CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 Witnesses in Kazakhstan 1 and argue that the State party has violated the rights of those persons under articles 18 (1) and 27 of the Covenant. The authors are represented by counsel. Facts as submitted by the authors 2.1 The authors are Jehovah’s Witnesses and each of them is an authorized representative of one of three religious organizations that provide Bibles and other religious literature to Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State party. Mr. Bekzhan imports Jehovah’s Witnesses literature into Kazakhstan, Mr. Weaver Jr., publishes literature used by Jehovah’s Witnesses in their worship and Mr. Echtle prints and ships literature to the State party, where more than 17,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses live and 30,000 persons attend their religious meetings. 2.2 On 11 October 2011, the State party adopted the Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations, No. 483-IV. Under article 9 (3) of the Law, a registered religious organization may import religious literature for its use and the use of its members only after the literature has been positively assessed following a religious expert examination. Article 6 (1) (4) of the Law stipulates that the authorized agency conducts a religious expert examination of such literature, except in the case of materials intended for personal use, according to a procedure established by the Government. 2.3 The authors claim that, although it is not expressly specified in the Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations, the Agency for Religious Affairs is responsible for approving the importation into Kazakhstan of all religious literature used by registered religious organizations. According to article 4 (3) of government order No. 209 of 7 February 2012 on the guidelines for religious expert examinations, all imported literature used by religious organizations is subject to an examination, the purpose of which is to establish whether the literature concerned complies with the Constitution and legislation of Kazakhstan. The authors submit that the 2011 Law does not provide any criteria for the approval or refusal of permission for a religious organization to import materials containing religious information. 2.4 The use of religious literature that is not authorized by the Agency for Religious Affairs is punishable under article 375 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences, which stipulates that infringement will incur a warning or a fine, with or without the suspension of the association’s activity. 2.5 In September, November and December 2012, the Christian Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Kazakhstan requested authorization for the importation of 10 religious publications. However, the Agency for Religious Affairs refused the request on the basis of the findings of the religious expert examination. The authors appealed the decision to the Chair of the Agency. On 31 January 2013, their appeal was rejected. The Chair of the Agency stated that the publications would be banned because they contained ideas that discouraged secular education, could cause family break-up, proned the superiority of the religion over traditional Christianity and rejected the fundamental teachings of traditional Christianity. He recommended that the authors edit the content of the publications. 2.6 In May 2013, the authors filed an application with the Astana Specialized InterDistrict Economic Court challenging the Agency’s decisions. On 3 July 2013, the Court dismissed the authors’ application, finding that the disputed decisions were in accordance with the law, that there had been no violation of the authors’ rights and freedoms and that the religious expert examination had been conducted in strict compliance with the law. The Court further noted that the publications in question could be corrected and resubmitted for an expert examination and therefore found that the distribution of the religious literature had been neither hindered nor restricted. 2.7 The authors lodged an appeal with the Appeals Chamber of the Astana City Court, which upheld the 3 July 2013 decision on 27 August 2013. A further appeal was filed with the Cassation Chamber of the Astana City Court, which upheld the ruling on 6 May 2014. 1 2 The authors refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence in Howard v. Canada (CCPR/C/84/D/879/1999), para. 8.3, and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, communication No. 167/1984, paras. 2.2, 29.1, 31.1 and 32.