## Facts

- Robert Faurisson, a French–British national and former university professor, publicly denied the existence of Nazi extermination gas chambers, including at Auschwitz.
- In 1990, France enacted the Gayssot Act, amending the 1881 Press Law to criminalize contesting crimes against humanity as defined in the Nuremberg Charter.
- After the law’s enactment, Faurisson gave an interview criticizing the law and reiterating that gas chambers were a “myth” and “fabrication.”
- Survivors’ associations and others brought a private criminal prosecution against Faurisson and the magazine editor.
- French courts convicted Faurisson under the Gayssot Act and imposed a fine; the conviction was upheld on appeal.
- Faurisson filed an individual communication under the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.
- The Human Rights Committee found the communication admissible as to Article 19 (freedom of expression) and later issued Views on the merits.

## Issues

1. Whether France violated ICCPR Article 19 by convicting Faurisson for contesting crimes against humanity under the Gayssot Act.
2. Whether the restriction met Article 19(3)’s requirements that it be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate.
3. How ICCPR Article 20(2)’s prohibition on advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred informs the permissible scope of restrictions under Article 19.

## Decision

- The Human Rights Committee found no violation of Article 19.
- The Committee accepted that the interference with expression was provided by law through a clear statutory prohibition.
- The Committee concluded the law pursued legitimate aims, including protecting the rights and reputations of others and safeguarding public order by combating racism and antisemitism.
- The Committee determined the conviction and fine were necessary and proportionate in context, given the relationship between Holocaust denial and antisemitic hostility.
- The Committee read Article 19 in conjunction with Article 20(2), treating Holocaust-denial speech of this kind as falling within the domain of prohibited advocacy of hatred.
- Several Committee members wrote separate opinions disputing, in varying ways, whether criminal punishment was truly necessary and whether the speech met the Article 20(2) threshold.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions on expression under ICCPR Article 19(3) must cumulatively be: (1) provided by law, (2) directed to a listed legitimate aim, and (3) necessary and proportionate to that aim.
- Protecting the rights and reputations of others, and protecting public order through measures against racism and antisemitism, can be legitimate aims supporting restrictions on certain forms of expression.
- In assessing necessity and proportionality, the content and social context of the expression may be considered, including whether the expression contributes to hostility against a protected group.
- ICCPR Article 19 must be interpreted consistently with Article 20(2), which obliges states to prohibit advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence.
- Criminal sanctions may be compatible with Article 19(3) when limited in severity and justified by the state’s interest in preventing discriminatory hostility.

## Conclusion

The Human Rights Committee upheld France’s application of the Gayssot Act to Holocaust-denial statements, concluding that the conviction and fine were a lawful, legitimate, and proportionate restriction on expression under Article 19(3), reinforced by the Covenant’s anti-incitement obligations in Article 20(2).


Faurisson v. Fr., Comm. No. 550/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/58/D/550/1993 (Hum. Rts. Comm. 1996)