Banning religious brochures of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation

Facts

The authors are citizens of the Russian Federation and members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mr. Kalin is a Chairperson of the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, which imports religious literature on behalf of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation. Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov are Jehovah’s Witnesses living in Belgorod. In 2014, the Belgorod City Prosecutor’s Office initiated proceedings to declare certain Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious brochures as extremist materials. Despite expert findings indicating that the brochures did not contain calls to hostile or violent actions, the Oktyabrsky District Court designated two brochures, Was Life Created? and The Son Is Willing to Reveal the Father, as extremist, citing references to previously banned publications and passages suggesting religious superiority. Appeals were unsuccessful, and the publications were added to a federal list of extremist materials. The authors allege that the State party violated their rights under articles 18 (freedom of religion), 19 (freedom of expression), 26 (non-discrimination), and 27 (right as a minority group to profess and practice their religion) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee noted that the authors submitted their complaint in their personal capacity and did not claim rights on behalf of their organization, the Administrative Centre, as a separate legal entity. The Committee found that Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov exhausted all available domestic remedies, but that Mr. Kalin had failed to do so because he did not personally take part in domestic judicial proceedings. The Committee considered, however, that Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov had sufficiently substantiated their claims under articles 18 and 19, but not articles 26 and 27, of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. The Committee therefore considered that the communication was admissible under the Optional Protocol, as to the claims brought by Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant.

Merits

The Committee considered that imposition of a ban on the two religious publications in question was contrary to the freedom to manifest one’s religion, and amounted to a violation of Mr. But’s and Mr. Kreydenkov’s rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. The freedom to own and use religious texts or publications forms part of the right to manifest one’s beliefs, and the banning of religious publications constitutes a limitation of that right. A limitation on the right to manifest religion is to be strictly interpreted. The Committee found that the State party’s Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity contained a vague and open-ended definition of “extremist activity.” In addition, prohibitions of displaying religion were incompatible with the Covenant, except in specific circumstances envisaged in article  20 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee considered that the State party did not provide information to lead the Committee to conclude that the banned brochures contained information contrary to article 20 (2) of the Covenant. Moreover, a general reference to protecting the rights of others and the State was insufficient to meet the requirements of article 18 (3), and the State party had therefore failed to justify the restrictions on the manifestation of the authors’ religion.

Additionally, the Committee considered that the rights of Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov under article 19 (2) were also violated. By banning the two brochures, the State authorities interfered with the right to seek, receive and impart information. Although article 19 (3) of the Covenant allows for certain restrictions, such restrictions must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality. The onus is on the State party to demonstrate that the restrictions were necessary and proportionate. Since 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 considered that the restrictions imposed on Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov, though based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee therefore considered that the facts disclosed 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.

Recommendations

The State party should, inter alia:

• (a) provide Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov with an effective remedy by making full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated;
• (b) remove the ban on the above-mentioned publications;
• (c) take appropriate steps to provide Mr. But and Mr. Kreydenkov with adequate compensation;
• (d) take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future; and
• (e) ensure that all relevant provisions of domestic law are made compatible with articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 24 April 2025