CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 only registered religious associations – in this case the Christian Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses regional religious association – can be such parties. 4.4 The State party observes that, by virtue of rule 99 (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure, with a view to reaching a decision on the admissibility of a communication, the Committee shall ascertain that the communication was submitted by an individual who claims to be a victim of a violation by that State party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant or by that individual’s representative. A communication submitted by a representative may be accepted when the individual in question is unable to submit it personally. 4.5 According to the State party, the communication does not contain any information indicating why the authors, as representatives of the religious associations, those religious associations themselves, members of Mr. Bekzhan’s family or all 17,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State party were unable to submit the communication to the Committee personally. Moreover, in order for the Committee to consider claims from a group of individuals concerning alleged breaches of their rights under the Covenant, a communication to the Committee must be submitted either by the group itself on its own behalf or through a representative to whom authorization is provided for these purposes. 4 4.6 The State party maintains that the communication does not contain information to the effect that members of Mr. Bekzhan’s family or the 17,500 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State party commissioned anyone to submit a complaint or to represent them before the Committee. Moreover, the claim does not state whether the founding documents of the 59 local religious associations of Jehovah’s Witnesses registered in the State party (charters that define the mutual rights and obligations of the religious associations, of their administrative agencies, and of their members) authorize anyone, including Mr. Bekzhan (the director of the regional religious association), to submit an application to the Committee on their behalf. 4.7 According to the State party, under articles 2 and 5 of the Optional Protocol and rule 96 (f) of the rules of procedure, the Committee can declare a communication inadmissible if all available domestic remedies were not exhausted. The decision of 3 July 2013 of the Astana Specialized Inter-District Economic Court rejected the claim submitted by the Christian Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses regional religious association, 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 claim requested that the expert conclusions refusing permission to import religious literature in the Russian and Kazakh languages be declared unlawful and that this violation of rights be remedied. On 27 August 2013, the Astana City Court upheld the decision of the lower court. The ruling of 6 May 2014 of the Cassation Chamber of the Astana City Court upheld those judicial decisions. By ruling of 4 September 2014, the Supervisory Chamber for Civil and Administrative Cases of the Supreme Court refused to initiate supervisory proceedings. 4.8 Moreover, the regional religious association did not follow the procedure for the submission of requests or respect the time period provided for under articles 385 and 388 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in force when the judicial decisions were rendered) when applying to the Prosecutor General for a supervisory review to be filed with the Supreme Court against the court decision. Essentially, in failing to submit a request within the legally established time period and thus voluntarily denying itself effective means of legal protection, the regional religious association put itself in a position whereby it abused the right to submit a communication to the Committee. In addition, the claim did not provide sufficient arguments showing that it would be a futile and ineffective means of legal protection for the regional religious association to submit such a request to the Prosecutor General. 4.9 Therefore, the State party submits that the communication is inadmissible under articles 1 and 3 of the Optional Protocol and rule 99 (a) and (b) of the Committee’s rules of procedure. 4 4 The State party refers to the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 9, Howard v. Canada, para. 8.3, and Lubicon Lake Band v. Canada, para. 32.1.