CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017 3.5 The authors allege that the dissolution of their organization has deprived them of an entire range of rights that is reserved for registered religious organizations. Those rights, under the Federal Act on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations, include the rights to own or 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. 3 3.6 The authors request the Committee to find violations of their rights under articles 7, 18 (1) and (3), 22 (1) and (2), 26 and 27. They also request the Committee to direct the State party to provide them with an effective remedy. That can be achieved only by directing the State party: (a) to reopen the domestic proceedings and reverse the 25 February 2016 decision of the Supreme Court of Kalmykia declaring the Elista local religious organization an extremist organization, ordering its dissolution and the confiscation of its property; (b) to return the seized property or provide the authors with monetary compensation equal to the full value of the property; and (c) to provide the authors with suitable monetary compensation for the legal expenses and fees incurred in the domestic courts and proceedings before the Committee. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In a note verbale dated 28 March 2017, the State party submitted its observations and requested the Committee to find the communication inadmissible. 4.2 The State party claims that the authors do not have the required victim status to submit a complaint to the Committee under article 1 of the Optional Protocol. It was the legal entity – the Elista local religious organization – that participated in the domestic court proceedings and was dissolved by the decision of the Supreme Court of Kalmykia, a decision which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 7 July 2016. The authors have not brought claims concerning violation of their rights before the domestic courts. 4.3 The State party also claims that the authors have not exhausted all effective domestic remedies, thus failing to comply with the requirements of articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. The authors had the possibility to submit a request to the Chief Justice or the Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, under article 323 (4) of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure.4 To prove the effectiveness of that remedy, the State party indicates that in 2015, the Deputy Chief Justices of the Supreme Court examined 145 requests in civil and administrative cases to review the refusal of Supreme Court judges to transmit a cassation appeal for consideration at court hearing. In 79 instances, the rulings of the Supreme Court judges were overturned and the cassation appeals were transmitted to the Supreme Court for consideration. In 2016, 114 cases were reviewed, 58 of which have been referred for consideration by the Supreme Court. Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility 5.1 On 2 June 2017, the authors submitted their comments on the State party’s observations. 5.2 Regarding the State party’s claim that the authors lack victim status, the authors submit that the Elista local religious organization carried out its activities through its board of directors (the three authors) and that Mr. Yurlov, its chairman, signed all the appeals and participated in domestic proceedings. They refer to the Committee’s jurisprudence indicating that any person claiming to be a victim of a violation of a right protected by the Covenant must demonstrate either that a State party has by an act or omission already impaired the exercise of his or her right, basing his or her argument for example on legislation in force or 3 4 4 Federal Act No. 125-FZ of 26 September 1997. Article 323 (4) of the Code of Administrative Judicial Procedure provides that the Chief Justice or a Deputy Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation may disagree with the decree of a Supreme Court judge on refusal to refer a cassation appeal or prosecutor’s cassation appeal for consideration in a session of the court of cassation and may issue a decree to reverse the decree and refer the cassation appeal, prosecutor’s cassation appeal or administrative case for consideration in a session of the court of cassation. GE.24-00304