his right to freedom of expression (in particular his right to impart information in print), as protected by article 19 of the Covenant. He also claims that he was prevented from enjoying his own culture, in community with other members of the Tajik minority in Uzbekistan, in violation of his rights under article 27 of the Covenant. He finally claims to be a victim of violation of article 2, in conjunction with the articles 19 and 27 in that the State party failed to take measures to "respect and ensure" the rights recognised in the Covenant. 4.2 Mr. Sa'di claims that the refusal of the Press Department of the Samarkand region to re-register the Oina newspaper (that he was buying and reading on a regular basis) amounts to a violation by the State party of his right to freedom of expression (in particular his right to receive information and ideas in print), as protected by article 19 of the Covenant. He further claims to be a victim of a violation of his rights under article 27, as he was prevented from enjoying his own culture, in community with other members of the Tajik minority in Uzbekistan. He finally claims to be a victim of violation of article 2, in conjunction with the articles 19 and 27 in that the State party failed to take measures to "respect and ensure" the rights recognised in the Covenant. 4.3 Both authors also claim that the State party's registration regime for print media is per se in violation of article 19, paragraph 3, and as such constitutes a restriction of the freedom of expression. STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS ON ADMISSIBILITY AND MERITS 5.1 On 10 December 2004, 27 March 2006, and 2 June 2006, the State party was requested to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. On 30 August 2006, the State party recalled the facts of the case and added that article 13 of the Law "On Mass Media", on the basis of which "Oina's" license to publish was cancelled by the Press Department on 28 March 2001, stipulated that the application for mass media registration should indicate its (1) founder(s); (2) title and working language(s) and legal address; (3) aims and tasks; (4) targeted readership (audience); and (5) planned periodicity of publication or broadcast, number of copies, as well as sources of funding and material and technical supplies. A change in any of the above data requires a re-registration. 5.2 The State party also refers to paragraph 5 of the 4th Ruling of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of Uzbekistan "On Certain Issues of Conformity in the Consideration of Civil Cases in Court" of 7 January 1994, according to which a registration of mass media or refusal to do so, as well as claims related to the discontinuation of their activities, are within the competency of the courts of general jurisdiction (see paragraph 2.10 above). The State party concludes that the decisions of the domestic courts are substantiated and in accordance with the law. AUTHORS' COMMENTS ON THE STATE PARTY'S OBSERVATIONS 6.1 On 15 November 2006, the authors added that the delay in the submission of the State party's observations, in contravention of the Committee's Rules of Procedure, has unreasonably continued the harm to their right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant: respectively, Mr. Mavlonov's ability to publish "Oina", and Mr. Sa'di's right to receive information and ideas in print. They further submit that this delay also continued the harm to their right under article 27 to enjoy their own culture, read together with article 2, which requires the State party to take proactive measures to 'respect and ensure' the rights recognised in the Covenant. They state that one of the authors, Mr. Mavlonov, has had to flee Uzbekistan since the communication was submitted to the Committee. 6.2 The authors further submit that the State party failed to address any of the specific claims made in their initial submission. While the State party claimed that 'the decisions of the domestic courts are substantiated and according to the law', the authors argue that the substance of their communication before the Committee is not the compliance of the actions taken against them by the State party's authorities in accordance with domestic law but rather the non compliance of the latter with the law of