CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 jurisdiction, that those religious associations are not parties in legal relations concerning the importation of materials containing religious information into its territory and that they therefore lack status to submit a communication before the Committee. In this regard, the Committee also notes the authors’ argument to the effect that the violation of rights occurred in the State party and was committed by its authorities and therefore the second and third author, although not Kazakh citizens, have standing to challenge the violation of their rights before the Committee. The Committee further notes that the second and third authors are members of the boards of directors of two foreign religious entities of Jehovah’s Witnesses that publish, print and ship to the State party religious literature for use by Jehovah’s Witnesses. Furthermore, it notes that the State party’s courts accepted that those two foreign legal entities were adversely affected by the authorities’ decisions refusing permission to import the religious literature and so had standing to appeal the refusal that has affected the exercise of their rights in the State party before the domestic courts. For these reasons, the Committee finds that the authors have demonstrated that they were directly affected by the refusal of the State party to allow the importation of religious literature and that they were subject to the jurisdiction of the State party.11 The Committee notes the State party’s assertion that the communication is inadmissible because it was not submitted personally by the individual authors. Nevertheless, the Committee observes that the three individual authors have duly authorized two professional lawyers to act as their representatives in the proceedings before the Committee. The Committee notes in this regard that the State party has not disputed the first author’s standing to bring the communication as a Kazakh citizen. Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 1 of the Optional Protocol from examining the communication. 8.4 The Committee also notes the State party’s argument that the authors’ claim on behalf of all Jehovah’s Witnesses on its territory amounts to an actio popularis. The Committee further notes that the authors do not provide authorizations from the 17,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State party to act on their behalf, nor do the authors explain the reasons why they can represent these persons. Accordingly, and in the absence of further pertinent information on file, the Committee concludes that this part of the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 3 of the Optional Protocol. 8.5 The Committee notes the authors’ claim that all available domestic remedies have been exhausted. It also notes the State party’s observation that the authors have not requested the Office of the Prosecutor General to initiate supervisory review proceedings before the Supreme Court and have thus failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In this regard, the Committee notes that the authors appealed directly to the Supreme Court for a supervisory review, but their application was dismissed. In addition, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which a petition for supervisory review to a Prosecutor’s Office, dependent on the discretionary power of the prosecutor to review court decisions that have taken effect, does not constitute a remedy which has to be exhausted for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.12 Accordingly, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the present communication. 8.6 The Committee notes the authors’ claims under article 27 of the Covenant that the decisions by the State party’s authorities refusing permission for the importation of the 10 religious publications have denied members of the religious minority the right to profess and practise their own religion, as the religious literature in question was crucial to the regular religious worship of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State party. The Committee also notes the State party’s observations that, of the 79 publications submitted for expert examination, 39 were assessed positively, 23 were returned at the request of the Christian Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses without an expert examination having been performed, 7 were being examined and 10 publications were assessed negatively and permission for their importation denied. It further notes the State party’s submission that the members of the Jehovah’s Witnesses religious association have never been denied the right to practise their religion together with other members of the group and, as is not disputed by the authors, there are over 17,000 11 12 10 General comment No. 31 (2004), para. 10. Alekseev v. Russian Federation (CCPR/C/109/D/1873/2009), para. 8.4.