A/HRC/45/CRP.8 religion by prescribing sanctions for “missionary activities” and by application of formalistic rules related, amongst others, to the use of places of worship and production of printed and digital content. During the reporting period, OHCHR recorded 26 cases against religious organizations or individuals for proselytism-related offenses,96 including Protestants, Muslims, Messianic Jews, and Hare Krishna. Groups and individuals have been punished for posting religious content on social media, organizing meditations in parks, and leading Quran study groups and religious dinners on private property without signalling the full registered name of the religious organization. For example, a woman from Sevastopol was convicted of proselytism for her social media posts on the activities of a Protestant organization. The court found that these posts constituted “illegal missionary activities” because the woman had failed to accompany her posts with formal details of the decision of her religious organization’s general assembly to authorize her to proselytize and ordered her to pay a 5,000 Russian rubles (approx. $67) fine. 112. In the first half of 2020, OHCHR noted a worrisome trend of proselytism-related charges being pressed against leaders of Muslim communities without affiliation to the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea. Before the occupation, the local authorities either granted permissions for the permanent use of mosques or issued long-term leases but these decisions were overturned by the Council of Ministers of Crimea after occupation, interfering with these communities’ use of mosques.97 For example, in June 2020, Yusuf Ashyrov, the imam of the Muslim community in Alushta, was convicted of “illegal missionary activities” and given a fine (5000 RUB – approx. $65) for delivering his usual Friday sermon in the mosque, in use by the community since 1994. The finding of “illegality” of that sermon stemmed from the local authorities’ refusal to recognise the community’s right to use the mosque, which it had been granted “for indefinite use” prior to the occupation. 98 Community members have also been summoned to the Prosecutor’s Office as a means of intimidation. In these cases, OHCHR is concerned that freedom of religion has been restricted through an arbitrary application of an overly broad definition of proselytism.99 113. The reporting period was also marked by criminal convictions of two Jehovah’s Witnesses.100 In 2017, this religious group was classified an “extremist organization” by the occupying Power, and prohibited from congregating.101 In March 2020, a court in Yalta convicted Artem Herasymov of managing an extremist organization, based on his religious practice as a Jehovah’s Witness, including facilitation of discussions of Jehovah’s Witnesses’ religious doctrine and study groups of religious texts. The court found these elements of Mr. Herasymov’s religious practice wholly extremist in nature. He was originally convicted and 96 97 98 99 100 101 28 respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. With regards to penal laws of the occupied territory, international humanitarian law provides that they should remain in force while allowing limited changes needed, when these laws represent a threat to the security of the occupying power or an obstacle to the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention (Geneva Convention IV, art. 64). Of this number, three cases occurred during the reporting period. The rest took place in 2019. The period between pressing of the charges and conviction can last several months. Judgments in the Russian Federation court registry are published with a significant delay. In the documented cases, the unconditional lease was granted for 50 years or indefinitely. Despite the fact that the community had already registered as a religious organization under Russian Federation legislation, after occupation, the authorities decided to allocate the building “on balance” to DUMK, the Spiritual Administration of Muslims of Crimea. According to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, religious manifestation includes the right to try to convert others through non-coercive persuasion. See Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, A/67/303, paras. 44-47. OHCHR also has information about two other ongoing criminal cases against Jehovah’s Witnesses. A number of cases are pending before the European Court of Human Rights which concern the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in 2017 to ban all Jehovah’s Witnesses organizations in the country. See Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and Kalin v. Russia (application No. 10188/17), communicated on 1 December 2017; and GLAZOV LRO and others v. Russia (application No. 3215/18), communicated on 7 May 2018. Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision, the European Court of Human Rights had previously found the Russian Federation in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights for closing the Moscow branch of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and refusing to allow the group to re-register. See Case of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia (application No. 302/02) Judgment 22 November 2010.