It does, since Russia voluntarily joined the European Convention. Pacta sunt servanda.
It's funny how you're concerned about rights of the neo-Nazi government of Russia.
in 6-1 judgment, the ecthr found that the forced dissolution of jehovah’s witnesses religious organisations in russia, the banning of their religious literature and international website on charges of extremism, the revocation of the permit to distribute religious magazines, the criminal prosecution of individual jehovah’s witnesses, and the confiscation of their property unlawfully interfered with their human rights.
the only dissenting judge is apparently mikhail lobov, who was nominated by the russian government.. .
.
It does, since Russia voluntarily joined the European Convention. Pacta sunt servanda.
It's funny how you're concerned about rights of the neo-Nazi government of Russia.
in 6-1 judgment, the ecthr found that the forced dissolution of jehovah’s witnesses religious organisations in russia, the banning of their religious literature and international website on charges of extremism, the revocation of the permit to distribute religious magazines, the criminal prosecution of individual jehovah’s witnesses, and the confiscation of their property unlawfully interfered with their human rights.
the only dissenting judge is apparently mikhail lobov, who was nominated by the russian government.. .
.
In 6-1 judgment, the ECtHR found that the forced dissolution of Jehovah’s Witnesses religious organisations in Russia, the banning of their religious literature and international website on charges of extremism, the revocation of the permit to distribute religious magazines, the criminal prosecution of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the confiscation of their property unlawfully interfered with their human rights. The only dissenting judge is apparently Mikhail Lobov, who was nominated by the Russian Government.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
The Rules don't prohibit elders from reporting instances of abuse, nor do they create a cause of action.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
In that case, Watchtower was vicariously liable for the elders' omissions, not for the abuser's actions, and vicarious liability wasn't a contentious issue at all.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
What federal law?
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
Also, there is no federal law on clergy privilege, it's a state matter.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
ivy hill congregation of jehovah's witnesses is currently suing the pa department of human services.
it requests "a declaration that its elders are entitled to" clergy privilege, or, in the alternative,.
to the extent that the clergyman privilege is determined to exclude its elders on the basis that they are "members of [a] religious organization[] in which members other than the leader thereof are deemed clergymen or ministers," the court declare the statute to be unconstitutional.
There is a widespread misunderstanding of this issue. In Pennsylvania, just like in Montana, Illinois and many other jurisdictions, JW elders are mandatory reporters BECAUSE, not despite, they are considered to be clergymen. In these jurisdictions ordinary people have no duty to report - only certain professionals, including members of clergy, have that duty. And their "we don't have clergy class" rhetoric is simply immaterial and irrelevant, and it's a kind of urban legend that courts use it against the org.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
Their hierarchical structure is of no relevance here because Watch Tower PA didn't deny its responsibility for the congregation and "has agreed that it will satisfy any judgment against" it. The real issue at question was what relationship, if any, exists between the abuser's position as an elder and the rape, that "did not occur while Mark Sewell was performing any religious duty," but "when the two couples were choosing to be together on an essentially social occasion... There is, therefore, at least an argument that by the time of the rape Mark Sewell’s status as an elder had somewhat faded into the background"
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=d0a1ca63-2027-4702-9f6d-3c3da5fd9c5f.
On 30 March, a panel of three Supreme Court Justices agreed to hear the case Trustees of the Barry Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses v BXB. In that case, the congregation was found vicariously liable for Mark Sewell, its elder, raping a 29-year-old female congregant.
This appears to be the first case of applying a special rule for child sexual abuse to abuse of an adult. Commenting on the Court of Appeal judgment, Prof. Giliker noted that it "raises more questions than it answers" and "leaves the law in need of clarification and facing the prospect of yet another trip to the Supreme Court."
As to Mark Sewell, he was sentenced to 14 years, and claims brought by his two (then-)child victims have been settled. The plaintiff in the present case proposed to settle for £25,000, which was denied by the org. As the trial court judge noted, "the Defendants could reasonably conclude that they had stronger arguments in her case... [which] was certainly not so weak that the decision to litigate it... was itself unreasonable." Anyway, if they lost this time, their overall litigation costs will likely exceed hundreds of thousands GBP.
The case will be heard not earlier than this October.