CERD/C/67/D/30/2003 Page 13 the State party draws attention to recent changes in Norwegian law which strengthen legal protection against the dissemination of racist ideas. It argues that, following the adoption of recent changes to s100 of the Constitution and s135a of the Penal Code, the authors can no longer be considered ‘potential victims’ of racial discrimination contrary to the Convention; any possible violation could only relate to the period preceding the adoption of these amendments. 8.5 A completely revised version of section 100 of the Constitution entered into force on 30 September 2004, affording the Parliament greater scope to pass laws against racist speech, in conformity with its obligations under international conventions. Parliament has since used this new power to amend s135a of the Penal Code, to provide that racist remarks may be subject to prosecution even if they are not disseminated among the public. Racist statements made negligently are now also proscribed – intent need not be proved. The maximum punishment has been raised from 2 to 3 years imprisonment. The balance between s135a and freedom of speech, however, must be weighed by the courts in each case. According to the State party, these recent amendments contradict the authors’ assertion that the verdict in the Sjolie case would serve as a precedent, and that it will be more difficult to prosecute dissemination of ideas of racist discrimination and hatred. The State party further refers to the adoption of a new Discrimination Act, which incorporates the Convention, and provides criminal sanctions for serious cases of incitement to or participation in discrimination, thus supplementing the new provisions of s135a. The government is also developing a new Anti-Discrimination Ombudsman with a mandate to monitor and enforce these new provisions. 8.6 The State party submits that, in light of the above changes in the State party’s laws, and their effect on the authors as ‘potential victims’, the Committee should reconsider its decision on admissibility, pursuant to Rule 94, paragraph 6, of its Rules of Procedure, at least as far as the communication raises questions regarding the general legal effects of the Supreme Court’s judgment.17 8.7 Finally, the State party notes that the authors have not identified how the remarks of Mr. Sjolie have had adverse effects on their enjoyment of any substantive rights protected by article 5 of the Convention. Authors’ comments on State party’s submissions on the merits 9.1 In their comments on the State party’s submissions dated 4 July 2005, the authors invoke their earlier submissions, in which issues relating to the merits were addressed. They emphasize that it remains undisputed that, under Norwegian law as it presently stands, only three of the four relevant categories of racial discrimination referred to in article 4 of the Convention are penalized; contrary to article 4 and Recommendation 15, dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred may go unpunished. 9.2 In relation to the State party’s request for the Committee to reopen the question of admissibility of the complaint, the authors state that the Committee must review and assess the communication on the basis of the facts at the material time, and not on the basis of legislation adopted subsequently. In any event, the new 17 The submission then reads: ‘The government however trusts the Committee to undertake any required assessments at this point’.