instigating social, racial, national and religious strife, propaganda of exclusiveness, supremacy or inferiority of a person based on his social, race, ethnic, religious or linguistic identity or attitude towards religion; mass dissemination materials known to be extremist or their storage for the purposes of mass dissemination; organization and preparation of such acts, as well as incitement to committing them; financing such acts or any other support with their organization, preparation and exercise, inter alia, by providing the following educational, printing, material and technical facilities, phone, and other types of communication or providing informational services. The liquidation of certain local religious organizations that are chapters of the Organization, which undertakes the overall administration, did not end extremist activities carried out by other structural branches. Moreover, as it follows from the Organization’s written objections in defense of its rights, the Organization in fact justifies these activities and does not consider them to be extremist. Upholding the claim for liquidation meets the requirement of Art. 9-11 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which allows for restrictions of the freedom of association in the interests of national security and public order, in the aim of preventing riots and crimes, for protecting health and morals, or for protecting the rights of others. The Provisions of Art. 18, 19, and the second of paragraph of Art. 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, along with Art. 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights do not present an obstacle for an imposed by law ban on any advocacy of ethnic, race or religious hatred, which is an incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, if it is necessary for ensuring due recognition and respect of rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. As indicated by The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Shanghai Convention on Combating Terrorism, Separatism, and Extremism (ratified on 15 July 2001) does not prevent State Parties from establishing provisions in their legislation for a wide interpretation of extremism, and obliges them to take such measures as can prove necessary, including, as appropriate, in the field of national legislation, in order to ensure that under no circumstances should terrorism, separatism, and extremism be subject to acquittal based upon exclusionary political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other similar considerations, and that they should entail punishment proportionate to their gravity (the second paragraph of Art. 1, Art. 3). The necessity for the legal limitation of freedom of expression, assembly, and associations for the purpose of fighting extremism is articulated in the Resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe 1344 (2003), “Threats Posed to Democracy by Extremist Parties and Movements in Europe” (the Ruling of the RF Constitutional Court of 2 July, 2013, No 1053-O). The State, in protecting the rights, freedoms, and legal interests of person and citizen, as well as public order and public safety, and in uncovering facts associated with activities identified as extremist, is not obligated to wait for a “cumulative negative effect” when the number of violations showing signs of extremism takes a new quality and these violations no longer result in the threat of violating rights or causing damage, but in real damage to individuals, the health of citizens, environment, public order,