According to the third part of Art. 55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as the second paragraph of Art. 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the second paragraph of Article 11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, restrictions of the rights of individuals and their associations must be prescribed by federal law for achieving an important public goal (i.e., the protection of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system, morality, health, the rights and lawful interests of other people, and for ensuring the defense of the country, security of the State, and public order), that appears to be necessary in a democratic society (relevant and sufficient, proportionate to an important social aim). Liquidation of a religious association is a measure of public law liability, as applied upon the claim of a competent body or representative official in administrative judicial proceedings (paragraph 1 of the Ruling of the Plenary Session of the RF Supreme Court of 27 December 2016 No 64 “On Certain Issues Arising during Consideration of Cases on the Suspension of Activities or Liquidation of Non-Commercial Organizations, as well as regarding Prohibition of Activities of Public or Religious Associations that Are Entities”1). Not Legal Taking into account the above facts circumstances, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation recognizes the reasonableness of the request for the liquidation of the centralized religious organization on the basis of the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity and considers that the implementation of this exceptional measure will not arbitrarily interfere with and restrict in an unwarranted manner citizens’ right of association and freedom of religion. The case file shows that the facts attesting to the Organization’s and its structural branches’ extremist activities have been established in the manner prescribed by law annually during the last seven years. The measures undertaken in this decision to combat extremist activities, including numerous procuratorial actions …, the unscheduled inspection of the defendant’s activities, as well as organizational measures taken by the Organization itself …, did not end the activities showing signs of extremism. Thus the only way to end them is to uphold the claim on liquidating the Organization. The grounds for this interference are set forth by the federal law to achieve an important public goal – combating extremist activity and, accordingly, protecting human and civil rights and lawful interests, and ensuring the security of the State and public order. Contrary to the defendant’s arguments, this interference is proportionate and necessary in a democratic, law-governed state, insofar as it eliminates violations of rights, freedoms, and lawful interests of an unspecified group of persons, as well as a real threat of causing damage to individuals, the health of the people, to public order, public safety, society and the state, and insofar as it is the only measure to strike a balance between the rights and lawful interests of parties in public-law relations. The preventive measures prescribed by the Federal Law on Combating Extremist Activity have been exhausted; the Federal Law provides no minor sanctions for detected extremist activities, inter alia,