CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 defendant on this subject and included in the case file, and the context in which the statements were made”. The indictment did not concern individual statements; the second and third counts in the indictment listed 28 statements together. Thus, the authors are incorrect that the court did not consider the statements in context and their cumulative effect. 6.12 The court did not draw an artificial distinction between criticism of Islam and criticism of Muslims. For incitement to either hatred or discrimination, section 137d requires that a statement refer unequivocally to a specific group of persons who are characterized by their religion and distinguish themselves from others by their religion. The judgment also shows that the distinction between criticism of Islam and criticism of Muslims should not be taken literally in every case. 6.13 The authors criticize Mr. Wilders’ acquittal of incitement to hatred and discrimination on account of race because, according to the court, the “race” ground could not apply to Moroccans and non-Western immigrants. The court did hold that the race component of the charge could not be proven. However, that does not mean the court believed that that ground can never apply to Moroccans and non-Western immigrants. Nor would such a conclusion correspond to existing domestic jurisprudence, which holds that the definition of race also covers descent and national and ethnic origin. 6.14 For some of the statements, the importance of public debate informed the court’s decision to find “incitement to discrimination” not proven. That assessment is in line with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights under article 10 (2) of the European Convention, which considers that it is essential to allow scope for political debate and that restrictions on political utterances may be imposed only for extremely compelling reasons. 6.15 The court found that, at the time the statements were made, multicultural society and immigration were major topics of public debate. The fiercer the debate, the more scope for freedom of expression is needed, and in such circumstances statements may even offend, shock or disturb. The court held that Mr. Wilders’ statements were not of a nature that they should be deemed criminal as excessive and hence excluded from public debate. Thus, the court did not make public debate an absolute exception, but indicated in general terms the boundaries of when incitement to hatred and discrimination may arise. The authors also do not accurately describe the film Fitna. 6.16 For those reasons, the State party believes that the communication does not violate article 20 of the Covenant. Given the close connection between the authors’ references to articles 26 and 27 and article 20, and given that they have not offered any separate grounds regarding articles 26 and 27, the State party confines its observations to article 20. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 The authors submitted their comments on 30 November 2015. They argue that, in its report of 20 June 2013 on the Netherlands, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance welcomed the Amsterdam District Court’s discussion during its consideration of Mr. Widlers’ case of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on freedom of political expression, but noted that in Féret v. Belgium, the European Court indicated that in principle, limiting hateful expression that justifies intolerance can be considered necessary in democratic societies if the restrictions are proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. An appeal in Mr. Wilders’ case to accurately reflect European Court case law would, therefore, have been warranted. 7.2 With respect to articles 2 (3) and 14 (1), the authors deny that they claim a right to have Mr. Wilders convicted. Their claim concerns the lack of an effective prosecution. The prosecutor did little to make the prosecution effective, as shown by the decision to entrust the prosecution to the same individuals who initially decided a prosecution was not warranted. That, in addition to their half-hearted attempts to secure a conviction and the 11