24 August 1998 To the Golovinsky Circuit Court, Moscow OBJECTION Against the complaint of the NAC of Moscow of 4/20/98 # H-7-02/98. The prosecutor of the Northern Administrative Circuit of Moscow has submitted to the Golovinsky Municipal (regional) Court of the City of Moscow a complaint entitled "On the Liquidation of the Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses and Banning Its Activity" of 4/20/98 #H-7-02/98 I consider that the given complaint is without basis, violates the Constitution, and is not subject to review by the Court for the following reasons. 1. The prosecutor essentially accuses members of the religious congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses of the City of Moscow that they: a) view their religion as the only true one, and others, correspondingly, as false; b) pressure members of the congregation to devote their time to religious activity, and critical expressions on the part of one member of the family [who does not desire to become a member of the congregation] aimed at the religious convictions of another member of the family [who belongs to the congregation] causes discord in the family; c) select bloodless forms of medical treatment, and not blood transfusions; d) hand members of the congregation who desire to serve in their monastery (Bethel) an application in which they are warned that, upon being invited to the monastery, they will have to live in agreement with a vow of obedience (give priority not to their own personal desires, but to the religious service); e) raise their children in accord with their religious convictions, and some minor children of members of the congregation hold to the religion of one of the parents and not the other. A detailed examination of the accusations raised by the prosecutor reveals the following: a) The prosecutor perceives that a person who is convinced of the rightness of his faith is violating the law. Essentially, he demands that a secular court, and not the individual, determine which faith to hold or not. In other words, the prosecutor desires to carry out ideological control over the conscience and thinking of Russian citizens by the government. However, in agreement with Article 13 of the Constitution of the RF, ideological diversity is recognized and no ideology may be established as official or mandatory in Russia. Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees that the Russian Federation is a secular State. No religion may be established as official or mandatory. Religious groups are separate from the State and equal before the law. According to Article 28 of the Constitution, all are guaranteed freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to practice any religion individually or with others or practice none at all, freedom to select, hold, and share religious or other convictions and act in accord with them. In agreement with Article 29 (points 1, 3) all are guaranteed freedom of thought and expression, and no one may be forced to express their opinions or convictions or act against them. In agreement with Article 2 of the Constitution the individual, his rights and freedoms, are of the highest value, and recognizing, observing, and defending the rights and freedoms of the individual and citizen are the obligation of the State. The above-listed provisions of the Constitution make up the basis for the constitutional structure of the Russian Federation (Article 16). Moreover, Article 9 of the Convention for Human Rights and Basic Freedoms (further referred to as the 'Convention'), as ratified by Federal Law on March 30, 1998 #54-F3, also establishes that everyone has a right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes the freedom to change one's religion or convictions and the freedom to practice one's religion or convictions either individually, or jointly with others, publicly or privately, in worship, teaching, and discharging religious and ritual ceremonies. In agreement with Article 10 of the 'Convention', everyone has the right to freely express one's opinion. This right includes the freedom to adhere to one's opinion, receive and disseminate information and ideas without hindrance on the part of State organs and independent of State borders. Part 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution of the RF is the standard for the main part of the judicial system of Russia. In this manner, the prosecutor in fact demands that the circuit court retract the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion for citizens of Russia, change the basis for the constitutional structure of the Russian Federation and annul its international obligations as a member of the Council of Europe, which is an absurd and improper demand. In accord with the expert analysis of 4/6/98 from Professor Gordienko of the faculty of religious studies of the Herzen RGPU, presuming one's religion has a monopolistic hold on the only true faith, along with declaring other faiths 'untrue', 'wrong', 'erroneous', and even 'false', is characteristic of all religions without exception. A critical attitude towards other religions is a fundamental trait of all confessions and denominations, and is a strictly internal matter for each religion, and therefore may not be qualified as inciting religious hatred or discord. (pages 4, 6). In line with these above-mentioned norms, a secular court is not empowered in any form, either directly or indirectly, to determine the legality or illegality of the religious convictions of a person, forbid or permit a person to have religious conviction or require their changing them. b) The statement that 'Jehovah's Witnesses require breaking off all ties outside the organization' obviously does not correspond to reality, since citizens who practice this faith do not isolate themselves from the world, but live and work with others. In agreement with the religious analysis carried out by specialists of the faculty of religious studies of Herzen RGPU (Gordienko, Nikitin, and Kudriavtsev), 'Jehovah's Witnesses view the family as God's arrangement and strive for the happiness of the whole family and its preservation, despite problems that may arise, including differences in religious views.' (page 22) That the critical expressions of one member of the family regarding the faith of another member causes discord in the family shows, on the one hand, that the reason for the discord is a failure on the part of one member of the family to recognize the freedom of conscience of the other member, and, on the other hand, this is strictly an internal family matter. However, a religious group as a whole should not be punished for a lack of tolerance on the part of one who does not belong to the religious group. According to point 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution of the RF and Article 8 of the 'Convention', everyone has a right to the inviolability of their private life, personal and family secrets, and the interference of public officials in carrying out this right is not allowed. The statement by the prosecutor that Zhuravlyev is a minor is untrue. Further, the prosecutor perceives as a violation of law the fact that citizens of Russia, uniting on the basis of their common interests, have created a union for carrying out religious activity and invite others to participate in specifically religious, and not some other form, of activity. However, Article 30 (point 1) of the RF Constitution establishes the right of everyone to a form union. According to Article 11 of the 'Convention', everyone has the right to hold peaceful assemblies and to freely associate with others. The choice of association - with whom and the nature of the contact - is a personal matter. However, the prosecutor demands that the court control the citizen and determine who should associate with whom, which is unacceptable interference by a public official into private life. c) The prosecutor considers it a violation of the law that Jehovah's Witnesses exercise in practice their constitutional right to freedom and private inviolability, including the choice of bloodless forms of treatment (point 1 of Article 22 of the RF Constitution, Articles 30-33 of the RF Basis for Legislation regarding protecting the health of citizens). A similar right is provided for by the 'Convention' (Article 5). By choosing bloodless methods of treatment, Jehovah's Witness patients avoid the risk of infection with AIDS, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases. In this manner, these citizens exercise their constitutional right to qualified medical care (Article 41 of the RF Constitution). According to an expert opinion of 3/23/98 prepared by a group assigned by the Committee for Public Associations and Religious Organizations of the Government Duma of the Russian Federation, the "right to choose the type and method of treatment, including the right to refuse blood transfusion, should not be infringed in any manner. A member of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses decides for himself regarding the use or non-use of donor blood in accord with his personal convictions. According to Russian legislation a citizen or his legal representative has the right to refuse medical treatment or demand its cessation, and, correspondingly, the establishment handling the treatment may not force him to accept or continue it. The priority in choice of doctor, medical establishment and method of treatment remains with the patient or his legal representative. Refusing a blood transfusion is the right of a citizen or his legal representative. The choice of refusing a blood transfusion should not be interpreted as rejecting medical care as a whole." (pages 6, 7). The statement that minors in the congregation are given "Identification Cards" on which the words "NO BLOOD" are written in bold is untrue. Besides this, as was shown above, the choice of treatment method is covered by the Basis for Legislation of the RF regarding protecting the health of citizens, in accord with which the right to medical treatment or its refusal for a person under the age of 15 is granted to his parents. The statement of the prosecutor that members of the congregation exerted strong pressure upon P. V. Semitko and the attending doctor with the goal of preventing the "carrying out of vitally necessary therapy" is untrue. P. V. Semitko, who is still alive, is an adult citizen who acted in accord with his rights as a patient. d) The prosecutor, by accusing members of the congregation that they provide others who desire to carry out their religious service in a monastery (Bethel) an application in which they are informed in advance that, in the event of being called to the monastery, they will have to live according to a vow of obedience (give priority not to personal desires but to religious service), in effect demands that the court forbid citizens of Russia from practicing their religious service in establishments like monasteries (religious orders). Service in Bethel is voluntary and based on conscious choice. This demand by the prosecutor is a serious violation of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion which is established by Article 28 of the RF Constitution and Article 9 of the 'Convention', and is obviously not subject to review by the court. e) The prosecutor considers it a violation of the law that minors and youngsters who profess the religion under question participate in the activity of the congregation and attend the religious meetings of the congregation with one or both of the parents. However, according to Article 9 of the 'Convention', Article 17 (part 2), Article 28 of the RF Constitution, everyone has a right from birth to freedom of conscience and expression of faith, including youngsters. Parents, in accord with part 2 of Article 5 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations", may impart a religious upbringing to their child, considering his right to freedom of conscience and expression of faith. The statement of the prosecutor that the congregation violates its charter by accepting minors as members is untrue. Members of the given legal entity are adult citizens only. In addition, according to the above-mentioned legal standards, everyone, including minors, has the right individually or in union with others to profess any religion, including participation in public religious services of any confession. In agreement with an expert opinion of 4/6/98 by Professor N. S. Gordienko, the actual practical activity of the congregation is directed toward the achieving of religious goals and tasks and is in full compliance with Regulation #432 of 12/30/1993 (page 17, point 4).as registered by the judicial organ. The quotation of the prosecutor from the "Expert Analyses" of F. G. Ovsienko, and separately of I. A. Galitsky and I. V. Metlik as the foundation of his demands is without basis. In agreement with the expert religious analysis of Professor N. S. Gordienko, "it is clear from a study of the 'Expert Analysis' of Professor F. G. Ovsienko that the practical activity of the society of Jehovah's Witnesses was not examined at all by the expert. The conclusions made in the 'Expert Analysis' regarding the religious organization are not scientifically based, contradict the studied material, and therefore may not be considered reliable." (page 20) Besides this, Professor M. I. Odintsov (substitute director of the faculty of religious studies of the Russian Academy of the RF President's cabinet [in which Ovsienko works]), participating by assignment of the Committee of the Government Duma in preparing an expert analysis of 3/20/98, came to diametrically opposite conclusions to the ones made by Ovsienko. Moreover, in accord with the expert religious analysis of I. A. Galitsky and I. V. Metlik which was conducted by specialists of the faculty of religious studies of the Herzen RGPU (N. S. Gordienko, V. N. Nikitin, and V. M. Kudriashov): 1. The nature and character of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses are presented in a distorted form in the 'Expert Analysis' and do not correspond to reality. 2. The beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Expert Analysis are presented improperly; the ideas and principles of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses that were examined do not contain anything asocial or immoral. 3. The practical activity of Jehovah's Witnesses is presented in a distorted manner in the Expert Analysis; the aspects of their activity that were examined are not asocial in nature and do not undermine the moral standards of Russian society. 4. The Expert Analysis is based on unscientific assumptions and contains serious errors in methodology that make it useless from a scientific or practical point of view. 5. In view of the fact that the conclusions made in the Expert Analysis do not correspond to actual circumstances, it cannot be used as a reliable evaluation of the teachings and corresponding practices of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses (pages 26, 27). The aforementioned is confirmed also by the expert analysis of Professor N. S. Gordienko of 4/6/98 (pages 17, 18, point 7). Moreover, in the expert conclusion made by Galitsky and Metlik, nothing regarding the activity of such a legal entity as the religious congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow was even examined. 2. As a basis for entering this case the prosecutor refers to the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations", which came into force 10/1/1997. However, the contrived infractions of Federal Law alleged by the prosecutor took place before the law came into force and thus may not be subject to review by the court since at the time they occurred they were not a violation of law that would require liquidation of a legal entity or a ban on religious activity. 3. In accord with former legislation the prosecutor could then make a case only on the basis of Federal Law "Regarding Non-Commercial Organizations", since a religious organization is non-commercial. However, not a single order to cease and desist from violating the law was filed by the office of the prosecutor against the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow. In accord with point 3 of Article 33 of the Federal Law "Regarding Non-Commercial Organizations", a request to the court to liquidate a religious organization is allowable only after filing more than two orders to cease and desist from violating the law. Consequently, in this case the prosecutor has also not observed proper procedure for preliminary extra-judicial resolution of the disagreement. In this way it is clear that the complaint of the prosecutor is directed against basic human rights and freedoms and the Constitution of the RF. In essence he demands that the circuit court rescind the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion for citizens of Russia, change the foundation of the constitutional structure of the Russian Federation, and annul its international obligations as a member of the Council of Europe, which is an absurd and clearly improper demand. Therefore the case in question is not subject to review by the court. In addition, the prosecutor refers to circumstances that are not a violation of law, and he has not followed procedure for pre-trial resolution of the disagreement, which also excludes the case from examination as presented in the complaint. On the basis of the aforementioned and in line with the requirements of Articles 219, 221 of GPK of the RSFSR, I HEREBY REQUEST: That the proceedings of the complaint of the prosecutor of the Northern Administrative District of the City of Moscow "On the Liquidation of the Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses and Banning Its Activity" of 4/20/98 #H-7-02/98 be terminated. Representative A.E. Leontyev
|
