CERD/C/67/D/30/2003 Page 6 advocacy to private organizations, and creates new responsibilities for those who are the targets of the racial discrimination. Exhaustion of domestic remedies 3.6 The authors submit that there are no available domestic remedies to be exhausted. The decision of the Supreme Court is final and there is no possibility of appeal. On the merits 3.7 In relation to the merits of the claim, the authors refer to the Committee’s General Recommendation No 15, paragraph 3, which requires States parties to penalize four categories of misconduct: dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred; incitement to racial hatred; acts of violence against any race, and incitement to such acts. They consider that the decision of the Supreme Court is incompatible with the Committee’s General Recommendation in relation to article 4 in this regard. 3.8 The authors note that, in the Committee’s recent concluding observations on Norway’s 15th periodic report, it noted that the prohibition on dissemination of racial hatred is compatible with the right to freedom of speech; article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights stipulates the same. The authors invoke paragraph 6 of General Recommendation No 15, which states that organizations which promote and incite racial discrimination shall be prohibited, and submit that the State party’s alleged failure to meet these requirements has been noted with concern by the Committee on previous occasions. 8 The authors submit that it is fully acceptable for a State party to protect democratic society against anti-democratic propaganda. In particular, they state that there is no basis for the Supreme Court’s conclusion that article 4 of the Convention does not require States parties to penalize the dissemination of ideas of racial superiority, given the Committee’s clear position on this issue. 3.9 The authors contend that the Supreme Court underestimated the danger of what it termed ‘Nazi rhetoric’, and that the object of article 4 is to combat racism at its roots. As the Supreme Court minority pointed out, Mr. Sjolie’s speech accepted and encouraged violent attacks on Jews, and paid homage to their mass extermination during World War II. In particular, the declaration that the group would follow in the Nazi’s footsteps and fight for what they believed in had to be understood as an acceptance of and incitement to violent acts against Jews. The use of the Nazi salute made clear that the gathering was not peaceful, and, given the Bootboys’ record of violence, the commemoration march was frightening and the incitement to violence evident. 3.10 The authors state that, in light of the Supreme Court’s decision, section 135a of the Penal Code is unacceptable as a standard for protection against racism. They therefore argue that the State party violated article 4 of the Convention, and consequently violated article 6, as the legal regime laid down by the Supreme Court necessarily implies that no remedies, such as compensation, can be sought. 8 The author refers to the 12th to 14th Period Reports (1996/1997) , Concluding Observations adopted by CERD at its 1242nd meeting (51st Session) on 21 August 1997, paragraph 13; and 15th Periodic Report (1999), Concluding Observations by CERD adopted at its 1434th meeting (57th Session) held on 23 August 2000, paragraph 14.