(Russian) Plaintiff: Religious Organization Defendant: Prosecutor of the Northern DECLARATION OF COUNTER SUIT in defense of reputation in accordance with article 131 GPK RSFSR The prosecutor of the Northern Administrative District of the City of Moscow in Govinskiy Intermunicipal Court directed the Application in accordance of article 14 of the Federal Law "On the Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations" about the liquidating of the religious organization "Jehovah's Witnesses" and a ban on it's activities. The given application, explanation of the prosecutor during the court procession of November 17th and 18th, 1998 and additionally with the Application of January 15, 1999, containing the list of charges of violations of the current legislation, which are based on doctrinal literature of a religious organization. In essence, the prosecutor is trying to go outside the law and use the court as a doctrinal tribunal, offering the court to discuss theological and doctrinal questions. The prosecutors evaluation of the religious doctrines of Jehovah's Witnesses with the position of the Russian Orthodox Church does not correspond with the requirements of current legislation, because the legislation eliminates the possibility of the examination of doctrinal arguments being in the courts general jurisdiction. At the same time, spreading public confessional evaluations under the guise of judicial fact - in particular, pointing to the stirring up of religious dissention by way of identifying your religious truths and a critical attitude of other religions, forceably breaking up families by means of studying the Bible, preaching and admitting spiritual authority of elders in the organization, infringement of individual rights and freedoms by means of "dragging" them into the religious activities - damages the reputation of the religious organization Jehovah's Witnesses. To the prosecutor NAO, city of Moscow, it is clearly known that Jehovah's Witnesses in no way breach the law, that in this criminal case there is not revealed by the prosecutor any offense against the law, that is why the case has repeatedly been discontinued on a rehabilitation basis. Therefore his claim to ban the activity of the society wittingly has no basis on the law and on factual circumstance of the case, being investigated by the office of the prosecutor NAO, city of Moscow. The Application of the prosecutor violates the Constitution of the RF and the standards of international rights. In agreement with section 4 article 15 of the Constitution of the RF there are generally accepted principles and standards of international rights and international treaties that are a constituent part of it's rights system. If international treaties of the Russian Federation established some regulations, then it forces by law the application of the regulations of international treaties. In this case, the prosecutor violates not only article 28 of the Constitution of the RF, guaranteeing the rights of freedom of conscience, but also the standards of the European Convention on protecting human rights and basic freedoms. In agreement with section 4 article 15 of the Constitution of the RF and Federal Law "On the ratifacation of the convention for the protection of human rights and basic freedoms and Protocol for it" from 3/30/98, article 9 of the European Convention shows it is a constituent part of the legislation of the Russian Federation. Furthermore, on the strength of article 1 of the above mentioned law, the Russian Federation recognized the jurisdiction of the European Court for Human Rights as binding on questions, interpretation and applications of Conventions and Protocol in cases of supposed violation by the Russian Federation's position toward those treaty acts. Article 9 of the European Convention for protecting human rights and basic freedoms exclude the possibility of examining doctrinal arguments by the general jurisdiction of the courts. This excludes practice by the European Court for Human Rights. In particular, in the case Manoussakis versus Greece, the European Court unanimously decided: "The right of freedom of religion of the kind which is guaranteed in the Convention, exclude some freedom of action on the side of the government for defining what is legitimate religious beliefs or means used for expressing those beliefs." The prosecution in his statements required the liquidation of the legal entity "Jehovah's Witnesses". On November 17-18,1998 the prosecutor explained to the court that a ban included banning religious meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses. In addition to these statements, on January 15, 1999, he interpreted that the liquidation of the society also means a ban on distributing all religious literature and teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. The requirements of the prosecutor's office and the advancing of their proofs violate article 9 of the European Convention for protecting human rights and basic freedoms. In the case of Kokkinakis versus Greece, the European Court for Human Rights decreed that article 9 of the Convention protects the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to preach and teach their religious beliefs to other people: 32. Requirements of article 9 are found reflected in the Greek Constitution, in so far as in the end of article 13 it says that freedom of conscience and religion were not to be violated and that the country guaranteed freedom to exercise any known religion. (See p. 13 above) Jehovah's Witnesses, accordingly, had the status of "known religion" and also the privileges resulting from observance in this regard. (See pp. 22-23 above) In the case Manoussakis versus Greece, the European Court for Human Rights confirmed this position and also explained that the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses to gather for religious meetings was protected under the Convention. On January 21, 1999 the European Court, consisting of 17 judges, unanimously decided that the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses found protection under the Convention in the territories of all countries-participants in the European Convention: 25. In connection with this, the court noticed that in the examination of earlier cases the Court received, it examined systems of secretly keeping an eye on other governments and establish in accordance with article 8 of the Convention the presence of adequate and effective means to protect from abuse of that kind of system (See the decision of the case Klass and others versus Germany of September 6, 1978 Part A No. 28; Malony versus Great Britain of August 2, 1884 Part A No. 82; and Lindy versus Sweden of March 26, 1987 Part A No. 116). In a number of cases, Kokkinakis versus Greece and Manoussakis and others versus Greece (See decisions from May 26, 1993 Part A No. 260-A and from September 26, 1996 Gathering Decisions and Resolutions 1996-IV, corrospondingly) where the facts were different from the present case, the court passed decisions in accordance with article 9 of the Convention by application to the corresponding legislation of Greece in regard to Jehovah's Witnesses. Then the court explained the nature and range of the obligations of the Contracting Parties in this matter [Governments-participants in European Conventions]. Therefore, by itself the demand of the prosecutor to ban Jehovah's Witnesses in Moscow violates article 28 of the Constitution of RF and article 9 of the Convention, in as much as it violates the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses as a religious society and individual beleivers. Article 9 of the Convention when combined with an examination of article 17 of the Convention also bans the process. In accordance with article 17 "Nothing in the present Convention can be interpereted to imply that some government, group of people or individual has the right to some activity or action directed to deny the rights and freedoms set forth in this present Convention or their limiting to a great extent those that are provided for in this Convention." The whole point of the Application by the prosecutor is to dismantle that which the court defines as the religious faith Jehovah's Witnesses or the means used to express their beliefs, legitimatizing by legislation the exclusion of these. However, the prosecutor is bringing in other applications which appear to abusing his authority by unlawfully prosecuting the Moscow Society of Jehovah's Witnesses. Appealing with such applications on April 20, 1998 in court, the prosecutor himself brought damage to the society, violating individual and collective rights of Jehovah's Witnesses. In serving documents addressed to the court, the prosecutor stated information that was damaging to the reputation of the religious society. This information with reference to the application was circulated by means of the mass-media (published in print, reported on television etc.). Because, although in accordance with article 90 GPK RSFSR the court may award in favor of the side which took the decision all the expenses for the case, and the defendant believes that damages have been done beyond the simple compensation for court costs. In the opinion of the defendant he has the right to also require retribution for information spread by the prosecutor regarding activities of the religious organization and to compensate for moral damages. In accordance with article 13 of the European Convention, every right and freedom stated in the present Convention, those violated have available effective means to protect their rights before national authority, even if that violation was done by people acting in their official capacity. Not a discontinuation of the present case, not even a decision in favor of the defendant, can be an effective means to protect the society, for these measures are not preventing the publication of slanderous fabrications of the prosecutor by means of the mass media and continued unlawful prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses by means of this court process. Simply applying the rules of article 90 GPK RSFSR cannot be the means to protect from those intentional actions which have taken place until now. The prosecutor has taken deliberate actions with the goal of violating the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses, by doing that he displays defiant disregard for the decisions of the European Court - which composes part of the legislation of the RF. Origionally initiated by the prosecutor, the court process brings damage to Jehovah's Witnesses in the public opinion. As a result of the action of the prosecutor, the society has been caused moral harm, which is estimated by the society at . . . rubles. In accordance withe articles 151,152 GK RF, IN ADDITION; Obliged by the prosecutor of the Northern Administrating District of the city of Moscow to refute the vicious attacks on the reputation of the society by information included in the application of April 20, 1998 and the additional application of January 15, 1999, sent by mass media reports about them that were not in accordance with their actions. Recovery by the defendant for moral injury in the sum of . . . rubles. Enclosed: Excerpts from printed publications. Receipts of paid government duties. Copies of completed declarations.
|
