Ansichten des UN-Menschenrechtsausschusses zur Auflösung der örtlichen religiösen Organisation der Zeugen Jehovas in Elista

Durch die Liquidation der religiösen Organisation der Zeugen Jehovas in Elista und die Beschlagnahmung ihres Eigentums wurden die Rechte des Beschwerdeführers auf Religions- und Vereinigungsfreiheit verletzt. Russland ist verpflichtet, diese Entscheidung zu überdenken und den Antragsteller für die Verluste zu entschädigen.

United Nations

CCPR/C/139/D/2925/2017

International Covenant on Civil and Political R ights

Distr.: General

1 February 2024

Original: English

Human Rights Committee

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2925/2017 * , ** , ***

Communication submitted by:Vladimir Yurlov, Naran Beklyaev and Ilya Nesterov (represented by counsel, Shane H. Brady and Anton Omelchenko)

Alleged victim s :The authors

State party:Russian Federation

Date of communication:30 December 2016 (initial submission)

Document references:Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to the State party on 6 January 2017 (not issued in document form)

Date of adoption of Views:24 October 2023

Subject matter:Dissolution of a local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses for distribution of publications banned as extremist

Procedural issue s :Exhaustion of domestic remedies; substantiation of claims; admissibility ratione personae

Substantive issues:Cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; freedom of association; discrimination on the ground of religion; minority rights

Articles of the Covenant:7, 18 (1) and (3), 22 (1) and (2), 26 and 27

Articles of the Optional Protocol:1, 2 and 5 (2) (b)

1.1 The authors of the communication are Vladimir Yurlov, Naran Beklyaev and Ilya Nesterov, nationals of the Russian Federation born in 1965, 1988 and 1992, respectively. They claim that the State party has violated their rights under articles 7, 18 (1) and (3), 22 (1) and (2), 26 and 27 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 1 January 1992. The authors are represented by counsel. …

Zurück zum Anfang