RUSSIA RELIGION NEWS


 

Ukraine respects Jehovah's Witnesses' right to conscientious objection

EXERCIZING HUMAN RIGHTS IS NOT A CRIME

Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, 24 June 2015

 

Civil disorders and armed conflict in the east of Ukraine led to a partial mobilization in the summer of 2014.

 

Vitaly Shalaiko, who previously had been a serviceman in the Ukrainian army but later became a Jehovah's Witness, was called up in connection with the president's order. At the local military commissariat, Vitaly explained that because of his religious convictions, he could not consent to performing military service. At the same time, he expressed his readiness to perform alternative civilian service.

 

The military commissariat turned down Vitaly Shalaiko's request about performing civilian service and advanced criminal charges against him for refusing military service at a time of mobilization. This was the first instance of a refusal of military service on the basis of religious convictions during mobilization since the beginning of armed conflict in Ukraine.

 

As a former soldier, Vitaly understands that the government is protecting state interests and the security of its citizens. However he viewed the summons to military service in the light of the biblical principle of giving "to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." As a Christian, he is prompted to value human life and always to show love toward people.

 

On 13 November 2014, a hearing on the criminal case of Vitaly Shalaiko, charged with refusing mobilization, was held in the Novomoskovskii city district court of Dnepropetrovsk province. The court took into account that Vitaly did not avoid meeting with representatives of the government and he always showed up when summoned to the military commissariat and to the investigators'. The court ruled that Vitaly Shalaiko "has the right to substitution of alternative service for military service, including during a mobilization, since he is a member of a religious organization whose teaching does not permit him to bear arms."

 

In addition, the court confirmed Vitaly Shalaiko's right to alternative service "guaranteed by the constitution of Ukraine." In addition, the court noted that the Convention on Human Rights and Basic Freedoms and rulings of the European Court for Human Rights protect the freedom of religious confession. The judge dismissed the charges of refusing mobilization against Vitaly Shalaiko. The prosecutor appealed this decision.

 

In his appeal, the prosecutor insisted that the constitutional obligation to defend the fatherland takes priority over the right to freedom of religious confession and the right to alternative civilian service. In the prosecutor's opinion, relating the decision of the European court to the case is not applicable in a time of mobilization.

 

On 26 February 2015, an appellate court of Dnepropetrovsk province ruled that "refusal of mobilization on the basis of convictions of conscience is not a refusal of mobilization without good reasons." In its ruling, the court took into account Vitaly Shalaiko's religious views and cited the ruling of the European Court for Human Rights, pointing out that "the right to have such religious views in expressed in article 9 of the [European] convention," guaranteeing freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

 

The appellate court also found that article 9 of the European convention does not permit interests "of state security to justify restrictions on the exercise of rights guaranteed by law." In the judges' opinion, "the interests of national security must not infringe the right to refuse military service on the basis of convictions." The judges came to the conclusion that the Ukrainian law on alternative service is applicable even during a mobilization. The appellate court confirmed the decision of the court of first instance and acquitted Vitaly Shalaiko.

 

By these decisions the court of the first instance and the appellate court in eastern Ukraine acknowledge and confirm the right to refuse military service on the basis of convictions and the right to alternative civilian service, even if the country is in an emergency situation. The decisions made in the Shalaiko case also agree with the developments in international law that recognize the basic human right to refusal of military service on the basis of convictions.

 

Nevertheless, the prosecutor appealed these decisions to the Supreme Specialized Court of Ukraine for review of civil and criminal cases, presenting the very same arguments that had been considered and denied by the appellate court. On 30 April 2015, Vitaly Shalaiko's lawyer presented an objection against the prosecutor's appeal.

 

Vitaly Shalaiko is one of thousands of Ukrainian Witnesses who have been summoned for military service. They respond respectfully to the call up from a military commissariat and they ask to be given alternative service that does not violate their profound religious convictions. Usually such requests are granted and only a few Witnesses have been prosecuted on the basis of law. Now the decision is at the Supreme Specialized Court of Ukraine, which could confirm that Ukraine will respect the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse military service on the basis of convictions. (tr. by PDS, posted 24 June 2015)


Russia Religion News Current News Items

Editorial disclaimer: RRN does not intend to certify the accuracy of information presented in articles. RRN simply intends to certify the accuracy of the English translation of the contents of the articles as they appeared in news media of countries of the former USSR.

If material is quoted, please give credit to the publication from which it came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If material is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL, http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.