A/HRC/2/6 page 15 58. The primary difficulty in resolving the potential incompatibility between article 19, paragraph 3, and article 20, paragraph 2, is in relation to the necessity part of test for restrictions on freedom of expression. In large part, this is a question of what constitutes incitement, dealt with earlier. 59. It is also significant that the right to hold opinions is not subject to restriction, article 19, paragraph 3, being applicable only to article 19, paragraph 2, and not to Article 19, paragraph 1, protecting opinions. This means that everyone is free to hold any opinions they wish, even racist and genocidal opinions. It is only where opinions are articulated that international law may permit restrictions. D. The scope of sanctions and remedies 60. When and how far a State may act to prohibit incitement is uncertain, and options range from banning the media to criminal sanctions. Article 20, paragraph 2, of ICCPR requires that the included speech be “prohibited by law”, whereas article 4 of CERD and article 13, paragraph 5, of ACHR require included speech to be an “offence punishable by law”. 61. In practice, most States have some form of criminal hate speech provisions, although many of these do not extend to all forms of speech specified in article 4(a) of ICERD. The more stringent language of ICERD has led most CERD members to support a primarily criminal law approach,52 although civil or administrative regimes may also be said under certain circumstances to impose punishment. For example, the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) has adopted a policy recommendation on legislation to combat racism which spells out quite clearly what they consider different branches of law should cover in this area. While they recognize an important role for the civil and administrative law, they also recommend that certain forms of hate speech should be subject to criminal sanction.53 62. General Comment No. 11 of the Human Rights Committee54 refers to a law which makes it clear that the activities are “contrary to public policy” and which provides for an “appropriate sanction” in case of a violation. The notion of “sanction” suggests criminal or administrative law, but civil law remedies could also be understood to satisfy this standard. 63. International courts have sought to the limit application of criminal sanctions to restrict speech because these are deemed very intrusive. 55 In many countries, it is possible to bring a civil suit for compensation for discrimination, for example in the workplace, including where this is propagated by means of speech. The Council of Europe Recommendation on hate speech, for example, calls for greater attention to civil law remedies leading to compensation for hate speech.56 The same Recommendation refers to the possibility of providing for a right of reply and/or retraction for hate speech. 64. Various administrative measures may be used to address racist speech. For example, many countries have administrative systems for addressing discrimination. Indeed, several of the cases discussed above are based on the application of measures by administrative antidiscrimination bodies at the national level.57 These systems allow for the application of administrative measures in response to speech that amounts to discrimination, as well, of course, as other forms of discrimination.