Refusal to register constituent documents of religious organizations in the Transnistrian region

Facts

The authors of the communication- D.O. is a national of the Republic of Moldova, and S.G., and G.K. are nationals of the Russian Federation, who are the religious ministers and members of the board of directors of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Transnistria (Republic of Moldova). The self-proclaimed Transnistrian Moldovan Republic adopted a law requiring all religious organizations to align their constituent documents with the new legislation, and provided that non-conformity with the law would lead to liquidation of the religious organization. In light of this, the authors submitted a request to the Ministry of Justice of the Transnistrian Moldovan Republic to register the changes to their constituent documents. One the first request by the authors, the Ministry ordered a board of experts to conduct a religious examination which found that some activities of the organization contradict the existing laws. The authors’ corrected the shortcoming highlighted by the board of experts and submitted three other requests for registration to the Ministry, all of which were rejected citing errors in the application as well as the goals and objectives of the organization as being contrary to the existing laws.

The authors instituted complaints against both, the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation (communication is registered as a separate case CCPR/C/139/D/2871/2016). The authors referred to the report of the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment on his mission to the Republic of Moldova where it is stated that the Transnistrian region falls under the jurisdiction of both the Republic of Moldova and the Russian Federation, and both should share the responsibility to uphold respect for human rights. The authors also refer to the findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Ilaşcu and Ors v. The Republic of Moldova and Catan and Ors v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia with respect to responsibility of both the states for violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the present communication, the authors cite violation of their right to religion, association, and equal protection of the law under articles 18 (1) and (3), 22 (1) and (2) and 26 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee also noted the emphasis by the State party that it has never supported the self-proclaimed entity established in Transnistria and has repeatedly drawn the attention of the de facto authorities in the region to acts that have been unacceptable under human rights and has also sought aid at the international level for mediation and other assistance. The Committee also observed the information of the State party that under its national legislation, the authors have the possibility to register their organization in the Republic of Moldova and no obstacles for such registration exist. The Committee noted that both the parties acknowledge that the Republic of Moldova has no effective control over the territory of Transnistria and has no involvement with the decisions taken by the de facto authorities in Transnistria. The Committee noted that there is no relevant information how the Republic of Moldova should have acted to secure the authors’ rights given their lack of effective control over Transnistria and that the authors had failed to substantiate their claims. For these reasons the Committee held the present communication as inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.