UN Human Rights Committee Rules Russia Violated Rights of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Ufa Case

The United Nations Human Rights Committee has found that Russia violated several articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in its treatment of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In “Vilitkevich et al. v. Russian Federation” (CCPR/C/145/D/3192/2018), adopted on 13 March 2026, the Committee found violations of Articles 9(1), 18(1), 26 and 27 in connection with raids on homes, the seizure of religious literature, the interrogation of believers, and the detention of one of them, Anatoliy Vilitkevich, for nearly a year.

The case concerned twelve Jehovah’s Witnesses from Ufa whose homes were raided simultaneously on 10 April 2018. Police seized Bibles, personal devices and family belongings, then took all twelve to the Investigative Department, where they were held for hours, interrogated, photographed and fingerprinted. Vilitkevich, a religious minister, was placed in pretrial detention for 73 days and then under house arrest for 252 more days, 325 days of restraint in total. He was charged under article 282.2 of the Criminal Code with allegedly “organizing the activities of a banned extremist organization.” The Committee noted that the only conduct attributed to the authors was preaching, attending, and conducting peaceful worship.

The Committee held that the 2017 Supreme Court decision banning the administrative structures of Jehovah’s Witnesses “did not prohibit individual or joint peaceful religious activities by the Jehovah’s Witnesses believers,” and that Russia “has not demonstrated sufficient legal basis or reasons to impose restrictions on the authors’ peaceful religious activities.” On this basis it concluded that Russia violated Article 18(1). The Committee also found that “the authors’ religious belonging was the sole basis for their prosecution,” and that their treatment was discriminatory on religious grounds in violation of Article 26. The source describes this as a departure from earlier cases in which similar patterns of repression were not analyzed under the non-discrimination provision.

On Article 27, the Committee said Russia’s “excessive interpretation and application of the 2017 Supreme Court decision” denied the authors their right to practise their religion in community with other members of their minority group and threatened the continued existence of their religious community. The source reports that this is the first time the Committee has applied Article 27 to the criminal prosecution of a religious minority.

On arbitrary detention, the Committee held that the authors were not free to leave the Investigative Department and were therefore “arrested” within the meaning of Article 9(1). It concluded that their arrest was “unlawful and arbitrary,” and that Vilitkevich’s pretrial detention likewise lacked any legal basis.

Two individual opinions accompanied the decision. Committee member Hernán Quezada Cabrera agreed with the findings but criticized the majority for declining to examine Article 17, which concerns interference with privacy, family and home, given the home raids and seizures. Hélène Tigroudja, in a partially dissenting opinion, welcomed the Committee’s recognition of violations of Articles 26 and 27 but said the Committee did not explain why it departed from its earlier reluctance to address such claims despite “dozens of cases revealing similar patterns.” She also argued that the Article 17 claim should have led to a finding of violation, and that the home searches were disproportionate.

The ruling requires Russia to provide full reparations, including compensation for all 12 authors and specific redress for Vilitkevich’s unlawful detention, and to take measures to prevent similar violations. The State must also publish and disseminate the decision. The source notes that Russia has intensified its repression of Jehovah’s Witnesses and withdrawn from several human rights mechanisms.

Source: Read the original report