CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 Subsequently, the authors filed a motion for supervisory review to the Supreme Court, which dismissed the motion on 4 September 2014. Complaint 3.1 The authors claim that the decisions made by the Agency for Religious Affairs refusing to permit the importation into the State party of 10 religious publications to be used for religious worship by Jehovah’s Witnesses amount to violations of their rights under articles 18 (1) and (3), 19 (2) and (3) and 27 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors claim that imposing a restriction or ban on the circulation, distribution or sale of a book interferes with the right to freedom of expression and that such a restriction on a religious publication interferes with the freedom of religion. 2 The decisions of the Agency for Religious Affairs refusing permission for the importation of the religious publications in question thereby interfered with the rights of the authors and of all Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious minority in the State party. Furthermore, the authors claim that such interference does not fall under the limitations prescribed by article 18 (3) of the Covenant, as all passages in the religious publications to which the Agency objects are mere statements of the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Therefore, the Agency’s interference with their right to freedom of religion cannot be justified since it does not pursue a legitimate aim and is not necessary in a democratic society.3 State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 29 December 2015, the State party submits that the authors dispute the decision of 3 July 2013 of the Astana Specialized Inter-District Economic Court, which rejected the claim submitted by the Christian Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses regional religious association, the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and Wachtturm Bibel- und Traktat-Gesellschaft der Zeugen Jehovas, e. V. against the State party’s Agency for Religious Affairs. The authors requested that the expert conclusions refusing permission for the importation of the November 2012 issue of the publication Awake! (in Russian), the brochure Examining the Scriptures Daily – 2013 (in Russian and Kazakh), the 15 March 2013 issue of The Watchtower (in Russian and in Kazakh), the October– December 2012 issue of The Watchtower (in Kazakh), the 15 January 2013 issue of The Watchtower (in Russian and in Kazakh) and the 15 February 2013 issue of The Watchtower (in Russian and in Kazakh) be declared unlawful and that this violation of their rights be remedied. In the authors’ opinion, the State party violated Mr. Bekzhan’s rights guaranteed under the Covenant. 4.2 The State party recalls that, pursuant to article 3 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant and rule 99 of its rules of procedure, the Committee can declare any communication inadmissible if it has been filed anonymously, that is, if it is not signed by the author or if the representative does not have proper authorization. Rule 99 (a) of the rules of procedure establishes that, with a view to reaching a decision on the admissibility of a communication, the Committee shall ascertain that the communication is not anonymous and that it emanates from an individual, or individuals, subject to the jurisdiction of a State party to the Optional Protocol. 4.3 The State party contends that neither the counsel, nor the foreign religious associations in whose name the communication was also submitted, fall under its jurisdiction, since the counsel is not a citizen of Kazakhstan and the religious associations are not registered in the State party. Additionally, the associations are not parties in legal relations concerning the importation of materials containing religious information into the territory of the State party. Pursuant to article 9 (3) of the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations, 2 3 European Court of Human Rights, Kuznetsov and others v. Russia, Application No. 184/02, Judgment of 11 January 2007, para. 57. The authors refer to the Committee’s general comment No. 22 (1993), para. 3, Atasoy v. Turkey (CCPR/C/104/D/1853-1854/2008), para. 10.4, Leven v. Kazakhstan (CCPR/C/112/D/2131/2012), para. 9.3, Malakhovsky and Pikul v. Belarus (CCPR/C/84/D/1207/2003), para. 7.6, Leven v. Kazakhstan, para. 9.3, and Turchenyak et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/108/D/1948/2010), paras. 7.7–7.8. 3