CERD/C/67/D/30/2003 Page 10 their communication to the Committee, some three years after the comments were made. The State party submits that there is no basis to distinguish the present case from the Committee’s earlier decision in the Danish case. 6.4 The State party further submits that the individual petitioners, and most likely the Jewish Communities, could have filed proceedings against Mr. Sjolie for criminal defamation, which is open to persons who feel targeted by denigrating or defamatory speech under articles 246 and 247 of the Criminal Code. Had they done this, the petitioners could have joined their action for criminal defamation to the criminal proceedings already underway against Mr. Sjolie. The petitioners could thereby have had an impact on the proceedings. While sections 246 and 247 are not directed specifically against discrimination, they are applicable also to racist statements. In its decision in Sadic v Denmark,13 the Committee noted that the notion of an ‘effective remedy’ for the purposes of article 6 of the Convention is ‘not limited to criminal prosecutions based on provisions which specifically, expressly and exclusively penalize acts of racial discrimination.’ It extends to ‘general provisions criminalizing defamatory statements, which is applicable to racist statements’. The Committee stated in the same decision that ‘mere doubts about the effectiveness of available civil remedies do not absolve a petitioner from pursuing. 6.5 Finally, the State party submits that, should the Committee declare the communication admissible and consider it on the merits, it should bear in mind that the government is proposing significant enhancements of the protection offered by s135a, and that a White Paper has been presented to Parliament on possible amendments to s100 of the Norwegian Constitution. It is too early to inform about the outcome of the legislative process, and the State party will elaborate further upon this in the course of its next periodic report to the Committee. 6.6 In their reply dated 22 August 2004, the petitioners state that the Danish case referred to by the State party is distinguishable from their own case, as the criminal proceedings in that case had been discontinued by the police, without any action being taken by the authors to press civil or criminal proceedings against the alleged perpetrator. In the present case, Mr. Sjolie’s comments were held by the Supreme Court to be protected by the constitutional right to freedom of speech, and consequently any action by the authors would be futile. They further submit that the applicability of defamation law to racist speech is an unresolved issue in Norwegian law, and for this reason defamation laws are not invoked in cases dealing with racist speech. They state that it would have been untenable for the authors to seek to consolidate defamation proceedings to the criminal proceedings instituted by the authorities; they are not aware of this ever having happened before. Decision on admissibility 7.1 At its 65th and 66th sessions, the Committee considered the admissibility of the communication. 7.2 The Committee noted the State party’s submission that the authors had not exhausted domestic remedies because none of them complained to the authorities about Mr. Sjolie’s conduct; reference was made to the Committee’s decision in the POEM and FASM case. However, as the authors pointed out, the POEM and FASM 13 Communication 25/2002, 21 March 2002, paragraph 6.3.