CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 to freedom of religion and freedom of expression had been subjected to limitations. The appeal was rejected on 7 July 2016. The Supreme Court re-examined the evidence in the case and rejected the authors’ arguments that the books had been planted by the police. It considered that there had indeed been mass distribution, since many people had access to the meetings of the Organization at which they could read and access the literature; and that the sanction imposed by the lower court was just and lawful. The organization’s request to the Presidium of the Supreme Court for supervisory review was rejected by a judge of the Supreme Court on 27 December 2016. Complaint 3.1 The authors maintain that, in the wake of the dissolution of the Elista local religious organization, they are exposed to the threat of administrative punishment and criminal prosecution if they decide to hold a religious service.1 They claim that the decision to declare their organization extremist is in itself degrading treatment. The authors have been subjected to obvious public humiliation, shame, indignity and anguish by the judicial decisions, which have equated their religious beliefs with criminal activity and criminal organizations. On that basis, they claim that the State party has violated their rights under article 7 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors maintain that their rights under articles 18 (1) and (3) and 22 (1) and (2) were violated by the dissolution of their religious organization, which, they claim, was not gounded in law. They refer to the Committee’s concluding observations on the seventh periodic report of the Russian Federation and maintain that the definition of what constitutes “extremism” in article 1 of the Federal Act No. 114-FZ of 25 July 2002 on Combating Extremist Activity is so nebulous that it can be misapplied to all religious activities and all religious speech, no matter how peaceful. 2 The authors dispute the claim that any of the religious publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses are extremist. Those publications are distributed by Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide and do not contain calls to violence or incitement to violence or religious hatred. The dissolution of the Elista organization did not pursue a legitimate aim. Jehovah’s Witnesses in Elista did not distribute any copies of those publications, since they had been taken out of public circulation following the 2009 decision by Rostov Provincial Court. Instead, the State party pursued the illegitimate aim of trying to suppress the peaceful religious activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Elista. The authors maintain that the State party has not advanced any argument as to why it is necessary for the purposes of article 18 (3) of the Covenant to dissolve the organization as an “extremist organization”. They claim that the decision of the Supreme Court was not justified by relevant and sufficient reasons and that it was grossly disproportionate. 3.3 The authors claim a violation of their rights under article 26 since they are treated differently from followers of the Russian Orthodox Church, without “reasonable and objective grounds” for that difference in treatment. The Russian Orthodox Church is not subjected to the indignity and humiliation of having one of its religious organizations declared “extremist” (an expression equated with criminal activity) simply because their religious publications contain commentary on religious subjects which some people might consider to be negative or critical. Furthermore, the authors were treated as if they were members of a criminal organization, although their actions and publications are entirely peaceful. 3.4 The authors also claim a violation of their rights under article 27 of the Covenant because Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religious minority in the Russian Federation. The decisions by the domestic courts declaring some of their religious publications to be extremist interfere with the rights of the members of this minority to profess and practise their own religion. Moreover, they are now exposed to a serious risk of criminal and administrative punishment for using those publications in worship as individuals and in community with their fellow believers. 1 2 GE.24-00304 The authors refer to the conviction of 16 Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog for holding religious services after the Taganrog local religious organization was declared an extremist organization by Rostov Provincial Court on 11 September 2009. CCPR/C/RUS/CO/7, para. 20. 3