In Russia, approximately 133,000 Jehovah?s Witnesses share their faith with others and meet for worship in over 1,300 congregations. In 2004, more than 283,000 persons in Russia attended the Memorial of the death of Jesus Christ, which is the only religious observance Jehovah?s Witnesses keep. Close to 400 Local Religious Organizations (LROs) of Jehovah?s Witnesses are registered in 71 regions of the Russian Federation. However, various human rights violations occurred and are a cause for concern. Abuses of Religious Freedom in MoscowDecision to Ban and Liquidate Jehovah?s Witnesses in MoscowThe Department of Justice registered the Moscow Community of Jehovah?s Witnesses on December 30, 1993. However, on June 20, 1996, the Moscow Prosecutor?s Office began the first of four criminal investigations against Jehovah?s Witnesses on charges lodged by the Committee for the Salvation of Youth From Totalitarian Sects. Almost two years later, on April 13, 1998, the investigations were closed after it was established that there were no grounds for any criminal case. Only one week later, on April 20, 1998, the Northern Administrative Circuit prosecutor filed a civil lawsuit against Jehovah?s Witnesses. The prosecutor made use of the 1997 Russian Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations as the basis for the civil case. She sought not only to liquidate the legal entity used by Jehovah?s Witnesses but also to ban their religious activities in Moscow. The charges lodged were that Jehovah?s Witnesses incite religious discord, cause families to break up, infringe upon the right to life by religiously motivated refusal of medical care, and promote the refusal to fulfill civic duties, such as military service. The prosecutor made it clear that she had no real-life examples or factual cases to present but that the evidence was contained in the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses. On September 29, 1998, the first hearing began in the Golovinsky Intermunicipal District Court with Judge Yelena Prokhorycheva presiding. On March 12, 1999, the Court ordered an expert study of the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses and the trial was suspended, pending the outcome. After receiving the results of the expert study, the Court dismissed the case on February 23, 2001, ruling that there was no basis for the charges. The prosecutor appealed the decision to the Moscow City Court. Without any new evidence, on May 30, 2001, the Moscow City Court ordered that the entire case be retried. The retrial of the civil prosecution began on October 30, 2001, with Judge Vera Dubinskaya presiding. On December 11, 2001, the application Jehovah?s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia was filed with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). This case deals with the religious discrimination shown by authorities against Jehovah?s Witnesses in Moscow, which has been reinforced by the decision to ban the activities of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Moscow and liquidate their legal entity. The Court has begun to process the case. On April 4, 2002, Judge Dubinskaya adjourned the trial, ordering another expert study. After a seven-month adjournment, on November 22, 2002, the Moscow City Court ordered another retrial, since the department that was assigned to carry out the expert study did not exist. On May 14, 2003, the retrial commenced anew in the Golovinsky Intermunicipal District Court with Judge Vera Dubinskaya still presiding. The prosecutor was Tatyana Kondratyeva. One week later, on May 22, 2003, the Court again ordered a philological-psycholinguistic expert study to be conducted on the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses published during the previous ten years. The events that occurred during the reporting period are outlined below. - On January 22, 2004, the philological-psycholinguistic expert study was completed and filed with the Court.
- On February 17, 2004, the trial resumed in the Golovinsky Intermunicipal District Court with Judge Dubinskaya presiding. Overall, the study was quite favorable toward the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses. The experts found that the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses encourages members to ?preserve one?s family and marriage? and contains no ?information inciting actions directed at refusing to perform a wide range of civic duties.? They also found the claim that the literature of Jehovah?s Witnesses incites religious hatred to be unsupported. Only one court-appointed expert (the psycholinguist), using the unproven mind-control theory, subsequently drew negative conclusions. During the next three weeks, the Court heard testimony from the court-appointed experts regarding their conclusions, as well as testimony by other professionals and additional witnesses. (ex Jw's? My comment)
- On March 26, 2004, after reviewing the lengthy transcripts, Judge Dubinskaya announced the decision to ban the activities of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Moscow and liquidate their legal entity. Jehovah?s Witnesses appealed the decision.
- On June 16, 2004, the Moscow City Court heard the appeal. Oral arguments by both parties lasted more than four hours. Then, the Moscow City Court affirmed the lower court decision after deliberating for only five minutes. The ban on the activities of Jehovah?s Witnesses and the liquidation of their legal entity entered into effect immediately. To date, officials have not struck off the Community from the Common State Registry of Legal Entities.
- On August 25, 2004, Jehovah?s Witnesses presented 76 volumes of a petition, containing more than 315,000 signatures, addressed to President Vladimir Putin. The petitioners (the majority were not Jehovah?s Witnesses) expressed their deep concern over the ban imposed on the Witnesses in the Russian capital.
- On September 3, 2004, a supervisory appeal was filed with the Presidium of the Moscow City Court. This is not considered a domestic remedy under the European Court of Human Rights, since there is no obligation for the Russian courts to review it.
Adverse Consequences of Ban and Liquidation of Jehovah?s Witnesses in MoscowCONSEQUENCES IN MOSCOWJehovah?s Witnesses continue to meet for worship and publicly share their faith in Moscow. There has been no overt action to halt their worship. However, there are a growing number of incidents of interference and discrimination related to the ban and liquidation of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Moscow, as detailed below. - On November 12, 2004, the East Administrative Circuit Police Department of Moscow ordered the cancellation of the religious convention of Jehovah?s Witnesses that was scheduled to be held on November 14 at a local sports complex, in harmony with a signed contract. The police claimed that the cancellation was because of security concerns, since the police could not provide adequate security for a gathering of a ?sect,? as the police described the Witnesses. Additionally, police informed Jehovah?s Witnesses that none of their planned future assemblies?including one scheduled for November 20?could be held in the sports complex.
On November 17, 2004, Jehovah?s Witnesses filed an official complaint with the Arbitration Court. They also informed officials from the Department of Religious Affairs of the Presidential Administration, the vice-mayor for Religious Affairs of the City of Moscow, the Russian Ombudsman?s Office, and many other agencies and officials. They sent an official letter to Major-General Dubensky, Chief of the Ministry of the Interior Police Department of the Eastern Administrative Circuit of Moscow, inquiring as to the reasons for the cancellation of the conventions. On November 18, 2004, Major-General Dubensky replied, confirming the refusal and explaining that Jehovah?s Witnesses could not use the sports complex because of security concerns. On November 19, 2004, the judge of the Arbitration Court granted our complaint for urgent ?guaranteeing measures? and ordered the sports complex administration to honor their contract with Jehovah?s Witnesses. However, on November 20, 2004, when Jehovah?s Witnesses went to the sports complex for their convention, they were not allowed to enter the premises, despite the court order. Jehovah?s Witnesses again turned to the courts to protect their rights. On December 1, 2004, Jehovah?s Witnesses signed a friendly settlement with the sports complex management. According to this settlement, a religious convention will be held on January 22 and 23, 2005, instead of the ones planned earlier for November 14 and 20, 2004. On December 7, 2004, the Arbitration Court of Moscow confirmed this friendly settlement and the case proceedings have been dismissed. It is still to be seen whether the police will respect the friendly settlement, and permit the religious conventions to take place on January 22 and 23, 2005. - At least 30 congregations of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Moscow have been denied use of facilities for their weekly congregational meetings. On July 12, 2004, the Tourist Hotel in Moscow terminated the monthly arrangement with Jehovah?s Witnesses for the use of two conference halls for religious meetings. The termination affects eight congregations of Jehovah?s Witnesses that have used the conference rooms without hindrance over the past three years. The hotel administration informed responsible ministers by telephone that the decision to terminate the arrangement was made because of the Moscow court ruling. Four other establishments have also denied the use of facilities that Jehovah?s Witnesses had been using for some time, affecting at least 22 other congregations of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Moscow.
- Two custody cases involving Jehovah?s Witnesses have referenced the Golovinsky decision during their hearings. On August 26, 2004, in the custody case Zakharenkova v. Zakharenkov, the judge of the Khoroshevsky District Court of Moscow, who was hearing the case, wrote the Golovinsky Court requesting a copy of its decision to ban Jehovah?s Witnesses in Moscow. On November 24, 2004, in the custody case Pikulev v. Pikuleva, the father filed an amended claim in which he referred to the decision of the Golovinsky Court as one of the grounds for granting him custody. (The mother is one of Jehovah?s Witnesses.) Both cases are still in progress.
- Three women in Moscow (L. I. Skvortsova, N. V. Bodrova, and O. R. Smirnova), who are Jehovah?s Witnesses, are being threatened with dismissal from their employment if they do not stop speaking about their faith with others. When Bodrova and Smirnova, who are teachers at an educational establishment, applied for the position of curator, their applications were turned down and they were told that the reason was their religion.
- Business arrangements are being impacted. For example, at the end of October 2004, the Moscow Premier Production Company refused to sign a contract with Jehovah?s Witnesses expressly because of their activity being banned in Moscow. This contract involved the duplication of 10,000-15,000 copies of 13 separate videos. Previously, Premier Production assisted in duplicating 30,000 copies of one of the many educational videos produced by Jehovah?s Witnesses.
CONSEQUENCES OUTSIDE MOSCOWOSCE Meeting, Paris, France- On June 16, 2004, Mr. Viktor Ostroukhov, representative of the delegation of the Russian Federation at the OSCE Meeting on ?The Relationship Between Racist, Xenophobic and Anti-Semitic Propaganda on the Internet and Hate Crimes,? made the following defamatory statement: ?The sites of non-traditional religious doctrines and sects can be included in a second group of Internet sites advocating xenophobia. As a rule, these religious groups teach their followers fanatical devotion and the rejection of other religions. In this connection, anyone wishing to do so can easily acquaint himself via the Internet with the teachings of Aum Shinrikyo, the Jehovah?s Witnesses, satanic sects and other cults.?
Kabardino-Balkaria Republic and Stavropol Territory- On May 30, 2004, an anonymous pamphlet that was directed against Jehovah?s Witnesses and that contained extremely negative and slanderous information was distributed throughout the region, including the city of Nalchik. Distribution began in churches with Orthodox priests handing out the pamphlet to parishioners and urging them to take extra copies for distribution. Teenagers, mailmen, and in some cases, even police officers have been seen distributing it. On its final page, the pamphlet states in bold letters ?On March 26, 2004, the Moscow Golovinsky Court ruled to shut down the Moscow Community of Jehovah?s Witnesses.? (A copy of the pamphlet in Russian is available upon request.)
- On June 23, 2004, an article in the newspaper Stavropol Pravda, entitled ?Cossacks alarmed by ?Witnesses,?? reported on a recent letter sent by the Georgiyevsk Cossack community to various officials, including the Stavropol Territory Governor. The article contains slanderous information about Jehovah?s Witnesses and complains of their activity. The article refers to the March 26 Golovinsky Court decision and points out that the letter from the Cossack community calls for a thorough analysis of the activity of Jehovah?s Witnesses, ?and where possible, to not allow the holding of their conventions . . .? The article was submitted to the newspaper by ?the Press Service of the Stavropol Diocese [eparchy] of the R[ussian] O[rthodox] C[hurch].?
Karachay-Cherkessia Republic- In July 2004, the anonymously published pamphlet directed against Jehovah?s Witnesses that contained extremely negative, slanderous information and that was distributed in the Kabardino-Balkaria Republic and the Stavropol Territory began being distributed in this region. It is reported that clergymen are distributing the pamphlet to parishioners in the two Orthodox churches in the capital city of Cherkessk.
Khabarovsk and Yekaterinburg- On April 1, 2004, authorities canceled contracts for facilities that were to be used for the Memorial of the death of Jesus Christ (the only religious observance of Jehovah?s Witnesses), which was to take place on April 4, 2004.
Kopeysk, Chelyabinsk Region- On April 12, 2004, the chief architect and other officials refused to allot a piece of land to the local community of Jehovah?s Witnesses for the construction of a Kingdom Hall, although the officials had previously promised they would do so. The officials stated that their refusal was based on the recent decision of the Moscow court.
Murmansk- On April 2, 2004, a television news program on the ?problem of totalitarian sects in Russia and Murmansk? focused mainly on Jehovah?s Witnesses. An Orthodox priest and a psychologist on mind control were interviewed at length. The introduction and conclusion of the program featured the Moscow Golovinsky Court decision.
Introduction: ?The Moscow Golovinsky Court had banned the activity of the Moscow Community of Jehovah?s Witnesses. The accusations of the Prosecutor?s office of inciting to religious discord, breaking up families, and exerting psychological pressure on adherents were ruled to be well founded. Thus in Russia, a precedent has been created, and it is impossible to rule out that a whole sequence of court cases against religious organizations of Jehovah?s Witnesses and other sects similar to them will sweep through the country. This would include the Murmansk oblast.? Conclusion: ?The secular authority has a different viewpoint and a different means of waging the struggle ? a legal means. It is difficult to judge how successful this will be, but the foundation has been laid. There is a precedent.?
Sakhalin- On April 1, 2004, three Jehovah?s Witnesses were fired from their jobs at a food distribution company. The company?s senior manager referred to the Moscow ban in justifying the dismissals. (See Forum 18 News Service, May 4, 2004.)
- On April 23, 2004, at a conference in the Sakhalin region, Oleg Stenyayev, an Orthodox priest, urged the Sakhalin oblast administration to ban the local community of Jehovah?s Witnesses and take possession of the Kingdom Hall (house of worship). He then suggested that it be turned over to the local Muslim Community. The vice-governor is quoted as supporting this notion. Reference is made to the March 26 decision. (See Forum 18 News Service, June 7, 2004.)
Tula- In June 2004, a one-page leaflet was distributed throughout the city of Tula. The leaflet stated that it was printed by the ?Missionary Section of the Tula diocese [eparchy] of the Russian Orthodox Church.? In addition to containing defamatory statements, the leaflet makes reference to the liquidation and ban imposed by the Golovinsky Court and falsely claims that Jehovah?s Witnesses are banned in ?numerous countries of Europe.? (An unofficial English translation of the leaflet is available upon request.)
Abuses of Religious Freedom in Other Areas of the Russian FederationLiquidation Case in Luchegorsk- On October 6, 2004 the Pozharskiy District Court of the far eastern Primorskiy Kray Territory of the Russian Federation ordered the liquidation of the local organization of Jehovah?s Witnesses in the town of Luchegorsk. This was done based on Article 8(9) of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations, which states:
Religious organizations are obligated to annually inform the agency registering them as to the continuation of their activity, indicating the information included in the single state register for legal entities. The indicated information on local religious organizations May be presented to the registering agency by the corresponding centralized religious organization. Failure to present the indicated information for a period of three years is grounds for the registering agency to turn to the court with a lawsuit for recognizing the religious organization as having ceased its activity.
- The LRO had failed to inform local authorities on time of a change in the juridical address of the organization on just one occasion. It was unlawful for the Ministry of Justice for Primorskiy Territory to seek the liquidation order on the basis of one technical oversight.
- On October 16, 2004, Jehovah?s Witnesses appealed the court?s decision. The cassation appeal was heard on November 16, 2004, and the court reversed the decision and ruled to dismiss the case entirely.
Liquidation Case in Naberezhnye Chelny, TatarstanThe local religious organization (LRO) of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan, was registered on April 27, 2002. In 2003 the State Registration Chamber under the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Tatarstan sent the local religious organization (LRO) of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan, a warning, which the Witnesses did not receive. With no knowledge of this warning, on December 30, 2003, the LRO provided information to the Ministry of Justice about its continued operation in 2003. Nonetheless, the Ministry of Justice called in the chairman of the LRO and told him how displeased they were that the LRO had not even bothered to respond to the warning for a whole year. The Ministry of Justice refused to provide Jehovah?s Witnesses with a copy of the warning and proceeded to file for the liquidation of the LRO in court. - On September 17, 2004, the Court granted the demands of the Ministry of Justice to liquidate the LRO of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan. The liquidation was based on the LRO?s failure to inform the Ministry of Justice within the fixed time period about certain changes to information that must be entered into the Common State Registry of Legal Entities and on the fact that allegedly the LRO had not reported its continued activity.
Jehovah?s Witnesses presented the Court with documents proving that the Justice Department had been informed about the LRO?s continued activity. They also cited the decision of the Constitutional Court in a case concerning the liquidation of the Salvation Army, which stated that the liquidation of an LRO on the sole basis of formalities (failure to notify) contradicts the principle of freedom of religion. However, the court did not wish to examine the evidence and refused to question the court witnesses. The hearing only lasted 20 minutes, and then the decision was delivered. Jehovah?s Witnesses appealed. - On October 25, 2004, the Supreme Court of Tatarstan, situated in the city of Kazan, ruled in favor of Jehovah?s Witnesses, thus overturning the decision to liquidate the LRO in Naberezhnye Chelny, Tatarstan.
Right to Assemble?Congregation MeetingsKuznetsov and 102 Others v. Russian FederationThe application Kuznetsov and 102 Others v. Russian Federation was filed with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on March 1, 2002. This case involves the abuses of a human rights commissioner who used the police to forcibly break up a sign-language meeting of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Chelyabinsk on April 16, 2000. This illegal action was compounded by extreme irregularities during the court case. The application deals with discrimination against the deaf Witnesses and violations of their freedom of religion, association, and expression, as well as their right to privacy and to receive a fair trial. - On September 9, 2004, an oral hearing for this case was held in Strasbourg.
- On October 4, 2004, the ECHR unanimously ?declared admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicants? complaints about a disruption of their religious meeting and unfair hearing on their complaint.? The case will be heard on its merits in the near future.
Right to Assemble?ConventionsEarth wide Jehovah?s Witnesses annually hold large assemblies or conventions, where many congregations come together for a special program of Bible instruction. Although there had previously been isolated instances of interference, the number of cases of authorities interfering with the right of Jehovah?s Witnesses to assemble for worship freely in such conventions dramatically rose in the summer of 2003, especially in Nizhny Novgorod, Pyatigorsk, and Stavropol. Additionally, in 2004, some authorities attempted to cancel religious conventions. Before the ban in Moscow went into effect, Jehovah?s Witnesses were able to hold their convention there. And with prompt legal intervention, convention disruptions were prevented in Kemerovo, Sochi, Orenburg, and other Russian cities. Authorities did however succeed in interfering with conventions in the following locations. Chelyabinsk Convention, August 6-8, 2004- In May 2004, Jehovah?s Witnesses in Chelyabinsk made an agreement with the director of the Voskhod Sports Complex (VSC). The Witnesses promised to renovate the stadium in exchange for holding their summer convention there. The renovation work was completed.
- On July 12, 2004, the director of the VSC in Chelyabinsk and Jehovah?s Witnesses signed a contract for the use of the complex for a three-day religious convention. Both the Chelyabinsk City Administration and the Lenin District Administration were informed about the convention, which was planned for August 6-8, 2004. After the contract was signed, the director of the stadium consulted with the owner of the VSC, who was not in agreement with the stadium?s use by Jehovah?s Witnesses. However, when the Witnesses looked for other facilities, all directors required the permission of the City Administration. The deputy head of the City Administration refused to issue the permission, saying that all sports stadiums are for sports events and not religious meetings. Since no other arrangements were possible and the contract was valid, the Witnesses went forward with their plans.
- On August 6, 2004, when 1,500 invited guests gathered for worship, they found all the entrances to the stadium locked. Militia stood guard outside and inside the stadium to prevent access. No convention could be held this year in Chelyabinsk.
Yekaterinburg, July 23-25, 2004- A religious convention of Jehovah?s Witnesses was scheduled to take place in Yekaterinburg, Sverdlovsk Region, on July 23-25, 2004. Demands for an illegal payment of an exorbitant amount of money were made just before the convention was to be held. Nonetheless, the convention began without incident.
- On the second day of the convention, the Witnesses arrived at the stadium only to find young men blocking the entrance at 9 a.m. The Witnesses convinced them to allow the delegates to enter and the program to began. However, by 3 p.m., when the extortion demands were not met, a group of 25 young men forced the convention to come to an abrupt halt by blaring their music and threatening violence, which made it impossible to continue. The police simply stood by watching. After it was announced that the program could not continue, the local police chief informed Jehovah?s Witnesses that the rental contract between the Witnesses and the stadium had been rescinded and the convention could not resume.
- Jehovah?s Witnesses filed a complaint with the deputy chief of the Supervisory Department of the Yekaterinburg Prosecutor?s Office regarding the convention disruption. The prosecutor?s office is at present carrying out an investigation.
Stavropol, August 22-24, 2003, and August 29-31, 2003In the city of Stavropol, a Russian sign-language convention of Jehovah?s Witnesses was scheduled for August 22-24, 2003, at the Salut Cinema Theater. On August 22, 2003, convention delegates who had gathered in front of the theater were not allowed to enter the building. However, a new rental contract was quickly arranged with the management of another facility, the Stavropol State Circus, and the convention was held although difficulties were encountered. The following week, on August 29-31, 2003, a Russian-language convention of Jehovah?s Witnesses was scheduled to be held in the Stavropol State Circus. The city administration and police began pressuring the director of the facility to cancel the contract. Jehovah?s Witnesses were notified that their meeting was prohibited because of the high rate of crime in connection with terrorist attacks, and the rental contract was rescinded. A new contract was quickly signed with the Stavropol Culture and Sports Palace, and the convention began on August 29. However, two police officers came onto the platform and ordered everyone to leave. Outside, the police blocked the entrance to the Culture and Sports Palace, thus forcing cancellation of the convention. The Oktyabrsky District Court of the City of Stavropol ruled against Jehovah?s Witnesses in the claim they had filed regarding the unlawful actions of the administrative and police officials with regard to the disruption of the sign-language convention, and the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Stavropol Territorial Court upheld the lower court?s decision. Further, the Stavropol Territorial Department of the Ministry of Justice issued two warnings to the LRO of Jehovah?s Witnesses in Stavropol regarding alleged noncompliance regarding the two August conventions. - On January 24, 2004, in the newspaper Stavropolskaya Pravda, an article was published showing the negative attitude of the officials in Stavropol toward Jehovah?s Witnesses. It stated: ?The governor referred to parallels between Wahhabism and Jehovism. However, the state is yet to work out a legal mechanism for counteracting religious cults that are hostile toward the Russian State system.?
- On February 7, 2004, Jehovah?s Witnesses tried unsuccessfully to organize a one-day religious assembly in Stavropol. Local authorities insisted that the movie theater administration not rent their facilities to Jehovah?s Witnesses.
- On April 26, 2004, the Leninsky District Court of Stavropol dismissed the complaint filed by Jehovah?s Witnesses against the Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Justice for the Stavropol Territory, the Stavropol City Administration, and the territorial police department in connection with the disrupted conventions. The decision was appealed.
- On October 15, 2004, the Stavropol Territorial Court upheld the earlier negative decision of the trial court and dismissed the claim against the unlawful actions of the Stavropol City Administration and the police. The domestic remedies have all been exhausted.
Nizhny Novgorod, July 25-27, 2003In Nizhny Novgorod, a religious convention of Jehovah?s Witnesses was scheduled for July 25-27, 2003, at Polyot Stadium. One day before the planned convention, the Moscow District Administration and the Presidential Plenipotentiary in the Privolzhsky Federal Circuit pressured the stadium management to cancel the contract for the convention, which they did. On the day of the convention, the police surrounded the stadium, confiscated the keys, and blocked all entrances, thus preventing the use of the stadium. Policemen guarded the stadium for the remaining days of the scheduled convention. Jehovah?s Witnesses filed a claim with the Nizhny Novgorod District Court to declare unlawful the actions and decisions of the government agencies. - On March 25, 2004, after seven days of trial, the Nizhny Novgorod District Court ruled that the police had illegally interfered with the July 2003 convention. The court declined to find the city administration guilty of participating in illegal acts. Both sides appealed.
- On September 7, 2004, a higher court upheld the lower court decision in favor of Jehovah?s Witnesses, finding the actions of the police were unlawful.
Pyatigorsk, July 25-27, 2003In Pyatigorsk, a city in Stavropol Territory, a religious convention of Jehovah?s Witnesses was scheduled for July 25-27, 2003, at Kirov Stadium. The city authorities of Pyatigorsk and the Pyatigorsk Police Department began to pressure the president of the Sports Club to cancel the contract for the use of the stadium for the convention. On the day the convention was scheduled to begin, the police blocked the entrance of the stadium and remained at the stadium, making it impossible for Jehovah?s Witnesses to hold the convention. Jehovah?s Witnesses lodged a complaint with the Stavropol Territory Prosecutor?s Office to instigate a criminal case against the head of the Pyatigorsk Police Department. Both the Oktyabrskiy District Court of the City of Stavropol and the Judicial Chamber for Criminal Cases of the Stavropol Territorial Court dismissed the complaint. - The Administrative Center of Jehovah?s Witnesses also filed a civil complaint against the actions of the Pyatigorsk Police Department.On January 9, 2004, the Pyatigorsk City Court dismissed this complaint also. A supervisory appeal is to be filed with the Stavropol Territory Court in the near future.
Conscientious Objection to Military ServiceThe Russian Constitution recognizes the right to conscientious objection to military service and makes provision in Article 59(3) for alternative civilian service. On July 1, 2004, a new law regulating this provision came into force. Time will tell how this law will be applied. Since the beginning of 2004, the Administrative Center of Jehovah?s Witnesses has become aware of approximately 30 administrative and criminal cases involving conscientious objectors who are Jehovah?s Witnesses. An administrative court case results when a conscientious objector files a request to reverse the decision of the draft commission to induct him into the military. Criminal cases result from a conscientious objector being charged with ?draft evasion? after he does not report for military service. There are at least 19 Jehovah?s Witnesses who have been assigned to perform alternative civilian service. Of those, only 7 have actually performed alternative civilian service. In the remaining 12 cases, the conscientious objectors were assigned alternative service that was still under the military. Consequently, they refused to perform it, requesting a truly alternative civilian service. Refusing to perform alternative civilian service is also punishable by either a prison sentence or a criminal fine. Marcel FaizovWhen Marcel Faizov was called up twice for military service while living in Meleuz, Bashkortostan, he explained his conscientious objection to military service. Although he requested alternative nonmilitary service, as offered in Article 59(3) of the Russian Constitution, none was provided. When he did not report for military service, he was charged under the Criminal Code with draft evasion. On October 1, 2002, the Meleuz District Court acquitted him of the criminal charge, based on Articles 28 and 59(3) of the Bashkortostan Constitution. The prosecutor appealed the acquittal. The Bashkortostan Supreme Court annulled the district court decision and ordered a retrial. This time, the Meleuz District Court found Faizov guilty under Article 328(1) of the Criminal Code and sentenced him to one-year probation. On November 20, 2003, the Bashkortostan Supreme Court dismissed Faizov?s appeal, and thus upheld the conviction. - On May 20, 2004, Marcel Faizov filed an application with the ECHR complaining against discrimination, the violation of his freedom of conscience, and the violation of his right to a fair trial.
|
