CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 6. In a similar vein, the dissolution of the specific religious organization in this case does not merely violate the right to freedom of association (art. 22), as the Committee rightly concludes (paras. 9.7–9.9), but also the rights protected under article 27, since the dissolution undermines the survival, continued development and identity of the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious minority, in contravention of general comment No. 23 (1994).4 7. Article 27 does not contain a limitations clause and it is debatable whether the limitations set forth in article 18 (3) apply to the religious minorities protected under article 27.5 If we assume for the purposes of argument that these limitations do apply, any restrictions on the collective practice of a minority religion can be compatible with article 27 only if such measures are prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. The Committee correctly concludes that these criteria were not met for article 18 (3) (paras. 9.2–9.5); the same finding applies to the implicit limitations (if any) to article 27. 8. In conclusion, we regret that the Committee did not address the collective aspects of the right to profess and practise a minority religion, which is a central purpose of article 27 of the Covenant that is directly implicated by the facts of this case. 4 5 14 without a place for worship, or to face criminal prosecution on charges of ‘continuing the activities of an extremist organisation’”, para. 253. Nevertheles, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (European Convention on Human Rights) does not contain a provision on (religious) minorities. In analysing the dissolution of Jehovah’s Witnesses organizations by the Russan Federation, the European Court of Human Rights stated that “the Court finds that the forced dissolution of all religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia was not merely the result of a neutral application of legal provisions but disclosed indications of a policy of intolerance by the Russian authorities towards the religious practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses designed to cause Jehovah’s Witnesses to abandon their faith and to prevent others from joining it” (Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia, para. 254). William A. Schabas, U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Nowak’s CCPR Commentary, 3rd revised ed. (Kehl, Germany, N.P. Engel Verlag, 2019), p. 833, noting this debate but concluding that under the lex specialis rule, the limitation clauses contained in articles 18, 19, 21 and 22 of the Covenant are applicable to the majority but not to the minorities protected under article 27. GE.24-00304