CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 guarantees the freedom to practise any religion or to practise no religion at all”. The court noted that the Elista organization was repeatedly engaged in mass distribution of literature that it knew had been declared extremist and banned in the Russian Federation. The court found that this evidence proved the organization’s involvement in intentional extremist activity and an attempt to conceal this activity, which was not stopped after the appropriate correctional measures were taken. This meant that the correctional measures were ineffective, and it was necessary to take extreme measures, such as dissolution of the religious organization. 6.3 The State party disagrees with the authors’ claim that the definition of “extremist activity” in the legislation is vague. It refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which stated that: As a consequence of the principle that laws must be of general application, the wording of statutes is not always precise ... many laws are inevitably couched in terms which, to a greater or lesser extent are vague, and their interpretation and application depend on practice. Consequently, in any system of law, however clearly drafted a legal provision may be, including a criminal law provision, there is an inevitable element of judicial interpretation.9 6.4 In addition, the Supreme Court of Kalmykia found that the Elista local religious organization was composed of 10 members who held general religious events only three times a year. The rest of the time, regular religious services and other religious and educational events were held by the religious group of Jehovah’s Witnesses of the city of Elista, which carried out its activity independently. In the opinion of the trial court, the decision to dissolve the organization did not violate the right of each of the members of the organization to engage independently in religious worship that is not connected with the distribution of extremist literature or other actions that violate the rights and freedoms of others. 6.5 Article 282 of the Criminal Code imposes criminal liability not for professing one’s faith, but for organizing the activity of a public or religious association or other organization that has been dissolved by an enforceable court decision for engaging in extremist activity. In the present case, there is nothing to prevent former members of the Elista local religious organization from creating a new organization whose activity would conform to the relevant legislation. Furthermore, according to article 7 of the Federal Act on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations, citizens can exercise their right to freedom of religion within the framework of a religious group, which is a voluntary association of citizens created for the purpose of joint practice and dissemination of faith that carries out its activities without State registration and without becoming a legal entity. The Act specifies that religious groups shall have the right to conduct religious services and other religious rites and ceremonies, and to provide religious education and instruction for their followers. 6.6 The State party refers to article 20 (2) of the Covenant, according to which any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law. Both the dissolution of the Elista local religious organization for mass distribution of extremist literature and storage of extremist literature for such distribution, which was established by the trial court and the appeal court, and the possible prosecution of the authors under article 282 of the Criminal Code for organizing the activity of an extremist organization, are carried out by the Russian Federation in accordance with its international legal obligations set out in the Covenant. Therefore, the possible criminal prosecution of the authors under article 282 of the Criminal Code must not be seen as disproportionate interference with their rights. 6.7 Regarding the alleged violation of article 22 of the Covenant, the State party submits that the dissolution of the religious organization was prescribed by law. It refers to the text of the Civil Code, the Federal Act on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations and the Federal Act on Combating Extremist Activity. The dissolution pursued the legitimate aim 9 6 European Court of Human Rights, Kasymakhunov and Saybatalov v. Russia, Applications Nos. 26261/06 and 26377/06, Judgment, 14 March 2013, para. 78. GE.24-00304