CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 and its interpretation by the domestic courts provided a valid legal basis for the restriction under article 18 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee also finds that the general reference to protecting the rights of others and the State, relied upon by the State party (para. 6.7 above) without explaining how these rights were affected, does not meet the requirements of article 18 (3) of the Covenant. 9.5 The Committee notes Mr. Yurlov’s argument that, since the Elista local religious organization was dissolved, he has been denied by the State party an entire range of rights enjoyed by members of registered religious organizations (para. 3.5 above). It also notes the State party’s argument that Mr. Yurlov could be part of a Jehovah’s Witnesses religious group (para. 6.5 above). At the same time, the Committee notes that a religious group, as defined in the State party’s legislation, is a voluntary association of fellow believers without the status of a legal entity. According to Mr. Yurlov, the status of a registered organization provides the entire range of rights to the religious community, such as the right to own and rent property, to maintain bank accounts, to ensure judicial protection of the community, to establish places of worship, to hold religious services in places accessible to the public and to produce, obtain and distribute religious literature. The Committee notes that the practices it listed as integral to the freedom to manifest religion or belief in paragraph 4 of its general comment No. 22 (1993) include building places of worship and preparing and distributing religious texts or publications. It seems that under the legislation of the State party, a religious group does not have any of those rights. The Committee therefore concludes that the dissolution of Mr. Yurlov’s religious organization deprived him of a number of rights essential for the free manifestation of his religion. 9.6 In the light of the above considerations, the Committee finds that the State party has violated Mr. Yurlov’s rights under article 18 (1) of the Covenant. 9.7 The Committee notes Mr. Yurlov’s claims that his rights under article 22 (1) were violated when the Elista local religious organization was dissolved. It also notes the State party’s observations that the limitation imposed on the organization and, consequently, Mr. Yurlov’s rights was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and the fundamentals of the constitutional system of the State and was proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (para. 6.7 above). The Committee also notes the State party’s assertion that Mr. Yurlov can practise religion in association with others within a religious group, which can operate without registration or the status of a legal entity. 9.8 Pursuant to article 22 (2) of the Covenant, any restriction on the right to freedom of association must meet the following conditions: (a) it must be prescribed by law; (b) it must be imposed only for one of the purposes set out in article 22 (2); and (c) it must be “necessary in a democratic society” for achieving one of those purposes. The reference to “a democratic society” in the context of article 22 indicates, in the Committee’s opinion, that the existence of operational associations, including those that peacefully promote ideas that are not necessarily favourably viewed by the Government or the majority of the population, is the cornerstone of any society. 16 The Committee reiterates its findings that both the legal provisions on which the dissolution of the Elista local religious organization was based and their interpretation and application by the domestic authorities and courts did not provide a valid legal basis for the restriction and did not meet the criteria contained in article 22 (2) of the Covenant (para. 9.4 above). The Committee notes that the aims invoked by the State party as the basis for the dissolution of the Elista organization, such as protecting the rights of others and the constitutional system and ensuring the integrity and security of the State (para 6.7 above), correspond to those set out in article 22 (2) of the Covenant. However, the State party failed to specify how the storage and distribution of a few copies of banned publications endangered the rights of others and the security of the State. The State party did not invoke any concrete argument to justify the application of such an extreme measure as the dissolution of the organization. 9.9 With regard to the State party’s argument that the members of the local religious organization could continue meeting as a religious group, without the status of a registered 16 GE.24-00304 Adyrkhayev, Solikhov and the Religious Association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Dushanbe v. Tajikistan, para. 9.8. 11