CCPR/C/95/D/1334/2004 Page 10 Consideration of the merits 8.1 The Human Rights Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, as provided under article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol. 8.2 The Committee notes that in its submission on the authors’ allegations, the State party has not provided any specific observation on the claims with regard to articles 19 and 27, but it has merely stated that the decisions of the domestic courts are substantiated and in accordance with the law. In the absence of any other pertinent information from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, to the extent that they have been properly substantiated. 8.3 With regard to article 19, the authors claimed in great detail that the refusal to re-register “Oina” by the State party’s authorities is in violation of Article 19 of the Covenant in its failure to be ‘provided by law’ and to pursue any legitimate aim, as understood under article 19, paragraph 3. In the Committee’s view, issues related to the registration and/or re-registration of mass media fall within the scope of the right to freedom of expression protected by article 19. The Committee observes that article 19 allows restrictions only as provided by law and necessary (a) for respect of the rights and reputation of others; and (b) for the protection of national security or public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals. It recalls that the right to freedom of expression is of paramount importance in any society, and any restrictions to the exercise of must meet a strict test of justification. 9 8.4 In the present case, the Committee is of the opinion that the application of the procedure of registration and re-registration of “Oina” did not allow Mr. Mavlonov, as the editor, and Mr. Sa’di, as a reader, to practice their freedom of expression, as defined in article 19, paragraph 2. The Committee notes that the State party has not made any attempt to address the authors’ specific claims, including Mr. Mavlonov’s reference to the decision of the Commission which suggests that the content of the “Oina” is the reason for the denial of the re-registration (see paragraph 2.6 above). Nor has it advanced arguments as to the compatibility of the requirements, which are de facto restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, which are applicable to the authors’ case, with any of the criteria listed in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Committee therefore finds that the right to freedom of expression under article 19 of the Covenant, respectively, Mr. Mavlonov’s ability to publish “Oina” and to impart information, and Mr. Sa’di’s right to receive information and ideas in print, has been violated. The Committee notes that the public has a right to receive information as a corollary of the specific function of a journalist and/or editor to impart information. It considers that Mr. Sa’di’s right to receive information as an “Oina” reader was violated by its non-registration. 8.5 As to the authors’ claim regarding the mass media registration regime as such constituting an independent violation of article 19, paragraph 3, the Committee concludes that it is not necessary to decide on this issue, in light of the finding of a violation of this provision in the authors’ case, and especially with regard to the limited information available before it. 9 See, inter alia, Kim v. the Republic of Korea, Communication No. 574/1994, Views adopted on 3 November 1998 and Park vs. the Republic of Korea, Communication No. 628/1995, Views adopted on 20 October 1998.