CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 beliefs.10 Nothing in those publications, or in the actions of the Elista organization, incited violence or religious hatred. 7.2 Concerning the State party’s argument that the dissolution of the Elista local religious organization had only a limited effect, the authors submit that, in its decision of 20 April 2017 to ban and dissolve the national Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and all 395 local religious organizations as extremist, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation relied, inter alia, on the court decision concerning dissolution of the Elista organization. 7.3 As for the State party’s assertion that the definition of “extremism” in domestic legislation is “foreseeable” (para. 6.3 above), the authors submit that the Committee has already expressed its concern that the “vague and open-ended definition of ‘extremist activity’” in the Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity is increasingly used to curtail freedom of religion, targeting, inter alia, Jehovah’s Witnesses. It does not include the elements of “violence or hatred” as the mandatory threshold for State interference.11 The authors claim that the State party does not allege that the Elista local religious organization and its members engaged in any activity that incited violence, called for violence or incited religious hatred. 7.4 The authors maintain that they are victims of discrimination under article 26 of the Covenant. They state that the national Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses and all 395 local religious organizations were banned and dissolved by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 20 April 2017. Notwithstanding that decision, the State party claims that the authors and the other 175,000 Jehovah’s Witnesses can continue to carry out their religious activity without interference. Despite the undisputed fact that the Russian Orthodox Church, like all other religions, advocates that only its beliefs and teachings are true, it has never been the subject of administrative or criminal prosecution for its teachings, which advocate its religious superiority and criticize other religions that do not hold the same beliefs. No legal entities of the Russian Orthodox Church have been banned as extremist either. 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 the communication 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 that, in the present case, the State party contests the admissibility of the communication on the ground that the authors do not have victim status and cannot bring a complaint before the Committee because all domestic proceedings were conducted on behalf of the religious organization. The Committee notes that the authors submit their complaint in a personal capacity and do not claim rights for their organization as a legal entity. It also notes the authors’ claim that the dissolution of their religious organization affected their individual rights. In the circumstances of the present case, and in the light of the submissions made by the parties, the Committee considers that the authors have standing under article 1 of the Optional Protocol.12 8.4 In the light of the above, the Committee observes that only Mr. Yurlov, as chairman of the Elista local religious organization, took part in domestic proceedings on behalf of the organization. The Committee thus considers that the other two authors, Mr. Beklyaev and Mr. Nesterov, were not parties at any stage of the domestic proceedings. The Committee 10 11 12 8 European Court of Human Rights, Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia, Applications Nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, Judgment, 7 June 2022. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para. 20. Adyrkhayev, Solikhov and the Religious Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Dushanbe v. Tajikistan (CCPR/C/135/D/2483/2014), para. 8.3. GE.24-00304