CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 difference case under civil law where rules of evidence may vary and where the authors would have greater latitude in substantiating their case. 6. The stand taken by the State Party is absolutely clear on this issue and is enunciated in paragraph 4.4 State Party’s Observations on admissibility. The authors still have the option of bringing a civil action in tort against Wilders pursuant to article 6:162 of the Civil Code. The State Party goes further in stating that a successful civil action would give the authors the opportunity to seek an injunction preventing Wilders from making future statements of the same nature and also to request a declaratory decision that Wilders’ statements were contrary to law. In taking this stand the State Party agrees that the authors may still claim victim status before a Civil Court. It is our view that the authors may well make out their case as victims and have a fair chance to secure the civil remedies available to them. They would even be able to appeal to higher courts should they fail to convince the Court at first instance. 7. In paragraph 4.8 of the State Party’s case it is mentioned that criminal proceedings have been instituted against Mr. Wilders for making similar statements in 2014. Thus an earlier independent civil action by the authors could have had a strong restraining effect on the subsequent conduct of Mr. Wilders. 8. For the above mentioned reasons, the authors’ claim is inadmissible under article 5(2)(b) of the Optional Protocol as they have failed to show that they have exhausted the domestic remedies available to them. 20