Dissolution of religious organization for distribution of extremist literature in the Russian Federation

Facts

The authors are nationals of the Russian Federation and members of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A police search of the authors’ organisation yielded in the discovery of banned extremist literature, so a City Court found the organisation guilty of production and distribution of extremist material. Mr. Yurlov who is one of the authors as well as the Chairman of the organisation, appealed to the Supreme Court which rejected the appeal. A second search of the organisation yielded more copies of extremist literature, and the Prosecutor filed a case to have the organisation declared as an extremist organisation. The Supreme Court declared the organisation as an extremist organisation and ordered its dissolution. The authors claim a violation of their rights to not be subject to degrading treatment, freedom of religion, freedom of association, non-discrimination, and profess culture and religion as minorities under articles 7, 18 (1) and (3), 22 (1) and (2), 26 and 27 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee noted that the authors submitted their claim in personal capacity and did not claim rights for the organisation as a legal entity and hence had standing under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. However, as only Mr. Yurlov took part in the domestic proceedings as the organisation’s Chairman, the other two authors cannot be said to have exhausted all domestic remedies, and hence the Committee decided to examine the communication only in respect of Mr. Yurlov. Furthermore, the Committee held that the interpretation of ‘torture’ under article 7 does not cover the elements invoked by Mr. Yurlov in relation to dissolution of the organisation, and the claims under article7 were considered insufficiently substantiated and hence inadmissible. However, the rest of Mr. Yurlov’s claims were deemed admissible for consideration on merits.

Merits

The Committee noted that the State party did not provide concrete facts about how the publications distributed by Mr. Yurlov’s organisation threatened the rights of others and how it was contrary to article 20 (2). The Committee held that the domestic courts did not provide a valid legal basis for restriction under article 18 (3). Furthermore, the Committee noted, referring to practices listed as integral to freedom of religion in its General Comment No. 22, that the legislation of the State party did not accord religious groups any such rights, and held that through the dissolution of the organisation, Mr. Yurlov’s rights under article 18 (1) were violated. The Committee noted that the State party failed to justify how the distribution of banned publications endangered the rights of others and the security of the State to warrant the dissolution of the organisation. The Committee also noted that the rights of an unregistered group are limited and held that there was a violation of article 22 (1). Given that claims under articles 18 (1) and 22 (1) were addressed and had found their violation, the Committee decided not to address the complaints under articles 26 and 27 separately.

Recommendations

The State party is under an obligation to:

a) Re-open domestic proceedings and review the decision of the Supreme Court ordering the dissolution of the organization;

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

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 21 April 2024