CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 Annex I Joint opinion of Committee members Yvonne Donders and Laurence R. Helfer (partially dissenting) 1. We agree with the Committee’s finding of violations of articles 18 (1) and 22 (1) of the Covenant. We write separately to express our disagreement with the Committee’s conclusion in paragraph 9.10 of its Views that “it has addressed the claims underlying Mr. Yurlov’s complaints under articles 26 and 27 and decides not to examine them separately”. 2. In our view, the author’s claims under article 27 were not fully addressed by the Committee’s assessment of articles 18 (1) and 22 (1). Article 27 provides that, in States in which religious minorities exist, “persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group … to profess and practise their own religion”. The authors claim that they belong to a religious minority in the Russian Federation (para. 3.4 of the Views). The State party does not contest that claim.1 3. In its general comment No. 23 (1994), the Committee noted that the rights protected under article 27 are individual rights, but “they depend in turn on the ability of the minority group to maintain its … religion. Accordingly, positive measures by States may also be necessary to protect the identity of a minority and the rights of its members to … practise their religion, in community with the other members of the group”. Moreover, States parties should adopt measures, including positive measures (para. 6.2), “directed towards ensuring the survival and continued development of the cultural, religious and social identity of the minorities concerned” (para. 9). 4. The collective dimension of the protection of religious minorities under article 27 is directly relevant in this case – a dimension not encompassed by article 18 of the Covenant.2 The facts alleged by the authors disclose that it was not merely individual Jehovah’s Witnesses who were prevented from enjoying the right to freedom of religion. On the contrary, the restrictions imposed by the State party – in particular the dissolution of the Elista local religious organization, the confiscation of its property and its being declared an extremist organization (paras. 2.5 and 9.2) – effectively prevented the Jehovah’s Witnesses as a religious community from manifesting (article 18 (1)) and practising (article 27) their faith. 5. These measures, which the Committee rightly finds were unjustified (paras. 9.5 and 9.6), do not merely constitute a violation of the individual freedom to manifest religion (art. 18 (3)), but also of the right of a religious minority under article 27 to practise religion as a collective group.3 1 2 3 GE.24-00304 According to general comment No. 23 (1994), the existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by that State party but requires to be established by objective criteria (para. 5.2). The European Court of Human Rights used the term “minority religion” and “religious minority” to refer to Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation in its judgment in Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia, Applications Nos. 32401/10 and 19 others, Judgment, 7 June 2022, paras. 132, 154, 186, 236, 238 and 239. See also European Court of Human Rights, Karastelev and others v. Russia, Application No. 16435/10, Judgment, 6 October 2020, citing General Policy Recommendation No. 15 on combating hate speech of the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, para. 44, and European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, ECRI Report on the Russian Federation (fifth monitoring cycle), adopted on 4 December 2018, published on 5 March 2019, paras. 49 and 101. While article 18 (1) includes the freedom to manifest religion “either individually or in community with others”, article 27 focuses on the collective dimension of the right to practise religion, which is to be enjoyed “in community with the other members of their group”. The European Court of Human Rights, in Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia, addressed the impact of measures imposed by the State party on the collective practice of religion in the following terms: “Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia … were put before a stark and impossible choice: to reduce their religious activities to praying in isolation, without the company and support of fellow believers and 13