A/HRC/43/46/Add.1 been adopted to regulate religion tightly that directly impinge on the right to freedom of religion and certain religious groups, 25 as noted by the Human Rights Committee in its concluding observations in July 2016. The Committee expressed concern at the targeting of members or presumed members of banned or unregistered Islamic groups, such as the Tabligh Jamaat (CCPR/C/KAZ/CO/2, para. 13). The Special Rapporteur confirms the regular practice of imposing restrictive registration requirements on the organized and public practice of religion (CCPR/C/125/D/2312/2013, para. 7.6), and limitations on the importation and distribution of religious literature, which targets distinct groups and individuals exercising their right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. She notes with concern the post-jail bans handed down as part of sentences for individuals convicted of various forms of illegal practice of religion, which include bans on visiting places of worship or sharing their faith with others, for substantive periods. 26. The Special Rapporteur’s attention was drawn to the cumulative use of these measures to target certain religious groups, notably various Protestant groups, including Baptists, Lutherans, the Revival Protestant Church, as well as Hare Krishnas and Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, these measures mostly target devout non-Hanafi Muslim groups, including the Azerbaijani community. Some cases are emblematic of the overreach of the provisions on freedom of religion. Saken Tulbaev, whom the Special Rapporteur met during her visit, was sentenced to nearly five years of prison for peacefully practising his religion, after which he will be subject to a three-year ban on carrying out “activity directed at meeting the religious needs of believers”. She was particularly moved by the plight of an elderly man of deep religious belief who had to serve a prison sentence for observing his faith. Teymur Akhmedov, a Jehovah’s Witness, was sentenced to five years in prison and a post-jail ban of three years for praying in a private home. Zhanna Umirova was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment for posting a video on social media. In her view, the terrorism and extremism legislation and administrative practice of Kazakhstan that normalizes the diminution of rights for certain groups has long-term costs, increasingly affirmed by practitioners and experts in the field of countering and preventing violent extremism. Extremism law and practice that function to limit rights in a de facto permanent manner are not a shortcut worth taking if States are genuinely committed to tackling the conditions that produce and sustain extremism and mobilization (A/HRC/37/52, para. 61). 4. Online restrictions to freedom of expression and information 27. The Special Rapporteur’s visit was affected by numerous Internet blockages. She was informed that on 9 May – the day of her arrival – several independent news outlets and social media services were temporarily unavailable in some parts of the country. According to the Government, in 2017 and 2018, 317,000 web items were removed by site administrators upon the request of the General Prosecutor. Furthermore, during the same period access to more than 19,000 websites was restricted by court orders or injunctions by the General Prosecutor or other relevant State body. In addition, she was made aware of independent research indicating that up to 29,458 websites had been blocked. In the course of her meetings and information provided by the Government, it is clear that certain websites, including social media, music streaming and others, were and continue to be blocked in their entirety on the orders of the Prosecutor General on very broad grounds. Given the already very challenging environment in which activists, civil society and human rights defenders operate in Kazakhstan, the apparent lack of proportionality in the adoption of such wholesale measures premised on broad terrorism and extremism threats is very concerning. 28. It is of further concern that, despite existing legal provisions, the Government itself appeared wholly unclear about the legal basis of, and the procedure and the responsibility for the adoption of these measures. The use of information and communications technology for the purpose of radicalization, recruitment and incitement of others is a serious concern for States. However, given both the role played by information and communications technology in fostering the enjoyment of human rights and the very negative impact on the free exchange of ideas and information that measures to limit access can have, removals, takedowns, deletions and blockages of entire websites, web pages, blogs, videos, articles or 25 10 The Law on Religious Activities and Religious Associations, last modified in 2018.