CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

GE.23-25034 (E) 240124 250124

Human Rights Committee

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the

Optional Protocol, concerning communications

No. 3089/2017, No. 3092/2018 and No. 3093/2018*, **

Communications submitted by:

Irina Nasirova, Nellya Kitaeva, Oybek Hasanov,

Ibodillo Juraev and Aloma Khodjaeva (all

represented by counsels, Shane H. Brady and

Haykaz Zoryan)

Alleged victims:

The authors

State party:

Uzbekistan

Date of communications:

23 August 2017 (initial submissions)

Document references:

Decisions taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State party on 27 December 2017

(communication No. 3089/2017) and 8 January

2018 (communications No. 3092/2018 and

No. 3093/2018)

Date of adoption of Views:

13 October 2023

Subject matter:

Administrative conviction of Jehovah’s

Witnesses for unlawful religious activity

Procedural issue:

Substantiation of claims

Substantive issues:

Interference with privacy and home; freedom of

thought, conscience and religion; freedom of

expression; freedom of assembly; freedom of

association

Articles of the Covenant:

17, 18, 19, 21 and 22

Article of the Optional Protocol:

2

1.1

The authors of the communications are Irina Nasirova (communication

No. 3089/2017), Nellya Kitaeva (communication No. 3092/2018), and Oybek Hasanov,

Ibodillo Juraev and Aloma Khodjaeva (communication No. 3093/2018). The authors are

nationals of Uzbekistan born in 1971, 1966, 1991, 1992 and 1963, respectively. They claim

* Adopted by the Committee at its 139th session (9 October–3 November 2023).

** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Farid Ahmadov, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo,

Yvonne Donders, Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos Gómez Martínez, Laurence R. Helfer, Marcia V.J. Kran,

Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, José Manuel Santos Pais, Soh Changrok, Tijana

Šurlan, Kobauyah Tchamdja Kpatcha, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.

United Nations

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

25 January 2024

Original: English

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

2

GE.23-25034

that the State party has violated their rights under articles 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the

Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for Uzbekistan on 28 December 1995.

The authors are represented by counsels.

1.2

On 13 October 2023, pursuant to rule 97 (3) of the Committee’s rules of procedure,

the Committee decided to join communications No. 3089/2017, No. 3092/2018 and

No. 3093/2018, submitted by five different authors, for a joint decision, in view of substantial

factual and legal similarity.

Facts as submitted by the authors

2.1

The authors are Jehovah’s Witnesses. They were subject to substantial administrative

fines of between 20 and 100 times the minimum wage for illegally producing, possessing or

distributing religious materials, their homes were searched and their religious literature and

personal belongings were seized and destroyed. Their respective appeals lodged before the

domestic courts were rejected and the authors claim that they have exhausted all available

domestic remedies.

2.2

The facts relevant to each individual communication are summarized below.

Nasirova v. Uzbekistan (communication No. 3089/2018)

2.3

The author lives in Tashkent. On 11 September 2014, the police demanded entry to

her home without a valid search warrant or other authorization, claiming that it was necessary

to conduct a “passport check”. Once the police had entered her home, they conducted a search

of the home and seized 26 pieces of religious literature, 3 paper notebooks, 137 DVDs and

12 VHS tapes.

2.4

The author was subsequently found guilty of an offence under article 184-2 of the

Code of Administrative Responsibility and sentenced to a fine in the amount of 5,381,750

SUM (approximately 1,745 euros). The court also ordered the destruction of all the items

seized on 11 September 2014. In its decision, the court noted that the Jehovah’s Witnesses

were not registered as a religious organization in Tashkent. The court relied on the conclusion

of the Committee for Religious Affairs, which had stated that the literature of the Jehovah’s

Witnesses could only be used in the city of Chirchik, the sole location in Uzbekistan where

the Jehovah’s Witnesses were granted registration as a religious organization.

2.5

On 3 November 2014, the Tashkent Cassation Court for Criminal Cases rejected the

author’s appeal. On 15 January 2016, the author filed a request for a supervisory review with

the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan. On 29 January 2016, her request was referred by the

Prosecutor General’s Office to the Tashkent City Prosecutor for “consideration of its merits”.

The author notes that more than one year has passed since this referral, without any decision

having been made about her request. The author also notes that under article 315 of the Code

of Administrative Responsibility, she cannot appeal her conviction directly to the Supreme

Court of Uzbekistan.

Kitaeva v. Uzbekistan (communication No. 3092/2017)

2.6

The author lives in the city of Navoi. On 17 January 2015, the police demanded entry

to her home claiming that it was necessary “as part of extensive measures conducted by

officers of the Navoi District Police Department”. The police did not justify their actions with

a valid court order or any other type of authorization. Instead, they claimed that they had

received an anonymous telephone call reporting that religious meetings of Jehovah’s

Witnesses were being conducted at the author’s home. Once inside, the officers proceeded to

search the house for religious publications and eventually found and seized 3 brochures and

153 religious leaflets published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

2.7

The author was subsequently charged with an offence under article 184 (2) of the

Code of Administrative Responsibility. On 10 February 2015, the Navoi City Court for

Criminal Cases found the author guilty of illegal possession of religious materials, based on

the fact that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were not registered as a religious organization in Navoi.

The court ordered the author to pay a fine of 2,368,000 SUM (approximately 768 euros) and

that all the literature seized on 17 January 2015 be destroyed.

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

GE.23-25034

3

2.8

On 17 March 2015, the Navoi Regional Court for Criminal Cases rejected the author’s

appeal. On 15 January 2016, the author filed a request for a supervisory review with the

Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan, requesting him to exercise his discretionary authority and

permit her to submit an appeal to the Supreme Court. That request was rejected on

22 February 2016. The author notes that under article 315 of the Code of Administrative

Responsibility, she cannot appeal her conviction directly to the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan.

Hasanov, Juraev and Khodjaeva v. Uzbekistan (Communication No. 3093/2018)

2.9

The authors live in the Jondor district of the Bukhara region. On 24 September 2014,

Mr. Juraev was detained while walking on the street. The police searched his bag and seized

13 photocopies of religious publications issued by the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The police then

took Mr. Juraev to the apartment where he resided with his mother, Ms. Khodjaeva. The

police made Mr. Juraev open the door of the apartment and proceeded to search it without

his permission. The police confiscated Mr. Juraev’s personal property, including his

computer, and one piece of religious literature.

2.10

On 7 October 2014, Mr. Hasanov was summoned to the local police station and

interrogated about providing religious literature published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses to

Mr. Juraev. Mr. Hasanov and Mr. Juraev were subsequently charged with an offence under

article 184 (2) of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, while Ms. Khodjaeva was

charged under article 241 of the Code for violating the procedure of religious teaching.

2.11

On 10 October 2014, the Korakul District Court for Criminal Cases held that

Mr. Juraev and Mr. Hasanov were guilty because they “had illegally possessed books and

materials related to the Jehovah’s Witnesses” and that Ms. Khodjaeva was guilty of “teaching

the religious views of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to her son, Mr. Juraev, and her family”. The

court ordered the complainants to pay combined punitive fines of 19,912,475 SUM

(approximately 6,454 euros). The court also ordered the destruction of the 13 pieces of

religious literature and the computer seized from the authors.

2.12

On 5 December 2014, the Bukhara Regional Court for Criminal Cases rejected the

authors’ appeal. On 15 January 2016, the authors filed a request for a supervisory review

with the Prosecutor General of Uzbekistan. On 29 January 2016, their request was referred

by the Prosecutor General’s Office to the Bukhara Regional Prosecutor for “consideration of

its merits”. The authors note that more than one year has passed since this referral without

any decision having been made about their request. The authors also note that under article

315 of the Code of Administrative Responsibility, they cannot appeal their conviction

directly to the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan.

Complaint

3.1

The authors submit that under both the Covenant and the Constitution of Uzbekistan,

they are entitled to privacy and to security of their homes and personal belongings. They

argue that by unlawfully entering their homes and confiscating their religious literature, the

police violated their rights under article 17 of the Covenant.

3.2

The authors submit that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were allowed to register their

organization in Uzbekistan in only one small town, Chirchik, in the Tashkent region. They

argue that the police raids and administrative convictions were based solely on the faulty

premise that because the Jehovah’s Witnesses are not registered in their respective regions,

they do not have the right to possess copies of religious literature published by the Jehovah’s

Witnesses. The authors note the Committee’s jurisprudence, according to which legal

registration is not a prerequisite for the exercise of fundamental human rights. The authors

therefore claim that the police searches of their homes, seizure of their personal belongings,

and the subsequent administrative convictions and fines have interfered with their rights

guaranteed under article 18 (1) of the Covenant.

3.3

The authors note that they were convicted under the Code of Administrative

Responsibility, because it was alleged that they had stored religious literature published by

the Jehovah’s Witnesses in their homes with the goal of distributing the material. They note

that the trial court reached this conclusion, despite the fact that there was no evidence that

they had intended to distribute the literature and that in any event, even if they had intended

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

4

GE.23-25034

to distribute it, such peaceful actions are protected by article 19 (2) of the Covenant. They

claim that their prosecutions and convictions, based on the State party’s allegation that it is

illegal to distribute literature published by the Jehovah’s Witnesses without State approval,

has interfered with their right to seek, receive and impart information.

3.4

The authors claim that the State party has violated their rights to freedom of peaceful

assembly and of association. They also argue that the enjoyment of freedom of religion or

belief does not depend on any acts of State approval or administrative registration. They note

that the sole justification given for the police raids and their administrative convictions was

that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were not registered in their respective regions and that

consequently their religious activity was considered to be “illegal”, in violation of their rights

under articles 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

State party’s observations on the merits

4.1

In a note verbale dated 15 March 2018, the State party submitted its observations on

the merits of the communications. The State party notes that the Constitution of Uzbekistan,

the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Covenant provide similar protections for

religious rights. It further notes that Jehovah’s Witnesses are prohibited from exercising their

religious rights in a number of countries, while in Uzbekistan they are represented by an

organization that is officially registered in the town of Chirchik in the Tashkent region. The

State party submits that the organization as a whole has not committed violations of the

current legislation, however it is responsible for the violations committed by its members in

other regions of Uzbekistan. According to the State party, the organization was previously

also registered in the city of Fergana. However, members of the organization have repeatedly

conducted missionary and educational activities among minors without their parents’ consent.

Due to this, a number of complaints were filed by concerned parents to law enforcement

agencies and the registration of the organization in Fergana was terminated.

4.2

The State party submits that the Jehovah’s Witnesses have an official registration that

allows them to carry out legal religious activities only in Chirchik at a specific address.

According to the conditions of registration, the organization may conduct its activities only

at its registered address, however the followers of the organization try to conduct their illegal

religious activities in other regions and major cities, including Tashkent.

4.3

With regard to the authors’ administrative cases, the State party notes that the authors’

guilt was established through their own testimonies, the presence of prohibited religious

materials, which were seized as physical evidence, and expert opinions.

Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits

5.1

On 24 July 2018, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s

observations on the merits. They note that the State party does not raise any new facts or

arguments and merely repeats the conclusions of the domestic courts. In essence, the State

party claims that the State authorities were justified in raiding the authors’ homes, seizing

their peaceful religious literature and then imposing large administrative fines on the authors

simply because the Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have legal registration in the cities of

Tashkent and Navoi or in the Bukhara region.

5.2

The authors therefore rely on their respective written communications, in which they

establish that the actions of the State authorities have violated multiple provisions of the

Covenant and that those violations cannot be justified.

State party’s additional observations

6.1

On 31 December 2018, the State party submitted its additional observations on the

merits of the authors’ communications. With regard to the authors’ claims of a violation of

article 17 of the Covenant, the State party notes that in accordance with article 17 of the Act

on Bodies of Internal Affairs (police), the police may enter residential and other premises,

plots of land and vehicles of organizations and citizens without hindrance at any time of day

or night to suppress crimes in progress and prosecute and detain the perpetrators, if delay

may endanger the life and health of citizens or the security of society and the State. They

may be present in the above-mentioned places, in order to ensure the personal safety of

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

GE.23-25034

5

citizens and public security, to prevent crime, and to detect and apprehend persons who have

committed crimes or are wanted. The police may also enter the homes and other premises of

citizens with their consent between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. to monitor compliance with passport

regulations and other rules.

6.2

The State party further notes that, in accordance with article 14 of the Act on Operative

and Investigative Activities, the police can inspect dwellings and other premises in order to

identify persons, facts and circumstances relevant for solving the tasks of operational and

investigative activities. Article 15 of the same Act, provides a number of grounds for such

inspections, including when there is information about signs of the preparation or

commission of an offence and about the persons involved, if there are no sufficient grounds

for the initiation of criminal proceedings, and when there is information available about

persons, events or actions that pose a threat to the security of individuals, society and the

State. The State party notes that in accordance with article 16 of the Act, measures that restrict

the right to the inviolability of home and the confidentiality of correspondence and telephone

and other communications, may be carried out with the authorization of a prosecutor. The

State party submits that in the case of Ms. Kitaeva (communication No. 3092/2018), the

inspection of the author’s house on 11 September 2014 was authorized by a prosecutor and

conducted in accordance with the domestic law.

6.3

The State party argues that the searches conducted at the authors’ homes were lawful

and were conducted in accordance with the above-mentioned legislation, and thus there was

no violation of the authors’ rights under article 17 of the Covenant.

6.4

With regard to the authors’ remaining claims, the State party submits that article 184-2

of the Code of Administrative Responsibility prohibits the illegal production, possession or

distribution of religious materials, because such materials may cause conflicts between

people, including in families, and the erosion of traditional moral values. The State party

notes that articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant provide for the limitation of individual

rights when it is necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental

rights and freedoms of others. The State party therefore considers that the administrative

prosecution of the authors was in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Covenant.

Authors’ comments on the State party’s additional observations

7.1

On 17 May 2019, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s additional

observations. The authors reject the State party’s argument that there can be no violation of

the Covenant if the police acted in accordance with the domestic law. They argue that this

position misconstrues the nature of the fundamental rights protected by the Covenant and the

obligation of the State to demonstrate the necessity of any interference. They note that the

Committee rejected the same argument in previous decisions.1

7.2

Ms. Nasirova submits that the police did not justify their actions with a valid court

order or any other authorization, nor did they provide any explanation as to why a “passport

check” was necessary for citizens of Uzbekistan. Once inside her home, the police proceeded

to conduct an illegal search for religious publications issued by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and

seized the author’s personal belongings, which was their real purpose for demanding entry.

7.3

The authors refer to the State party’s submission that the illegal production, possession

or distribution of religious materials may cause conflicts between people, including in

families, and the erosion of traditional moral values, and note that the domestic courts did

not point to any evidence that the religious literature seized from them presented any such

risk. They note that the religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses are distributed

worldwide, are entirely peaceful and foster family happiness and respect for moral values.

7.4

The authors argue that the State has failed to show that the limitation of their rights

was “necessary” in a democratic society. In particular, the State has failed to show that the

limitation served “any legitimate purpose” and was “proportionate” to that purpose. They

note that at the time the incidents took place, they did not have the right to file an appeal to

the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan and that the Code of Administrative Responsibility was

1 For example, Leven v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/112/D/2131/2012), para. 9.4.

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

6

GE.23-25034

substantially amended on 29 January 2018 by Act No. LRU-463. The amended chapter XXIV

of the Code includes articles 324-1 to 324-35, under which it is now permitted to file an

appeal to the Supreme Court.

7.5

The authors note that under amended article 324-9 of the Code of Administrative

Responsibility, the Judicial Chamber on Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court decided

five cases involving Jehovah’s Witnesses in 2018. All five cases concerned convictions of

Jehovah’s Witnesses under article 184-2 of the Code, namely the unlawful possession and

distribution of religious literature, article 240, part 1, on unlawful religious meetings and

article 240, part 2, on unlawful preaching. In each case, the Supreme Court quashed the

conviction and ruled that Jehovah’s Witnesses in Uzbekistan did not require registration in a

particular city or village in order to carry out their peaceful religious activity, nor did they

require State authorization to possess religious literature. The authors argue that those

decisions are further evidence confirming that the violations of their rights in the present

cases were contrary to the domestic legislation and thus were not “prescribed by law”.

State party’s further observations

Nasirova v. Uzbekistan (communication No. 3089/2017)

8.1

On 30 December 2019, the State party submitted its further observations on the

admissibility and merits of communication No. 3089/2018. It rejects the author’s statement

that the Jehovah’s Witnesses were allowed to register their organization in Uzbekistan only

in the small town of Chirchik and notes that in 1999, the Jehovah’s Witnesses registered their

organization in the city of Fergana. However, in 2006, the registration was terminated, based

on a decision of the regional justice department. The State party notes that since 2010, the

Jehovah’s Witnesses have not submitted a single application for registration of their

organization in any region of Uzbekistan. It further rejects the author’s argument that any

religious activity by the Jehovah’s Witnesses outside their place of registration in Chirchik

is considered unlawful and reiterates that article 31 of the Constitution guarantees everyone’s

right to profess or not to profess any religion, while the limitations prescribed under domestic

legislation are in compliance with the Covenant.

8.2

The State party submits that in the present case, the police visited and searched the

author’s home after receiving information about a possible threat to public safety. It rejects

the author’s assertion that her home was raided and searched only because of her affiliation

with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The State party notes that in accordance with the Act on

Operative and Investigative Activities and the Act on Bodies of Internal Affairs (police), the

police must react to and verify any information they receive concerning threats to public

safety, which is similar to police practice around the world. The State party therefore

considers that the author has failed to substantiate her claim of a violation of her rights under

article 17 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility.

8.3

Regarding the author’s claim under article 18 of the Covenant, the State party

reiterates its observations submitted for communication 3092/2018. It notes that in the case

of The Sunday Times v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights held that

there are two requirements that flow from the expression “prescribed by law”. First, the law

must be adequately accessible. Second, a norm cannot be regarded as a “law” unless it is

formulated with sufficient precision to enable the citizen to regulate his conduct; he must be

able – if need be with appropriate advice – to foresee, to a degree that is reasonable in the

circumstances, the consequences which a given action may entail.2 The State party notes that

the limitations applicable to the author’s case were prescribed under domestic law and are

accessible on various websites in the Uzbek and Russian languages. It argues that the

limitations to the rights of the author, including those prescribed under article 184-2 of the

Code of Administrative Responsibility, pursue the legitimate aim of protecting public order

and safety. The State party submits that it is a secular State, where the majority of the

population are Sunni Muslims, however there are also representatives of many other religions,

such as Christianity, Judaism and Buddhism. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the

country experienced a sudden surge of Islamic fundamentalism, which brought it to the brink

2 Application No. 6538/75, Judgment, 26 April 1979, para. 49.

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

GE.23-25034

7

of civil war. The State party submits that these factors, coupled with the unrest in the

neighbouring countries of Afghanistan and Tajikistan, forced it to introduce limitations to

rights in order to counter extremism and fundamentalism, and help maintain public order and

safety.

8.4

The State party further submits that after the collapse of the Soviet Union, a growing

number of religious missionaries, representing various neo-Christian religious organizations

similar to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, arrived in the country and there has been an increase in

family break-ups, due to one family member converting to a different religion from the others.

There has been a spike in public discontent and cases of lynching and suicide related to

religious conversion. The State party submits that the family is one of the most important

institutions in society and its existence is vital to the existence of the State and a healthy civil

society. Taking into account the tense situation in society as a result of religious conversions,

and in order to protect public order and safety, the State party submits that it decided to

introduce the above-mentioned limitations to religious activities. It argues that such

limitations are necessary in a democratic society, such as Uzbekistan, when the local

mentality, traditions and religion, and the specific political and geographical situation of the

Central Asian States are taken into account.

Kitaeva v. Uzbekistan (communication No. 3092/2018)

8.5

On 3 August 2019, the State party submitted its further observations on the

admissibility and merits of communication No. 3092/2018. Regarding the author’s claims of

a violation of article 17 of the Covenant, the State party reiterates that when searching the

author’s home, the police acted in accordance with the current domestic legislation and the

Covenant. It rejects the author’s claim that her home was searched simply because of her

affiliation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses. According to the State party, the search was

prompted by an anonymous phone call to the police hotline and was conducted only after

obtaining authorization from a prosecutor, in accordance with the legislation. Thus, the State

party argues that the author’s claim of a violation of her rights under article 17 of the

Covenant is unsubstantiated and asks the Committee to find it inadmissible.

8.6

With regard to the author’s claim under article 18 of the Covenant, the State party

submits that carrying out religious activities without registration and teaching religious

doctrines privately or without special religious education, or the permission of the central

governing body of a religious organization, is prohibited under articles 240 and 241 of the

Code of Administrative Responsibility. The State party refers to paragraph 8 of the

Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993) and notes that article 18 (3) of the Covenant

permits restrictions on the freedom to manifest religion or belief only if those limitations are

prescribed by law and are necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the

fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The State party argues that the limitations

prescribed under domestic law are in compliance with the Covenant because they are of a

non-discriminatory character and are applied equally to all religions for the purpose of

protecting public order and safety in Uzbekistan. The State party further argues that the

author has not provided any evidence that the domestic authorities violated her rights under

article 18 of the Covenant or that the limitations imposed on Jehovah’s Witnesses are

discriminatory.

Hasanov, Juraev and Khodjaeva v. Uzbekistan (communication No. 3093/2018)

8.7

On 18 February 2020, the State party submitted its further observations on the

admissibility and merits of communication No. 3093/2018. It reiterates its observations,

dated 3 August 2019, submitted on the merits of communication No. 3092/2018. It notes that

the statistics from domestic courts show that the police act in compliance with all procedural

requirements of the law in cases initiated under article 184-2 of the Code of Administrative

Responsibility. In the present case, the authors did not deny that they were members of the

Jehovah’s Witnesses and that they possessed literature that was prohibited from circulation

on the territory of the State party. The State party therefore considers that the authors’ claims

are unsubstantiated.

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

8

GE.23-25034

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

9.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is

admissible under the Optional Protocol.

9.2

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional

Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

9.3

The Committee notes that in the present case, the authors have exhausted all available

domestic remedies and that the State party has not contested the admissibility of the

communications due to non-exhaustion. The Committee therefore considers that it is not

precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present

communication.

9.4

The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims

under articles 17, 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant, for the purposes of admissibility and

proceeds with its consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

10.1

The Committee has considered the communications in the light of all the information

made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

10.2

The Committee notes the authors’ claims that the State party violated their right to

privacy and the security of their homes under article 17 (1) of the Covenant when the police

entered their homes without presenting valid search warrants or identification, searched their

homes and confiscated religious literature. It notes the authors’ submissions that the police

used different tactics to gain access to their homes, namely by stating that they had received

an anonymous telephone call reporting that religious meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses were

being conducted at the author’s home,3 claiming that it was necessary to conduct a “passport

check”,4 or detaining the author on the street and making him open the door of his apartment.5

In all three cases, once they had gained entry to the authors’ homes, the police proceeded to

search them and seized a computer and religious publications. The Committee also notes the

State party’s argument that the entry of the police into the authors’ homes was lawful, because

the police were acting in accordance with the Act on Bodies of Internal Affairs (police) and

the Act on Operative and Investigative Activities. It further notes the State party’s argument

that the search in the case of Ms. Kitaeva (communication No. 3092/2018) was authorized

by a prosecutor, while in the case of Ms. Nasirova, (communication No. 3089/2017), the

search was carried out after the police received information about a possible threat to public

safety.

10.3

Regarding the State party’s argument that the entry of the police into the authors’

homes was lawful and conducted in accordance with domestic legislation, the Committee

recalls that under article 17 of the Covenant, it is necessary for any interference with the

home to be both lawful and not arbitrary.6 The Committee recalls that in accordance with

paragraph 1 of its general comment No. 16 (1988), the concept of arbitrariness in article 17

is intended to guarantee that even interference provided for by law should be in accordance

with the provisions, aims and objectives of the Covenant and should be, in any event,

reasonable in the particular circumstances. The Committee notes that, even though the State

party submits that in the case of Ms. Kitaeva (communication No. 3092/2018), the police

were authorized by a prosecutor to search the author’s home, it has not submitted a copy of

such authorization, nor was it shown to the author at the time of the search, or referred to in

the decisions of the domestic court. Similarly, the Committee notes that in the case of

Ms. Nasirova (communication No. 3089/2017), the State party has not provided any further

3 Communication 3089/2017.

4 Communication 3092/2018.

5 Communication 3093/2018.

6 Inter alia, Rojas Garcia v. Colombia (CCPR/C/71/D/687/1996), para. 10.3.

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

GE.23-25034

9

details on the information about a threat to public safety that prompted the police to enter and

search the author’s home. Consequently, the Committee considers that the State party, while

referring to the unlawfulness of the possession of religious literature and the holding of

religious meetings, has not set forth any arguments to demonstrate that the conduct of the

police was not arbitrary.

10.4

As to the actions of the police, the Committee observes that the State party has not

explained why the police considered the circumstances so urgent as to justify entering the

authors’ homes. The Committee, therefore, considers that the police search of the authors’

homes was disproportionate to the threat of the harm allegedly associated with the possession

of religious literature and that other less intrusive measures could have been implemented

instead to achieve the aim of compliance with the law regarding the registration of religious

associations. Consequently, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated the

authors’ rights under article 17 (1) of the Covenant, insofar as the police arbitrarily interfered

with their homes and their privacy.

10.5

In relation to the authors’ claims under article 18 of the Covenant, the Committee,

recalling its general comment No. 22 (1993), must address the issue of whether the limitations

on the authors’ freedom to manifest their religious beliefs were prescribed by law and

necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals, or the fundamental rights and

freedoms of others within the meaning of article 18 (3) of the Covenant. Article 18 (3) is to

be interpreted strictly and limitations on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs may

be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed, and must be directly

related and proportionate to the specific needs on which they are predicated.

10.6

The Committee notes the State party arguments that (a) the Jehovah’s Witnesses are

not registered in the cities of Tashkent and Navoi or the Bukhara region, so the authors do

not have the right to possess and distribute religious literature published by the Jehovah’s

Witnesses and (b) the limitations applicable to the author’s case were prescribed by domestic

law. However, with regard to the latter argument, the Committee also notes the authors’

submission that in 2018, the Supreme Court quashed the administrative conviction of five

Jehovah’s Witnesses in cases similar to those of the authors and held that they did not require

registration in a particular city or village in order to carry out their peaceful religious activities,

nor did they require State authorization to possess religious literature. That argument has not

been addressed by the State party in its observations. Even if the question of the limitations

prescribed by the domestic law remains open, the Committee considers that the punishment

that was imposed on the authors, in the form of substantial fines of between 20 and 100 times

the minimum wage, amounts to a disproportionate limitation of their right to manifest their

religion under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. The Committee notes the State party’s argument

that the limitations imposed on the author’s rights protected under article 18 (1) of the

Covenant were pursuant to the legitimate aim of protecting public order and safety because

of a sudden surge of Islamic fundamentalism, unrest in neighbouring countries and the State

party’s aim of protecting the institution of the family. However, the Committee considers that

the justifications provided by the State party are of an abstract nature, bear no direct relation

to the authors’ cases and do not demonstrate how the requirement to be legally registered in

a particular city or region, prior to owning or possessing a religious book or leaflet, is a

proportionate measure necessary to serving a legitimate purpose within the meaning of article

18 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee, therefore, concludes that such a limitation does not

meet the requirements of article 18 (3) and that the authors’ rights under article 18 (1) have

been violated.

10.7

In the light of its finding that there has been a violation of articles 17 and 18 of the

Covenant, the Committee does not deem it necessary to examine whether the same facts

constitute a violation of articles 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant.

11.

The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that

the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of the authors’ rights under articles

17 and 18 of the Covenant.

12.

Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to

provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to

individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is

CCPR/C/139/D/3089/2017

CCPR/C/139/D/3092/2018

CCPR/C/139/D/3093/2018

10

GE.23-25034

obligated to provide the authors with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of

any legal costs they have incurred and of the fines paid. The State party is also under an

obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

13.

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party

has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a

violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has

undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the

rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when

it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from

the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the

Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to

have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party.