CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

GE.24-22403 (E) 161224 161224

Human Rights Committee

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

Optional Protocol, concerning communication

No. 2935/2017*, **

Communication submitted by:

Vasilii Kalin, Robert But and Aleksandr

Kreydenkov (represented by counsel,

Shane H. Brady and Anton Omelchenko)

Alleged victims:

The authors

State party:

Russian Federation

Date of communication:

20 December 2016 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State party on 17 January 2017 (not issued in

document form)

Date of adoption of Views:

24 October 2024

Subject matter:

Banning of religious literature

Procedural issue:

Exhaustion of domestic remedies

Substantive issues:

Freedom of religion; freedom of expression;

discrimination on the ground of religion

Articles of the Covenant:

18, 19, 26 and 27

Articles of the Optional Protocol:

2 and 5 (2) (b)

1.1

The authors of the communication are Vasilii Kalin, Robert But and Aleksandr

Kreydenkov, citizens of the Russian Federation born in 1947, 1964 and 1969, respectively.

They claim that the State party has violated their rights under articles 18, 19, 26 and 27 of

the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 1 January 1992.

The authors are represented by counsel.

1.2

On 28 March 2017, the State party challenged the admissibility of the communication

under articles 1 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol and requested that the Committee take

a separate decision on admissibility. On 3 May 2017, the authors submitted comments on the

State party’s request. On 31 May 2016, the Committee, acting through its Special

Rapporteurs on new communications and interim measures, decided to examine the

admissibility of the communication together with its merits.

* Adopted by the Committee at its 142nd session (14 October–7 November 2024).

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

Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos

Gómez Martínez, Marcia V.J. Kran, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, José Manuel Santos Pais, Soh Changrok,

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

United Nations

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

16 December 2024

Original: English

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

2

GE.24-22403

Facts as submitted by the authors

2.1

Vasilii Kalin is the Chairperson of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses

in Russia, the national religious entity of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Robert But and Aleksandr

Kreydenkov are Jehovah’s Witnesses living in the city of Belgorod. As part of its religious

activities, the Administrative Centre imports religious literature on behalf of Jehovah’s

Witnesses in the Russian Federation for their personal, family and congregational worship.

2.2

On 1 December 2014, the Belgorod City Prosecutor’s Office filed a claim with the

Oktyabrsky District Court of the city of Belgorod to declare the following three brochures

published by Jehovah’s Witnesses to be extremist: Was Life Created?, The Son Is Willing to

Reveal the Father and Is Your Food Safe?. The brochures Was Life Created? and Is Your

Food Safe? were designed to emphasize the practical value of the Bible and to facilitate

discussion about the evidence for creation. Both were used by Jehovah’s Witnesses for

personal study and to leave with interested persons during their door-to-door evangelizing

activity. The brochure The Son Is Willing to Reveal the Father was designed to facilitate

discussion during weekly congregational religious services.

2.3

The Oktyabrsky District Court appointed Belgorod State University to conduct a

linguistic religious expert examination of all three brochures. The experts were requested to

provide their opinion as to whether the brochures contained: (a) calls to hostile or violent

actions against persons of any particular ethnicity, faith or social group; and (b) calls to incite

social, racial, ethnic or religious discord or advocacy of the exceptionality, superiority or

inferiority of persons due to their social, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation, language or

attitude towards religion. In their subsequent report, dated 16 February 2015, the experts

concluded, inter alia, that the brochures did not contain calls to hostile or violent actions

against persons of any particular ethnicity, faith or social group.

2.4

In its 4 March 2015 decision, the Oktyabrsky District Court partially granted the

prosecutor’s claim and declared the brochures Was Life Created? and The Son Is Willing to

Reveal the Father to be extremist. The Court refused the prosecutor’s claim concerning the

brochure Is Your Food Safe? because of technical defects in the expert examination. The

Court accepted that there was nothing objectionable in the text of the brochure Was Life

Created?. Nonetheless, the Court concluded that it should be declared extremist because,

according to the experts’ report, it contained a reference to the brochure A Book for All People,

published by Jehovah’s Witnesses. The brochure A Book for All People had previously been

declared extremist by the Russian courts. With regard to the brochure The Son Is Willing to

Reveal the Father, the Court concluded that it should also be declared extremist because the

experts were of the opinion that three passages in the brochure contained calls to incite

discord and advocacy of the exceptionality and superiority of members of the religious

organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of the inferiority of other persons based on their

religious affiliation or attitude towards religion.

2.5

On an unspecified date, the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia

appealed the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court to the Belgorod Regional Court.

Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov submitted a separate appeal because they had not been allowed

to participate in the first instance court proceedings as interested parties. On 11 June 2015,

the Belgorod Regional Court upheld the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court.

2.6

On an unspecified date, the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia

filed a cassation appeal with the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court, which was

dismissed on 8 September 2015. The Administrative Centre’s cassation appeal to the

Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court was also dismissed, by a single-judge

decision, on 25 December 2015.

Complaint

3.1

The authors claim a violation of article 18 of the Covenant because the decision to

ban the two brochures as extremist has had a profound negative impact on their freedom of

thought, conscience and religion. Those brochures are now included in the federal list of

extremist materials and any distribution of them is punishable by administrative or criminal

sanction. The authors and all other Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout the Russian Federation

are now prohibited from using those brochures in their worship. The authors assert that the

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

GE.24-22403

3

brochure The Son Is Willing to Reveal the Father was banned not because of any specific

actions by Jehovah’s Witnesses but merely because the domestic courts disagreed with their

religious beliefs on “disfellowshipping” (excommunication). The authors argue that the

limitation of their freedom of religion is not prescribed by law. They note that, to satisfy the

“prescribed by law” criterion, a law must be sufficiently accessible and formulated with

sufficient precision to enable citizens to regulate their conduct to foresee, to a degree that is

reasonable in the circumstances, the consequences that a given action may entail. However,

the definition of what constitutes extremism in article 1 of the Federal Act on Combating

Extremist Activity is so nebulous that it can be misapplied to all religious activities and all

religious speech, no matter how peaceful.1 The authors also argue that the banning of the two

brochures did not pursue a legitimate aim.

3.2

The authors also claim a violation of article 19 of the Covenant because, by banning

the two brochures, the State authorities have interfered with their rights and those of all other

Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation to seek, receive and impart information. They

note that the Committee has held that restrictions on freedom of opinion and freedom of

expression must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality, and the domestic

courts have failed to provide any justifiable reason why it was necessary to ban either

brochure as extremist. They submit that the brochures contain peaceful commentary on

religious subjects and do not contain calls to violence or incitement to violence and do not

incite religious hatred.

3.3

The authors further claim a violation of article 26 of the Covenant because they were

treated differently from followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, without reasonable and

objective grounds for that difference in treatment. They note that the Russian Orthodox

Church is not subjected to the indignity and humiliation of having its religious literature

declared extremist without any lawful reason. The authors submit that the present case must

be considered in the context of the wave of State-sanctioned persecution against Jehovah’s

Witnesses in the Russian Federation.2

3.4

Lastly, the authors claim a violation of article 27 of the Covenant because domestic

courts declared some of their religious publications to be extremist, thus interfering with their

rights as a minority group to profess and practise their religion. The authors submit that they

are now exposed to a serious risk of criminal and administrative punishment if they use those

publications in worship as individuals or in community with their fellow believers.

State party’s observations on admissibility

4.1

On 28 March 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the admissibility of

the communication. It notes that there are 396 registered religious organizations of Jehovah’s

Witnesses in the Russian Federation: the centralized Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s

Witnesses in Russia and 395 local religious organizations. Mr. Kalin is the Chairperson of

the Presiding Committee of the Administrative Centre and can act on behalf of the

Administrative Centre without a power of attorney. The Administrative Centre participated

as an interested party in the domestic proceedings referenced in the authors’ communication,

but Mr. Kalin did not take part in the proceedings, as the Centre was represented by other

persons. Similarly, Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov were not called by the domestic courts to

participate in the case. The brochures mentioned in the authors’ communication were

imported into the Russian Federation by the Administrative Centre. Thus, Mr. But and

Mr. Kreydenkov cannot be considered to be the sole victims of the decision to ban the

brochures Was Life Created? and The Son Is Willing to Reveal the Father. Therefore, the

authors cannot be considered victims of the alleged violation within the meaning of article 1

of the Optional Protocol.

4.2

The State party submits that the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court was

appealed to the Belgorod Regional Court by the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s

Witnesses in Russia, which on appeal was represented by Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov. The

1 The authors refer to CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para. 20.

2 The authors refer to the facts as described in European Court of Human Rights, Taganrog LRO and

Others v. Russia, Application No. 32401/10 and 19 others, Judgment, 7 June 2022.

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

4

GE.24-22403

cassation appeals to the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court and the Supreme Court

against the decision of the Belgorod Regional Court were also submitted by the

Administrative Centre. The authors did not submit cassation appeals on their own behalf

against the decisions of the Oktyabrsky District Court and the Belgorod Regional Court.

Therefore, the authors did not exhaust all available domestic remedies before submitting their

communication to the Committee.

4.3

The State party also notes that, according to article 323 (4) of the Code of

Administrative Procedure, the Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons of the Supreme Court

have the right to overturn single-judge decisions refusing to remit an appeal for consideration

by the cassation court. It argues that the above-mentioned domestic remedy is effective, as,

in 2015, Deputy Chairpersons of the Supreme Court reversed 79 out of the 145 single-judge

decisions refusing to remit cassation appeals for consideration by the cassation court that they

examined in respect of civil and administrative cases, and those cases were later examined

by the Civil Chamber or the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. In 2016, Deputy

Chairpersons of the Supreme Court similarly reversed 58 single-judge decisions out of the

114 that they considered.

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

5.1

In a letter dated 3 May 2017, the authors reject the State party’s argument that they

cannot be considered victims within the meaning of article 1 of the Optional Protocol. They

note that each of them is personally affected by the decision of the State party to declare the

two religious brochures to be extremist and to ban their distribution throughout the State

party. The authors were deprived of the ability to use these brochures in their individual

religious worship and their door-to-door evangelizing activity. Mr. Kalin submits that, as the

Chairperson of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, which was the

party in all the domestic proceedings, he has the right to bring a communication before the

Committee on his own behalf and on behalf of the Administrative Centre and his fellow

believers. Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov submit that, despite their motion to join the case as

interested parties, they were not allowed by the trial court to participate in the proceedings,

and its decision of 4 March 2015 was later challenged by them in the appellate court. They

note that the decision to ban the two brochures has directly affected their rights as Jehovah’s

Witnesses, as they are prohibited from using the brochures in their religious worship under

threat of criminal and administrative prosecution. They also note that the Committee’s

jurisprudence supports their position that they have victim status with regard to the present

communication.3

5.2

Concerning the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the authors note that the State

party’s argument concerns the exhaustion of extraordinary remedies through the filing of

appeals for supervisory review with the Presidium of the Supreme Court. They submit that,

according to the Committee’s jurisprudence, such a remedy cannot be considered an effective

remedy.4 They also note that the European Court of Human Rights has similarly reviewed the

supervisory review procedure of the State party under the Code of Civil Procedure and the

Code of Administrative Procedure and has consistently held that it does not constitute an

effective remedy.5

State party’s observations on the merits

6.1

On 14 July 2017, the State party submitted its observations on the merits of the

communication. It argues that the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court to declare the

two brochures to be extremist was prescribed by law, pursued a legitimate aim and was

necessary in a democratic society. The State party submits that, according to article 1 of the

3 The authors refer to A.W.P. v. Denmark (CCPR/C/109/D/1879/2009), para. 6.4; Lubicon Lake Band v.

Canada (CCPR/C/38/D/167/1984), paras. 29.1, 31.1 and 32.1; and Howard v. Canada

(CCPR/C/84/D/879/1999), para. 8.3.

4 The authors refer to Kostenko v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/115/D/2141/2012), para. 6.3.

5 The authors refer to Chigirinova v. Russia, Application No. 28448/16, Decision, 13 December 2016,

para. 30; and Abramyan and Others v. Russia, Applications No. 38951/13 and No. 59611/13,

Decision, 12 May 2015, paras. 102 and 103.

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

GE.24-22403

5

Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity, extremism is defined as, inter alia, incitement

of social, racial, ethnic or religious discord; advocacy of the exceptionality, superiority or

inferiority of persons on the basis of their social, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation,

language or attitude towards religion; and mass distribution of materials known to be

extremist, or their production or storage for the purpose of mass distribution. The State party

notes that the Oktyabrsky District Court ordered a linguistic religious expert examination at

the request of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, and a

representative of the expert group was questioned during the court hearing. Based on the

results of the expert examination, the Court concluded that the brochure The Son Is Willing

to Reveal the Father contained incitement to religious discord and advocacy of the

exceptionality and superiority of members of the religious organization of Jehovah’s

Witnesses and of the inferiority of other persons based on religious affiliation or attitude

towards religion.

6.2

The State party argues that, in view of the circumstances of the case, it would be

difficult to contend that the actions established by the Oktyabrsky District Court constitute

peaceful actions that should enjoy judicial protection under the generally recognized

principles and rules of international law and international treaties signed by the State party.

Thus, in enforcement of the provisions of the Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity,

the Oktyabrsky District Court declared the brochures The Son Is Willing to Reveal the Father

and Was Life Created? to be extremist literature in order to protect the rights and freedoms

of others and the foundations of the constitutional system, and to ensure the integrity and

security of the State. The Court also established that page 28 of the brochure Was Life Created?

referred to another brochure, A Book for All People, also published by Jehovah’s Witnesses,

which had been added to the federal list of extremist materials by the Ministry of Justice

pursuant to a 11 September 2009 decision of the Rostov Regional Court. The State party

notes that making reference to a publication that has already been banned from distribution

constitutes a ground for declaring extremist the brochure containing that reference.

6.3

The State party submits that the decision to ban the two brochures meets the test of

necessity in a democratic society, as established by the European Court of Human Rights.6

According to the State party, declaring information materials to be extremist means

recognizing that they violate prohibitions established by law and for that reason alone

represent a real threat to the rights and freedoms of others and to the integrity and security of

the State. The State party asserts that its actions fully comply with its obligations under article

20 of the Covenant, which states that any advocacy of ethnic, racial or religious hatred that

constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is to be prohibited.

6.4

With regard to the authors’ claim under article 19 of the Covenant, the State party

reiterates that the banned brochures were found to be inciting religious discord and

advocating the exceptionality and superiority of persons on the basis of their religious

affiliation or attitude towards religion. The State party rejects the authors’ position that the

brochures include only information of a peaceful nature on religious topics and submits that

such a position is not based on the facts of the case as established by the domestic courts and

that the authors’ use of the brochures cannot enjoy judicial protection under the provisions

of the Covenant. It notes that the Committee’s conclusions in Ross v. Canada could be used

to demonstrate, in the present case, the legality and legitimacy of the actions of the domestic

courts in declaring the two Jehovah’s Witnesses’ brochures to be extremist, including with

regard to compliance with the provisions of article 19 of the Covenant.7 Based on the above,

the State party submits that declaring the two brochures to be extremist was provided for by

the Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity, pursued the legitimate aims of protecting

the rights and freedoms of others and ensuring the integrity and security of the State and was

necessary in the context of the circumstances of the case.

6.5

Lastly, the State party rejects the authors’ claim that there has been an interference

with their right as a minority group to profess and practise their religion. It submits that the

authors have not demonstrated that they were treated differently than any other public

6 The State party refers to Bartik v. Russia, Application No. 55565/00, Judgment, 21 December 2006,

para. 46.

7 Ross v. Canada (CCPR/C/70/D/736/1997).

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

6

GE.24-22403

organization, including the Russian Orthodox Church, would have been if it had incited social,

racial, ethnic or religious discord; advocated the exceptionality, superiority or inferiority of

persons on the basis of their social, racial, ethnic or religious affiliation, language or attitude

towards religion; or engaged in the mass distribution of materials known to be extremist. The

State party also rejects the authors’ argument that there is a wave of State-sanctioned

persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation. It refers to a case against one

of the local religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses that was liquidated after having

been declared to be extremist by a regional court. It notes that the Administrative Chamber

of the Supreme Court eventually overturned the decision to liquidate the local religious

organization.

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

7.1

In a letter dated 26 September 2017, the authors submit that, after the court decision

to ban the two brochures entered into force, the brochures were added to the federal list of

extremist materials, which severely interferes with their right to use them for individual and

congregational worship. Moreover, on 20 April 2017, the Supreme Court ordered the

liquidation of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and all 395 local

religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses due to their being “extremist”, the termination

of their activity and the seizure of their property, including places of worship. In justifying

that nationwide ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Supreme Court relied, inter alia, on the fact

that 95 publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses had been placed on the federal list of extremist

materials, which included the two above-mentioned brochures.

7.2

The authors agree that, in limited circumstances, the State may impose limitations on

the freedom to manifest religious beliefs. However, they argue that the three impugned

passages in the brochure The Son Is Willing to Reveal the Father are statements of religious

belief and are therefore not subject to any limitation.8 The authors note that the Committee

has already concluded that the vague and open-ended definition of extremist activity in the

Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity is wrongly being used to target the peaceful

religious expressions of minority religious communities, primarily Jehovah’s Witnesses.9

They submit that neither brochure contains any statement inciting violence or hatred and that

this was noted in the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court. The authors note that,

although the State party asserts that the two brochures had to be banned because they contain

statements that could be considered to be inciting religious discord and advocating the

exceptionality and superiority of Jehovah’s Witnesses, it does not cite any passage from

either brochure that contains such statements. The authors argue that, even if the brochures

had contained such statements, they would be protected by the right to freedom of religion

and conscience and freedom of religious expression guaranteed by articles 18 and 19 of the

Covenant. They note that the day-to-day speech of most persons includes statements on a

host of important subjects of public interest that others may perceive to be negative towards

their own views or beliefs and that, in the context of religious speech, virtually all religions

advocate that their doctrines and practices are superior to those of other religions.

7.3

The authors reject the State party’s argument that the conclusions of the Committee

in the case of Ross v. Canada could be used, in the present case, to demonstrate the legality

and legitimacy of the actions of the Russian courts in declaring the two Jehovah’s Witnesses’

brochures to be extremist. They note that, in Ross v. Canada, the author was a schoolteacher

and widely publicized his anti-Jewish views. Thus, the facts of the case were vastly different.

The Committee concluded that, based on those proven facts, the actions of the school

authorities had been justified and had constituted only a minimal interference with the

author’s rights, since he had been appointed to a paid non-teaching position and had not been

restricted from expressing his views. The authors argue that, in the present case, by contrast,

the domestic courts did not present any evidence justifying a ban on the two brochures and

also conceded that the two brochures did not incite violence or hatred. Nonetheless, the State

authorities imposed the most severe punishment, namely, a ban on the use and distribution

8 The authors refer to the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993) on freedom of thought,

conscience and religion, para. 3.

9 The authors refer to CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para. 20.

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

GE.24-22403

7

of the brochures throughout the State party, followed by the liquidation of all registered

religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the criminalization of their religious

worship. Thus, the authors assert, the interference with their rights was disproportionate and

not necessary in a democratic society.

7.4

With regard to their claim of discrimination, the authors note that, although the

teachings of the Russian Orthodox Church advocate its religious superiority and criticize

other religions that do not hold the same beliefs, it has never been the subject of an

administrative or criminal prosecution. They refer to various statements made by

representatives of the European Union, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United

Kingdom of Great Britain of Northern Ireland, the Department of State of the United States

of America and others to indicate acknowledgement of the discrimination suffered by

Jehovah’s Witnesses.

7.5

The authors ask the Committee to find a violation of their rights under all the articles

of the Covenant that they invoke and to direct the State party to provide them with an effective

remedy, which can be achieved by: (a) removing all restrictions on their right to freely import

and use the two above-mentioned brochures; (b) providing them with monetary

compensation for the moral damage that they have suffered; and (c) providing them with

monetary compensation for the legal expenses and fees that they have incurred in the

proceedings before the domestic courts and the Committee.

State party’s additional observations

8.1

On 14 September 2017, the State party submitted additional observations on the

admissibility of the communication. It reiterates that Mr. Kalin did not appeal the decision of

the Oktyabrsky District Court and that none of the authors submitted a cassation appeal to

the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court or the Supreme Court against the decision of

the Belgorod Regional Court. The European Court of Human Rights considers the cassation

appeal procedure under chapter 35 of the Code of Administrative Procedure to be an ordinary

domestic remedy that must be exhausted before a complaint is submitted to the Court.10 The

case law cited by the authors in their comments on admissibility does not support their

argument of having victim status. In A.W.P. v. Denmark and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada,

the authors exhausted or attempted to exhaust domestic remedies, while, in Howard v.

Canada, the author was personally sanctioned by the domestic authorities. Even if the authors

are to be considered to have victim status, based on the Committee’s case law, as cited by

them in their comments, they should have submitted their communication jointly with the

Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

8.2

The State party also reiterates that the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses

in Russia has not exhausted all available domestic remedies because it did not submit a

cassation appeal to the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court. It notes

that the cassation procedure differs from the supervisory review procedure mentioned in the

authors’ comments, and the efficacy of the procedure was described in detail in its previous

observations.

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 State party contests the

admissibility of the communication on the ground that the authors do not have victim status

10 The State party refers to Abramyan and Others v. Russia, Decision, 12 May 2015.

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

8

GE.24-22403

and cannot bring a complaint before the Committee because all domestic proceedings were

conducted on behalf of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. The

Committee notes that the authors submit their complaint in their personal capacity and do not

claim rights for their organization as a legal entity. It also notes the authors’ claim that the

banning of the two religious brochures affected their individual rights. In the circumstances

of the present case, and in the light of the submissions made by the parties, the Committee

considers that the authors have standing under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.11

9.4

The Committee notes the State party’s argument that the authors have failed to exhaust

domestic remedies, as Mr. Kalin did not take part in the domestic judicial proceedings, and

Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov only submitted an appeal to the Belgorod Regional Court. The

Committee also notes the authors’ submission that, since Mr. Kalin serves as the Chairperson

of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, which was the party in all the

domestic proceedings, he has the right to bring a communication before the Committee on

his own behalf and on behalf of the Administrative Centre and his fellow believers. The

Committee observes that Mr. Kalin did not personally take part in the domestic judicial

proceedings and merely signed a cassation appeal filed on behalf of the Administrative

Centre with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by a single-judge decision on

25 December 2015. The Committee recalls that authors must display reasonable diligence in

the pursuit of available domestic remedies.12 Since the authors submit their complaint in a

personal capacity and do not claim rights for the Administrative Centre as a legal entity, the

Committee finds that Mr. Kalin has failed to exhaust domestic remedies, as required by

article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, and therefore finds his claims under the Covenant

to be inadmissible.13

9.5

With regard to Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov, the Committee notes their argument that,

despite the motion that they filed with the first instance court to join the proceedings as

interested parties, they were not allowed to participate. The Committee also notes that they

appealed the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court to the Belgorod Regional Court. The

Committee observes that, as Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov were not allowed to participate in

the judicial proceedings, the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia

submitted its cassation appeal on behalf of itself and Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov, by listing

them on the cover pages of the cassation appeals submitted to the Presidium of the Belgorod

Regional Court and to the Supreme Court. The Committee recalls that authors must avail

themselves of all domestic remedies, insofar as such remedies appear to be effective and are

de facto available. 14 In the present case, the Committee considers that Mr. But and

Mr. Kreydenkov have exhausted all available domestic remedies and, accordingly, concludes

that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present

communication in relation to their claims.

9.6

The Committee further notes the State party’s observation that the authors have not

exhausted domestic remedies because they did not submit a complaint to the Chairperson or

a Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court under article 323 (4) of the Code of

Administrative Procedure, which enables them to seek review of a single-judge decision not

to remit an appeal for consideration by the cassation court. The Committee also notes Mr. But

and Mr. Kreydenkov’s claim that the State party’s argument concerns the exhaustion of an

extraordinary remedy that does not need to be exhausted. The Committee took due note of

the State party’s reference to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights

regarding changes introduced through the Code of Administrative Procedure and of the

conclusion of the Court about the effectiveness of the new cassation procedure. Although the

jurisprudence referred to by the State party concerns the cassation review procedure under

the Code of Civil Procedure, the Committee observes that it is very similar to the cassation

11 Yurlov et al. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017), para. 8.3.

12 D.B.B. v. Zaire, communication No. 463/1991, para. 4.2.

13 Pavlenko et al. v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/139/D/2765/2016), para. 9.5; and Yurlov et al. v.

Russian Federation, para. 8.4.

14 P.L. v. Germany (CCPR/C/79/D/1003/2001), para. 6.5.

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

GE.24-22403

9

review procedure under the Code of Administrative Procedure concerning disputes involving

public authorities.15

9.7

The Committee notes that the two-stage cassation procedure allows for a cassation

appeal to be first brought before the presidium of a regional court and subsequently before

the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court. However, the Committee observes that,

in the present case, the State party’s arguments concern not an entire cassation procedure but

only a distinct stage of the complaint mechanism after an appeal to the Administrative

Chamber of the Supreme Court. The Committee observes that the authors submitted cassation

appeals to both the Presidium of the Belgorod Regional Court and the Administrative

Chamber of the Supreme Court. The State party argues, however, that they can still submit a

complaint to the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court for a review of

the single-judge decision. The Committee notes that the single-judge decision of the

Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court dated 25 December 2015 does not refer to the

possibility of appealing the decision to the Chairperson or a Deputy Chairperson of the

Supreme Court. The Committee also refers to the wording of article 323 (4) of the Code of

Administrative Procedure, according to which the Chairperson and Deputy Chairpersons of

the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation have “the right to disagree with the ruling of a

judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation”. In these circumstances, the

Committee considers that the outcome of a complaint to the Chairperson or a Deputy

Chairperson of the Supreme Court against the dismissal of a cassation appeal by a single

judge of the Supreme Court depends on the discretionary power of the Chairperson or a

Deputy Chairperson of the Supreme Court, that the procedure constitutes an extraordinary

remedy and that the State party would have to show that there was a reasonable prospect that

such request would result in an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case.

9.8

With regard to the statistics provided by the State party on the rate of successful

reversals by Deputy Chairpersons of the Supreme Court in 2015 and 2016 of single-judge

decisions refusing to remit cassation appeals for consideration by the cassation court, the

Committee observes that the State party has not disclosed the total number of complaints

submitted to the Chairperson or Deputy Chairpersons of the Supreme Court over the same

period or the percentage of that total that the figures provided represent. Neither has the State

party provided any specific information on the effectiveness of that particular complaint

procedure in cases related to extremist literature, such as those examined in the present

communication. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee

considers that Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov have exhausted all available effective domestic

remedies and that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from

examining the present communication.

9.9

Lastly, with respect to the authors’ claims under article 26 of the Covenant, the

Committee considers that Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov have failed to provide sufficient

details concerning their arguments, in particular with respect to any differential treatment that

they experienced in comparison with individuals belonging to other religions and engaging

in the same activity. Accordingly, the Committee considers that their claims under article 26

are insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and are inadmissible under

article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee also finds that the authors’ claims under

article 27 of the Covenant are similar to their claims under article 26. Accordingly, the

Committee considers that that part of the authors’ communication must also be rejected as

inadmissible due to a lack of sufficient substantiation, in accordance with article 2 of the

Optional Protocol.

9.10

The Committee considers that Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov have sufficiently

substantiated their claims under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant for the purposes of

admissibility and proceeds with its consideration of the merits.

15 The Code of Administrative Procedure entered into force on 15 September 2015 and replaced chapter

25 of the Code of Civil Procedure governing the procedure for examining complaints about decisions,

acts or omissions of State and municipal authorities and officials. See also European Court of Human

Rights, Chigirinova v. Russia, Decision, 13 December 2016, para. 28.

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

10

GE.24-22403

Consideration of the merits

10.1

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

submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

10.2

The Committee notes Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov’s claim that the State party’s

decision to ban the two Jehovah’s Witnesses’ brochures that were held to be extremist has

had a profound negative impact on their freedom of religion and has violated their rights

under article 18 of the Covenant. They argue that the definition of what constitutes extremism

in article 1 of the Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity is so nebulous that it can be

misapplied to all religious activities and all religious speech. Thus, the limitation of their

freedom of religion neither is prescribed by law nor pursues a legitimate aim. The Committee

also takes note of their submission that the three impugned passages in the brochure The Son

Is Willing to Reveal the Father are statements of religious belief and are therefore not subject

to any limitation and that neither brochure contains any statement inciting violence or hatred,

which was confirmed in the decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court.

10.3

The Committee recalls that, as noted in its general comment No. 22 (1993) on freedom

of thought, conscience and religion, article 18 does not permit any limitations whatsoever on

the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief

of one’s choice (para. 3). By contrast, the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief may

be subject to certain limitations, but only those prescribed by law and necessary to protect

public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others

(para. 8). The freedom to manifest one’s religion encompasses a broad range of acts,

including those integral to the conduct by a religious group of its basic affairs, such as the

freedom to choose religious leaders, priests and teachers, the freedom to establish seminaries

or religious schools and the freedom to prepare and distribute religious texts or publications

(para. 4).16 In the present case, the Committee notes that the State party banned religious

brochures that Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov owned and used in their worship individually

and in community with others. Such a restriction interferes with the right to freedom of

religion. Consistent with its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Committee considers that

the freedom to own and use religious texts or publications forms part of the right of Mr. But

and Mr. Kreydenkov to manifest their beliefs and that the banning of religious publications

constitutes a limitation of that right.

10.4

The Committee must decide whether the limitation on the right of Mr. But and

Mr. Kreydenkov to manifest their religion was “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. In its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Committee observed

that article 18 (3) is to be strictly interpreted: restrictions are not allowed on grounds not

specified therein, even if they would be allowed as restrictions to other rights protected in the

Covenant, such as national security. In interpreting the scope of permissible limitation clauses,

States parties should proceed from the need to protect the rights guaranteed under the

Covenant, including the right to equality and non-discrimination on all grounds specified in

articles 2, 3 and 26 (para. 8).

10.5

The Committee observes that, according to the decision of the Oktyabrsky District

Court, one of the publications, The Son Is Willing to Reveal the Father, contained incitement

to religious discord and advocacy of the exceptionality and superiority of members of the

religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of the inferiority of other persons based

on religious affiliation or attitude towards religion. The Court also established that page 28

of the second publication, Was Life Created?, referred to another brochure published by

Jehovah’s Witnesses, which had been added to the list of extremist materials by the Ministry

of Justice pursuant to a decision by a different court. The Committee notes the State party’s

submission that declaring information materials to be extremist means recognizing that they

violate prohibitions established by law and for this reason alone represent a real threat to the

rights and freedoms of others and to the integrity and security of the State.

10.6

The Committee reiterates that article 18 (3) of the Covenant must be strictly

interpreted; limitations on article 18 (1) of the Covenant must be prescribed by law, may be

16 See also, for example, Bekzhan et al. v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015), para. 9.2.

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

GE.24-22403

11

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

and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated.17 Regarding the first

requirement under article 18 (3) of the Covenant, namely, that the limitation must be

prescribed by law, the Committee notes that the Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity

contains a vague and open-ended definition of “extremist activity” that does not require any

element of violence or hatred to be present. It also notes that no clear and precise criteria on

how materials may be classified as extremist are provided in the law.18 The Committee refers

to its general comment No. 34 (2011) on the freedoms of opinion and expression, in which it

clarified that prohibitions of displays of lack of respect for a religion or other belief system,

including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the specific

circumstances envisaged in article 20 (2) of the Covenant. Such prohibitions must also

comply with the strict requirements of article 19 (3), as well as such articles as 2, 5, 17, 18

and 26. Thus, for instance, it would be impermissible for any such laws to discriminate in

favour of or against one or certain religions or belief systems, or their adherents, over another,

or religious believers over non-believers. Nor would it be permissible for such prohibitions

to be used to prevent or punish criticism of religious leaders or commentary on religious

doctrine and tenets of faith.19

10.7

In the present case, despite the State party’s assertion that its actions fully comply

with its obligations under article 20 of the Covenant, it did not provide information that would

lead the Committee to conclude that the banned brochures contained information contrary to

article 20 (2) of the Covenant. Without providing any concrete facts about how the two

above-mentioned publications threatened the rights and freedoms of others, the domestic

courts imposed the strictest available sanction, namely, to ban the publications. The

Committee finds that a general reference to protecting the rights of others and the State, relied

upon by the State party without explaining how these rights were affected, does not meet the

requirements of article 18 (3) of the Covenant.20 Accordingly, the Committee considers that

the State party has failed to justify the restrictions on the manifestation by Mr. But and

Mr. Kreydenkov of their religion. The Committee concludes that imposing a ban on the two

religious publications in question is contrary to the freedom to manifest one’s religion and

therefore amounts to a violation of Mr. But’s and Mr. Kreydenkov’s rights under article 18 (1)

of the Covenant.

10.8

The Committee further notes Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov’s claim that, by banning

the two brochures, the State authorities have interfered with their right to seek, receive and

impart information. The Committee must therefore decide whether the restrictions imposed

on Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov are allowed under any of the permissible restrictions laid

out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant.

10.9

The Committee recalls that article 19 (3) of the Covenant allows certain restrictions,

but these are only such as are provided by law and necessary for respect of the rights or

reputations of others or for the protection of national security, of public order (ordre public)

or of public health or morals. The Committee refers to its general comment No. 34 (2011),

in which it states that the freedoms of opinion and expression are indispensable conditions

for the full development of the person and essential for any society. They constitute the

foundation stone for every free and democratic society (para. 2). Any restriction on the

exercise of these freedoms must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality.

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

be directly related to the specific need on which they were predicated (para. 22). The

Committee recalls that the onus is on the State party to demonstrate that the restrictions on

the rights of Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov under article 19 were necessary and

proportionate.21

17 General comment No. 22 (1993), para. 8.

18 Yurlov et al. v. Russian Federation, para. 9.3; and CCPR/C/RUS/CO/8, paras. 30 and 31.

19 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 48. See also Pavlenko et al. v. Russian Federation, para. 10.5;

and Yurlov et al. v. Russian Federation, para. 9.4.

20 Pavlenko et al. v. Russian Federation, para. 10.5; and Yurlov et al. v. Russian Federation, para. 9.4.

21 Pivonos v. Belarus (CCPR/C/106/D/1830/2008), para. 9.3; Olechkevitch v. Belarus

(CCPR/C/107/D/1785/2008), para. 8.5; Sambetbai v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/130/D/2418/2014),

CCPR/C/142/D/2935/2017

12

GE.24-22403

10.10 The Committee notes the State party’s argument that declaring the two brochures to

be extremist was provided for by the Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity and

pursued the legitimate aims of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and ensuring the

integrity and security of the State in the circumstances of the case because the brochures were

found to be inciting religious discord and advocating the exceptionality and superiority of

persons on the basis of their religious affiliation or attitude towards religion. However, the

Committee reiterates that prohibitions of displays of a lack of respect for a religion or other

belief system, including blasphemy laws, are incompatible with the Covenant, except in the

specific circumstances envisaged in article 20 (2) of the Covenant. Since the Committee has

already concluded that the State party was not able to provide information that the banned

brochures contained information contrary to article 20 (2) of the Covenant, the Committee

considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, the restrictions imposed on Mr. But

and Mr. Kreydenkov, although based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the

conditions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee therefore concludes that

their rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant have been violated.

11.

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

the information before it discloses a violation by the State party of the rights of Mr. But and

Mr. Kreydenkov under articles 18 (1) and 19 (2) of the Covenant.

12.

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

provide Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full

reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State

party is obligated to remove the ban on the above-mentioned publications and to take

appropriate steps to provide Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov with adequate compensation. The

State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations

from occurring in the future and should ensure that the relevant provisions of domestic law

are made compatible with articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant.

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 language of the State party.

para. 12.8; Kurtinbaeva v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/130/D/2540/2015), para. 9.9; Nurlanuly v.

Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/130/D/2546/2015), para. 9.9; and Kulumbetov v. Kazakhstan

(CCPR/C/130/D/2547/2015), para. 8.9.