CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 presented the factual and legal issues in the case, and that the court was independently responsible for evaluating the law and evidence and entered judgment after a careful assessment in the light of the applicable law of each of Mr. Wilders’ statements in context. 10.7 The State party has chosen to establish a legislative framework through which statements contemplated by article 20 (2) of the Covenant are prohibited under criminal law, and which allows victims to trigger, and participate in, a prosecution. Such a prosecution was pursued in the present case, and the trial court issued a detailed judgment evaluating Mr. Wilders’ statements in the light of the applicable law. The Committee therefore considers, in the light of the arguments and the circumstances of the case, that the State party has taken the necessary and proportionate measures to “prohibit” statements made in violation of article 20 (2) and to guarantee the right of the authors to an effective remedy in order to protect them against the consequences of such statements. The obligation under article 20 (2), however, does not extend to an obligation for the State party to ensure that a person who is charged with incitment to discrimination, hostility or violence will invariably be convicted by an independent and impartial court of law.27 The Committee therefore cannot conclude that the State party violated article 2 (3), read in conjunction with articles 26 and 20 (2) of the Covenant. 11. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4), of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it do not reveal a breach of any provision of the Covenant. 27 18 See Vassilari v. Greece, para. 7.2.