Dissolution of a local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses for distribution of “extremist” publications

Facts

The authors of the communication are nationals of the Russian Federation and members of Jehovah’s Witnesses, with Mr. Pavlenko being the Chairman of the local organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses for the city of Abinsk (“organization”). Two members of the organization faced an administrative conviction for the offence of mass distribution of extremist religious literature. Following this, the Krasnodar Territorial Court ordered the dissolution of the organization and confiscation of its property. Mr. Pavlenko appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation arguing that at the time of their administrative conviction, the two convicted individuals had terminated their membership with the organization and that the decision to dissolve the organization hindered the peaceful manifestation of their religion. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the trial court, and a supervisory appeal filed by Mr. Pavlenko was rejected by the Supreme Court. The authors have claimed in the communication that the Russian Federation (State party) has violated their rights under articles 7, 18 (1) and (3), 22 (1) and (2), 26 and 27.

Admissibility

Contrary to the State party’s submission that a similar complaint was submitted to the European Court of Human Rights by other local religious organizations, the Committee noted that the complaint submitted consisted of a different set of issues which cannot be attributed to the present communication. The Committee noted that the authors submitted the present communication in a personal capacity and not seeking rights for the organization as a legal entity, hence the communication is admissible under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. However, the Committee noted that as only Mr. Pavlenko took part in the domestic proceedings, the other two authors in the present communication cannot be said to have exhausted all domestic remedies and accordingly, only the claims of Mr. Pavlenko would be examined. Additionally, the Committee rejected the claim of Mr. Pavlenko that classification of the organization as an extremist organization is contrary to article 7, explaining the aim of article 7 is the protection of the individual and that his claims were insufficiently substantiated and hence inadmissible. Still, the claims of Mr. Pavlenko under articles 18 (1) and (3), 22 (1) and (2), 26, and 27 were considered to be admissible.

Merits

The Committee noted that the dissolution of the organisation deprived Mr. Pavlenko of a number of individual rights essential for the free manifestation of his religion and was hence in violation of article 18 (1). The Committee also held that there was no legal basis for the dissolution of the organisation and that the domestic authorities did not meet the criteria under article 22 (2) as they failed to show that the restriction on freedom of association was justified under one of the grounds listed under article 22 (2). Additionally, the Committee noted that the decision to practise a religion as a group or as a registered organisation should rest with the individual and that the State party had no legitimate aim in the dissolution of the organization which is in violation of article 22 (1). The Committee also stated that it had addressed claims under articles 18 (1) and 22 (1), and there is no need to separately examine claims made under article 26 and 27.

Recommendations

The Committee held that the State party is under an obligation to:

a) Reopen domestic proceedings and review the decision of the Krasnodar Territorial Court;

b) Provide Mr. Pavlenko with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of court fees and legal expenses incurred;

c) Prevent similar violations from happening in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 21 April 2024