article 20 (2) is intended to protect, and that Mr. Wilders’ statements had specific consequences for them, including in creating discriminatory social attitudes against the group and against them as members of the group. The Committee therefore considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, that their claims are not merely hypothetical. 9.7 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that article 20 of the Covenant is not cast in terms of a justiciable right. However, the Committee considers that in stating that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”, article 20 (2) provides protection for people as individuals and as members of groups against that type of discrimination. The article is designed to give specific recognition to the prohibition of discrimination set forth in article 26 of the Covenant, by identifying a limitation that States parties must impose on other enforceable Covenant rights, including the principle of freedom of expression under article 19.15 The Committee considers that article 20 (2) does not merely impose a formal obligation on States parties to adopt legislation prohibiting such conduct. Such a law would be ineffective without procedures for complaints and appropriate sanctions. The invocation of article 20 (2) by individuals who have been wronged therefore follows the logic of protection that underlies the entire Covenant.16 9.8 The State party argues that the communication falls outside the scope of the Covenant since, according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, an individual cannot compel the State to commence criminal proceedings against a third person or to impose punishment. The Committee notes the authors’ comments in this respect that their claim is about the lack of an effective prosecution. The Committee also notes the authors’ allegations about the limited role given to them, as injured parties, in the criminal proceedings, as they could not, for instance, call on witnesses, participate or provide 14 15 16 See communication No. 488/1992, Toonen v. Australia, Views adopted on 31 March 1994, paras. 2.52.6 and 5.1. See the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, paras. 51-52. See communication No. 1570/2007, Vassilari et al. v. Greece, Views adopted on 19 March 2009, appendix, para. 1. 15