CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 international practice in the sphere of freedom of religion; it does not contravene the State party’s obligations. For example, article 3 (10) of the Law, which prohibits the creation and activity of religious associations whose goals and activities are aimed at inciting religious enmity and discord, is in complete harmony with article 20 (2) of the Covenant. Moreover, information on the compliance of this Law with the Covenant and other international legal documents is set forth in detail in the comments of the State party on the report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief.8 6.12 The examples of case law of the European Court of Human Rights and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe referred to by the authors are inappropriate and not applicable to the State party, including for the consideration by the Committee of the present communication. First, the State party is not a party to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. It is not a member of the Council of Europe and, by force of the peremptory provisions of article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties dated 23 May 1969, did not assume the obligations related to it. Second, the Covenant and its Optional Protocol do not contain provisions allowing for the citing of decisions of other bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms during the consideration of individual communications. In view of article 2 (1) of the Covenant, article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant and paragraph 3 of the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004), decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe do not and cannot create international legal obligations for the State party. This is also pertinent in the present context. 6.13 In the State party’s opinion, the authors inappropriately cited judgment No. 1 of the Constitutional Council of 11 February 2009. This judgment was rendered in connection with an assessment of whether the Law on Amendments and Additions to Certain Legislative Acts Regarding Freedom of Worship and Religious Associations9 complied with the Constitution. The Constitutional Council found the Law not to be in compliance with the Constitution. In accordance with article 74 (1) of the Constitution, the Constitutional Council ruled that the Law should not be signed and enacted. Therefore, judgment No. 1 of the Constitutional Council is not relevant to the present communication and does not apply to the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations. 6.14 The State party interprets the authors’ conclusion as asserting that the right to freedom of religion is absolute and cannot be limited, and challenges it. In its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Committee emphasized that article 18 of the Covenant distinguishes the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief from the freedom to manifest religion or belief. The article does not permit any limitations whatsoever on the freedom of thought and conscience or on the freedom to have or adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice. Those freedoms are protected unconditionally, as is the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference in article 19 (1) of the Covenant. Based on this and on article 18 (3) of the Covenant, the freedom to manifest religion or beliefs and the rights provided for in article 19 (3) of the Covenant may be limited by law only for the protection of public order and the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. In this connection, the State party notes that the Constitution and the laws do not contain or allow any kind of limitation on freedom of thought and conscience and freedom to have or to adopt a religion or beliefs of one’s choice; that is, everyone has the right to subscribe or not to subscribe to any religion. 6.15 The 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations, being based on the Constitution and not contravening the provisions of the Covenant, determines the procedure for realization of the right to manifest religion, including the importation of religious literature or material containing religious information. Moreover, the institution of religious expert examinations in combination with the norm laid out in article 9 (3) of the 2011 Law does not affect the realization of the right to freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of one’s choice, which fully complies with the requirements of article 18 (2) of the Covenant. 8 9 8 A/HRC/28/66/Add.3. Adopted by the Parliament of Kazakhstan on 26 November 2008 and submitted for signature to the President of Kazakhstan on 2 December 2008.