CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 6.16 The institution of religious expert examinations is not an instrument of censorship and discrimination for limiting the activity of the community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the State party. According to article 20 (1) of the Constitution, censorship is prohibited in the State party. The decision of the authorized agency, based on the outcome of the religious expert examination, has affected only 10 of the Jehovah’s Witnesses publications; their content contained signs of propaganda for religious intolerance and enmity. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications, after undergoing a religious expert examination and receiving a positive assessment, are imported and distributed in the State party without hindrance. For example, in 2014, a religious expert examination was conducted on 99 Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications containing religious information, of which only 13 (13 per cent) were assessed negatively; in 2015, a negative assessment was issued in respect of 6 (10 per cent) of 64 Jehovah’s Witnesses’ publications containing religious information. The State party submits that the communication should be rejected because it is inadmissible and groundless. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 19 September 2016, the authors noted that the State party did not dispute any of the facts set out in the complaint, including: (a) that the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations does not provide any criteria to be followed by the Agency for Religious Affairs (now the Committee on Religious Affairs) when deciding whether to reject a religious organization’s request to import religious literature; (b) that a religious organization is prohibited from importing religious literature into the State party without the Agency’s approval; and (c) the facts of the case. 7.2 The State party also does not dispute the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses,10 to which the Agency objected, and the blatant errors that the Agency made in mischaracterizing those beliefs, which further proves the hazards of a State-sanctioned inquiry into the legitimacy of religious beliefs. 7.3 The authors maintain that neither of the State party’s objections to the references to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights and to the 11 February 2009 judgment of the Constitutional Council has any merit. The jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, although not binding on the State party, is a persuasive authority when interpreting similar rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Covenant. The Constitutional Council judgment interprets the constitutional right to freedom of religion and the prohibition against arbitrary State action and is obviously relevant in showing that, even under domestic law, the decisions and actions of the Agency for Religious Affairs were unlawful. 7.4 The alleged 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. Nothing in the religious publications contains calls to violence or incitement to religious hatred. This is self-evident from the content of the publications and the fact that tens of millions of copies of those same publications have been peacefully used and distributed by Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 8.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether it is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 8.3 The Committee notes the State party’s claim that neither the counsel nor the foreign religious associations in whose name the communication was also submitted fall under its 10 As described and explained in the initial communication. 9