That is not what the document says. It's what RC apologists say who hope to take the heat off of Rome's ungodly defense of the indefensible.
Read paragraph 13 of Crimen Sollicitationis...
"13. The oath of keeping the secret must be given in these cases also by the accusers or those denouncing [the priest] and the witnesses. To none of these, however, is there subjection to a censure, unless by chance toward these same persons some censure has been expressly threatened upon the person himself, for his accusation, his deposition or of his violation (Excussionis?) [of such] by act. The accused, however, should be most seriously warned that even he, with all [the others], especially when he observes the secret with his defender, is under the penalty of suspension a divinis in case of a transgression to be incurred ipso facto. "
Rome swears to secrecy, under penalty of excommunication, even the accuser and anyone else involved with the proceedings, including parents.
The more light shown on Rome, the more rancid its lies become.
Rome reaps what it has sown.
Christopher Hitchens is wrong about everything regarding Christianity except one thing - Ratzinger belongs in jail.
Very telling.
1) Crimen sollicitationis is only applicable to sollicitation within the sacrament of Confession; it does not apply to acts outside of Confession.
2) "In these cases" refers to the judicial case, not the crime. Victims and witnesses can still go to the police to report the original act; they are just forbidden to report on the internal church judicial proceedings. What is so hard to understand here?
3) Did you not notice the line in your own quote: "To none of these [accusers and witnesses] IS THERE SUBJECTION TO A CENSURE…" ? Your own quote shows that they ARE NOT SUBJECT TO EXCOMMUNICATION.