CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 not dispute either the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses to which the Agency objected or the errors that the Agency made in mischaracterizing those beliefs, which proves further the hazards of a State-sanctioned inquiry into the legitimacy of religious beliefs. It further takes note of the authors’ arguments that the reasons given by the State party for prohibiting the importation of the religious publications in question do not satisfy the requirements of articles 18 (3) and 19 (2) of the Covenant because, they claim, the religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses contain no calls to violence or incitement to religious hatred and those same publications have been peacefully used and distributed by Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. 9.6 The Committee reiterates that article 18 (3) of the Covenant must be strictly interpreted; limitations on article 18 (1) of the Covenant must be prescribed by law, may be applied only for those purposes for which they were prescribed and must be directly related and proportionate to the specific need on which they are predicated. 14 The Committee observes that the authors have sufficiently substantiated the interference with their rights and, therefore, the burden of proof has shifted to the State party to justify the limitation imposed. 15 Furthermore, the Committee recalls that, when a State party invokes a ground in order to restrict freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in a specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.16 In the present case, the Committee notes the authors’ claim that the 2011 Law does not prescribe criteria on which the expert examination of religious literature should be based. The reasons given for refusing to permit the importation of some of the authors’ publications suggest that permission may be refused for arbitrary or other prohibited reasons, such as disagreement by the State or other religions with the religious principles expressed in the literature. Moreover, religious freedom is particularly necessary to protect the rights of those who adhere to unpopular beliefs. The importation ban that the 2011 Law may produce is also problematic in the light of article 19, which guarantees “freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers”. In addition, the Committee notes that, in the present case, the State party has failed to substantiate its responses to the authors’ claims or provide any examples to show how the prohibited publications threaten any of the interests protected by article 18 (3). The Committee also notes that, since the publications concerned are freely accessible on the Internet and can be imported for personal use, as claimed by the State party, it is difficult to maintain that it was necessary to prohibit their importation by the authors. In these circumstances, the Committee finds that the limitation has not been shown to serve any legitimate purpose identified in article 18 (3); nor has the State party shown that this limitation of the right to manifest religion is proportionate to a legitimate purpose that it might serve. The Committee accordingly considers that the State party has failed to justify the restrictions on the authors’ manifestation of their religion and concludes that the refusal to permit the importation of the religious publications in question is contrary to the freedom to manifest one’s religion and therefore amounts to a violation of the authors’ rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 9.7 In the light of its finding, the Committee will not examine separately the authors’ claims under article 19 of the Covenant. 10. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of the authors’ rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 11. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated, inter alia, to (a) remove the restrictions on the right of the authors to import the 10 religious publications; (b) take appropriate steps to provide the authors with adequate compensation, including for legal expenses and fees; and (c) review its legislation, regulations and practices with a view to ensuring that the rights under article 18 of the 14 15 16 12 General comment No. 22 (1993), para. 8. General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 27. Ibid., para. 35.