Unlawful registration-based restrictions in Uzbekistan for Jehovah’s Witnesses (1)

Facts

All the authors are Jehovah’s Witnesses who, in 2015, became subject to administrative liability under article 184(2) of the Uzbekistani Administrative Liability Code for possessing religious publications in areas where Jehovah’s Witnesses were not registered. The police conducted warrantless searches or stops, confiscated religious materials (including Bibles), and brought administrative charges against the authors. Although the authors pursued legal remedies—filing cassation appeals and subsequently seeking supervisory reviews from the Prosecutor General— all of these efforts were either rejected or remained unanswered at the time their communications were submitted to the Committee. Throughout these events, the lack of local registration of Jehovah’s Witnesses was consistently cited by courts to justify the conclusion that the authors’ possession of religious publications was unlawful.

The authors claim that the search, seizure of private property, and subsequent administrative fine imposed by State authorities violated their rights under the Covenant. They invoke article 17 (protection against arbitrary interference with privacy and property), article  18 (1) (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion), article 19 (2) and (3) (freedom of expression), article 21 (right to peaceful assembly), and article 22 (1) and (2) (freedom of association), arguing that the measures unlawfully interfered with their private life, beliefs, expression, and collective activities.

Admissibility

Although the State party argues that the authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies by not seeking supervisory review before the Supreme Court, the authors maintain that this remedy was not available at the time. In the absence of contrary evidence, the Committee concludes it is not barred from examining the communications. It further finds the authors’ claims under articles 17, 18, 19, 21, and 22 sufficiently substantiated and proceeds to consider the merits.

Merits

After examining all available information, the Committee notes the authors’ claim that police searches and confiscation of religious materials violated their right to privacy (article 17). It finds the State party failed to show any urgent or proportionate justification for entering homes without valid warrants, thus arbitrarily interfering with the right to privacy. Regarding freedom of religion (article 18), the Committee recalls that any restrictions must be strictly necessary to protect legitimate interests such as public safety. The State party’s justifications were abstract and did not demonstrate how requiring local registration before possessing religious materials was proportionate or necessary. Therefore, the Committee concludes that these actions violated the authors’ rights under article  18 (1). In view of this finding, it does not separately address articles 19, 21, or 22.

Recommendations

The State party should:

• (a) make full reparations to the individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated; therefore, make adequate compensation including the legal cost and fines paid; and
• (b) to take all necessary steps to prevent similar violations in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 24 May 2025