Refusal to register constituent documents of religious organizations

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). Following the adoption of a law by the self-proclaimed Transnistrian Moldovan Republic requiring all religious organizations to align their constituent documents with the new legislation, the non-conformity with the same leading to liquidation of the religious organisation, 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 organisation 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 organisation as being contrary to the existing laws. The fourth refusal was challenged by the authors before the City Court which ruled in favour of the authors.

However, this decision was quashed by the Supreme Court and a subsequent supervisory review submitted by the authors was also rejected by the Supreme Court. Letters to the Prime Ministers of the Russian Federation and Republic of Moldova were also sent by the authors which received no response. The authors instituted complaints against both, the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova (communication is registered as a separate case CCPR/C/139/D/2870/2016). 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 noted, considering the separate claims of the authors against the Russian Federation and the Republic of Moldova that the alleged violations took place in Transnistria which forms a part of the territory of the Republic of Moldova. The Committee noted that under article 1 of the Optional Protocol and article 2 (1) of the General Comment No. 31 which provides that States are to ensure the rights under the Covenant to all persons within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction, it implies that this would extend to anyone within the power or effective control of the State party, even if not present within the territory of the State party.

Observing the authors’ claims that the Russian Federation exercises effective control over Transnistria which stems from its military presence in the area and high reliance of de facto authorities of Transnistria on the Russian Federation as unsubstantiated, the Committee held that the authors’ allege violations resulting from the actions of the de facto authorities of Transnistria and not that of the Russian Federation, especially with respect to the refusal of registration by the Ministry and subsequent actions by the Supreme Court of the Transnistrian Moldovan Republic. For these reasons the Committee held that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate their claims for the purposes of admissibility and declared the communication as inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.