## Facts

- Nikolai Alekseev, a Russian national and LGBT rights activist, sought to organize peaceful public assemblies in Moscow; municipal authorities repeatedly prohibited such events.
- On July 11, 2008, Alekseev and two other activists notified Moscow authorities of a planned stationary picket on July 19, 2008, outside the Iranian Embassy, limited to 30 participants, to protest executions of homosexuals and minors in Iran.
- The Deputy Prefect denied authorization the same day, citing anticipated “negative reaction in society” and possible group violations of public order endangering participants.
- Alekseev challenged the refusal in the Tagansky District Court, arguing the assembly was peaceful and that public-order risks should be addressed through police protection rather than a ban.
- The Tagansky District Court upheld the ban, finding it impossible to ensure security and prevent riots given the expected public reaction.
- The Moscow City Court rejected Alekseev’s cassation appeal on December 18, 2008; Alekseev did not seek supervisory review, describing it as discretionary and ineffective.
- Alekseev filed an individual communication under the Optional Protocol; the State argued inadmissibility based on non-exhaustion, parallel proceedings elsewhere, and lack of substantiation.

## Issues

1. Whether the communication was inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies because Alekseev did not seek supervisory review.
2. Whether the communication was inadmissible because the “same matter” was being examined under another international procedure.
3. Whether refusing authorization for the July 2008 picket violated the right of peaceful assembly under ICCPR article 21, including whether the restriction was necessary in a democratic society for a legitimate aim.

## Decision

- The Committee found the communication admissible.
- Supervisory review was not required because it was extraordinary/discretionary and not shown to be an effective remedy; domestic remedies were exhausted after the cassation decision.
- The Committee rejected the “same matter” objection because the communication concerned a distinct event and factual basis from other international proceedings.
- On the merits, the Committee held Russia violated ICCPR article 21 by imposing an unjustified restriction on peaceful assembly.
- The State failed to show the ban was necessary in a democratic society for public order, public safety, or any other legitimate aim under article 21.
- The Committee indicated the State must provide an effective remedy, including reparation and measures to prevent similar violations.

## Legal Principles

- Peaceful assembly under ICCPR article 21 is essential for public expression and democratic society.
- Restrictions on peaceful assembly are permitted only if provided by law and necessary in a democratic society to achieve a legitimate aim listed in article 21.
- Necessity requires a demonstrated pressing social need and consideration of less restrictive means than an outright prohibition.
- Anticipated hostility or negative reactions from the public cannot, by itself, justify banning a peaceful assembly; the State has a duty to protect participants against violence or disruption.
- Under the Optional Protocol, complainants need not pursue extraordinary or discretionary domestic remedies that are not effective in practice.
- “Same matter” inadmissibility requires substantial identity of facts and claims; different events and bases are not barred merely because they concern similar themes.

## Conclusion

The Committee concluded that banning a small, peaceful picket based on speculative public hostility violated ICCPR article 21, and that the State must provide effective relief and take steps to prevent future restrictions that are not strictly necessary for legitimate article 21 aims.


Alekseev v. Russ. Fed’n, Commc’n No. 1873/2009, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/109/D/1873/2009 (Hum. Rts. Comm. 2013)