CCPR/C/130/D/2661/2015 followers of the association in the State party, they use their religious literature freely, their community has 55 houses of worship and they are united in 59 registered local religious associations and 1 regional religious association. In the light of the above, and in the absence of any further information or explanations, the Committee concludes that the authors’ claim under article 27 of the Covenant is insufficiently substantiated for the purposes of admissibility and is therefore inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 8.7 The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated the remaining claims under articles 18 and 19 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its consideration of the merits. Consideration of the merits 9.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 9.2 In relation to the authors’ claim under article 18 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee recalls that the freedom to manifest one’s beliefs in worship, observance, practice and teaching encompasses a broad range of acts, including those integral to the conduct by a religious group of its basic affairs, such as the freedom to choose religious leaders, priests and teachers, the freedom to establish seminaries or religious schools and the freedom to prepare and distribute religious texts or publications.13 Furthermore, under article 18 (3) of the Covenant, the freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs is not absolute but may be subject to certain limitations, but only those prescribed by law and necessary to protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others. In the present case, the Committee notes that the authors were not allowed to import religious publications. Such a restriction interferes with the right to freedom of religion. Consistent with its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Committee considers that the freedom to prepare and distribute religious texts or publications forms part of the authors’ right to manifest their beliefs and that the refusal to permit the importation of the religious publications constitutes a limitation of that right. 9.3 The Committee must decide whether the limitation on the authors’ right to manifest their religion was “necessary to protect public safety, order, health, or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others”, within the meaning of article 18 (3) of the Covenant. In its general comment No. 22 (1993), the Committee observed that article 18 (3) is to be strictly interpreted: restrictions are not allowed on grounds not specified therein, even if they would be allowed as restrictions to other rights protected in the Covenant, such as national security (para. 8). In interpreting the scope of permissible limitation clauses, States parties should proceed from the need to protect the rights guaranteed under the Covenant, including the right to equality and non-discrimination on all grounds specified in articles 2, 3 and 26 (para. 8). 9.4 The Committee notes that the State party advanced detailed arguments as to why it was necessary, for the purposes of article 18 (3) of the Covenant, to refuse to permit the importation of the religious publications in question, notably that, according to the Agency for Religious Affairs, the 10 publications contained calls for incitement to social and religious discord and ideas that discouraged secular education, promoted the break-up of family relationships, proned the superiority of the religion in question over others, encouraged the formation of negative attitudes towards political organizations, other religions and world religions and propagated religious hatred and enmity. 9.5 The Committee also notes the authors’ contentions that the 2011 Law on Religious Activity and Religious Associations provides no criteria for the Agency for Religious Affairs (now the Committee on Religious Affairs) to follow when deciding whether to reject a religious organization’s request for permission to import religious literature, and that a religious organization is prohibited from importing religious literature into the State party without the Agency’s approval. It also notes the authors’ submission that the State party did 13 General comment No. 22 (1993), para. 4, and, for example, Boodoo v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/74/D/721/1996), para. 6.6. 11