CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and the fundamentals of the constitutional system and ensuring the integrity and security of the Russian Federation, which was referred to by the Supreme Court of Kalmykia in its decision. It was necessary in a democratic society since it was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. In addition, under article 6 of the Federal Act on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations, religious associations can be created in the form of religious groups, which do not require registration, or religious organizations. Thus, in exercising their rights to freedom of association and freedom of religion or belief, citizens can use both religious organizations and religious groups. 6.8 As to the authors’ allegation that their rights under article 7 of the Covenant would be violated by possible criminal or administrative prosecution, the State party submits that prosecution in criminal or administrative proceedings should not be viewed as treatment prohibited under article 7 of the Covenant. Otherwise, any threat of prosecution and actual prosecution and punishment would be impossible because, according to the authors’ position, they would be incompatible with the provisions of article 7 of the Covenant. 6.9 As for the authors’ claim under article 26 of the Covenant that they were treated differently from followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, the State party submits that the authors have not shown that they were treated differently from other public organizations, including the Russian Orthodox Church. Indeed, the court would have reserved the same treatment for any organization that had been shown to have engaged in repeated incidents of storage and mass distribution of materials known to be extremist or of encouraging the reading of literature known to be extremist. 6.10 Addressing the authors’ arguments under article 27 of the Covenant, the State party refers to paragraph 8 of the Committee’s general comment No. 23 (1994), in which it stated that none of the rights protected under article 27 may be legitimately exercised in a manner or to an extent inconsistent with the other provisions of the Covenant. The State party also refers to article 5 (1) of the Covenant, according to which nothing in the Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized in the Covenant. On this basis, the State party concludes that the Elista local religious organization’s conduct of extremist activity should not enjoy protection under either domestic or international law. 6.11 Lastly, concerning the question of the admissibility of the communication, the State party submits that under article 337 (4) of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure, the Chief Justice and the Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court can disagree with a ruling of a Supreme Court judge and submit a supervisory appeal for consideration by the Presidium of the Supreme Court. As at 17 July 2017, the authors had not submitted a request for supervisory review under article 337 (4) of that Code. They have thus failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. In 2016, the Supreme Court considered 683 supervisory appeals in administrative cases against decisions of general jurisdiction courts, 122 appeals in administrative and civil cases considered by military courts and 19 administrative appeals against decisions of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Supreme Court. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on the merits 7.1 On 10 November 2017, the authors submitted comments on the State party’s observations on the merits. Responding to the State party’s assertion that the dissolution of their organization was justified because it had been convicted of multiple incidents of storage and distribution of extremist materials, the authors insist that the publications referred to by the State party had been planted. They claim that the evidence used to convict the Elista local religious organization for extremist activity was entirely contrived. The publications on the basis of which the organization was dissolved were entirely peaceful. They had been banned pursuant to a decision of Rostov Provincial Court on 9 September 2011 because, as noted by the European Court of Human Rights in its judgment in Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia, the trial judge was of the view that the publications were critical of other religions and GE.24-00304 7