CCPR/C/117/D/2124/2011 to punish “dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred”. Moreover, as this Committee correctly notes, not all the conduct that falls within the scope of article 20(2) must be criminalized. The obligation is to “prohibit by law,” and civil or administrative sanctions can suffice (para. 10.4).e 5. It is uncontested in this case that both civil and criminal sanctions were available to address Mr. Wilders’ conduct under Dutch law. Indeed, the State party had established three means for sanctioning Mr. Wilders’ statements: criminal prosecution under articles 137c and d of the Criminal Code, as well as two forms of a civil remedies – a civil claim under article 6:162 of the Civil Code, and an action civile appended to a criminal prosecution under section 51(a) and (f) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The authors in this case chose to attempt to support a criminal judgment against Mr. Wilders by appending an action civile to the criminal prosecution – a form of domestic remedy that the Committee makes clear is not required by the Covenant (para. 10.3). In so doing, the authors pursued the most difficult path to a potential remedy. Under the domestic law of the Netherlands, pursuit of an action civile is dependent on the success of the underlying criminal prosecution, and the parties to an action civile are circumscribed in their ability to participate in the criminal proceedings, for reasons the State party explains. Moreover, securing a criminal conviction requires a higher standard of proof – beyond a reasonable doubt or its equivalentf – and generally a more demanding mens rea, than a civil proceeding. Finally, it is well established under the Committee’s jurisprudence that no individual is entitled to secure the prosecution of a particular person as a remedy for a violation of the Covenant. The Committee has made equally clear, ipso facto, that no person is entitled to secure the criminal conviction of another person.g 6. The Committee has not defined what constitutes either “advocacy” of hatred or “incitement” to discrimination, hostility or violence. Nor has the Committee specifically addressed what conduct should be understood as potentially warranting criminal penalties under article 20(2).h Dutch law, however, criminally implements the concept of “incitement” under article 20(2) by punishing “inflammatory behaviour that incites the commission of criminal offences or acts of violence” (para. 6.9). The authors do not contest this standard as a proper implementation of article 20(2). 7. Requiring incitement of “criminal offences or acts of violence” for imposition of criminal penalties under article 20(2) is consistent with the article 19 jurisprudence of this Committee, which urges great caution in the imposition of criminal penalties that punish speech. The Committee accordingly has called on states to decriminalize defamation, and has concluded that, without more, “laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible” with Covenant obligations regarding freedom of opinion e f g h 26 The negotiating history indicates that a proposal that incitement to racial hatred should constitute a crime (using the formulation “constitutes a crime and shall be punished under the law of the state”) was rejected in favor of an obligation to provide only for prohibition by law (“shall be prohibited by the law of the State”). UNGA, Draft International Covenants, supra, p. 186, para. 194. Netherlands Code of Criminal Procedure, section 338; General Comment No. 32, Article 14: Right to equality before courts and tribunals and to a fair trial (2007), para. 30 (“[N]o guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt”). Communication No. 1570/2007, Vassilari et al. v. Greece (Views adopted 19 March 2009), para. 7.2 (“An acquittal in itself does not amount to a violation of article 26 and in this regard the Committee recalls that there is no right under the Covenant to see another person prosecuted”); Communication No. 563/1993, Bautista de Arellana v. Colombia (Views adopted 27 October 1995), para. 8.6; Communication No. 213/1986, H.C.M.A. v. The Netherlands (Inadmissibility decision adopted 30 March 1989), para. 11.6. The inadmissibility decision in Communication No. 104/1981, J. R. T. and W. G. Party v. Canada (Indmissibility decision adopted 6 April 1983), para. 8(b), addressed civil proceedings restricting speech.