(Russian) Golovinskiy Defendant: Religious community of "Jehovah's Witnesses" MOTION To dismiss case The prosecutor of the Northern Administrative Circuit of Moscow in connection with article 14 of The Federal Law "Freedom of conscience and religious association" has submitted a complaint to the Golovinskiy Intermunicipal Court calling for the liquidation of the religious organization "Jehovah's Witnesses" and the banning of its activity. The submitted complaint contained a series of accusations of violations of existing law codes, such accusations being based on doctrinal literature of the (said) religious organization. The explanations of the prosecutor during the judicial sessions of November 17 and 18, 1998 also showed that his demands were based on doctrinal literature, such literature being presented to the court as evidence. Having been bound by the November 18, 1998 decision of the court calling for a clarification of his demands and a submittal of the necessary evidence, the prosecutor once again founded his accusations on the "analysis of printed literature that is used by the (said) religious organization." In the text of the complaint with its list of documents, were 55 references to religious literature. In essence, the entire Supplementary Complaint contains an analysis of the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses. Among other (submitted) evidence--"expert evaluations of the content of this literature" and "testimony of citizens", who, judging by the text of the Complaint, were intent on testifying about the religious teachings and biblical interpretations of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, references to doctrinal literature cannot serve as evidence of acts and bear witness only to the prosecutor's intention to take the case outside the legal arena and to turn the court into a doctrinal tribunal. Thus, the court has been requested to discuss a series of theological and doctrinal questions, such as: false religion, separateness from the world, bible prophecies about the end of the world, "interest in Godly works, rather then pursuing human goals." Examination in court of the prosecutors Complaint unavoidably requires in itself the legal examination of religious doctrine, including the comparison of such doctrine with orthodoxy. Thus in the experts opinion which the prosecutor quotes on page 2 of the addition to the complaint from January 15, 1999 it is stated: "The sharp antichurch position of "Jehovah's Witnesses" is completely unacceptable at a time when the major portion of Russian society is turning to the values of orthodox Christianity, as well as to other traditional denominations of the Russian people, in the search for spiritual ideals and the pursuit of moral convalescence . . ." The prosecutor also presented to the court various opinions from individual sectors of the Russian Orthodox Church, which are also of a confessional nature. From the evidence presented by the prosecutor it is clear, that in effect, he is asking the court to recognize the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses as unlawful in Russian society, thus declaring as approved, the religious teachings of orthodox Christianity. Whereas the substance of the prosecutor's Complaint amounts to a calling for a determination of the legitimacy of the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and the means used by them to express such teachings, I feel that this civil case is subject to closure in line with paragraph 1 article 219 GPK RSFSR, as far as the case is not liable to consideration in court. A religious debate is not within the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction. In harmony with article 3 GPK RSFSR interests that are protected by law are subject to judicial protection. Religious preference and religious disagreements are not interests protected by law in the sense of article 3 GPK RSFSR. In harmony with part 4 of article 15 of the Constitution R.F., widely accepted principals and standards of international law as well as international agreements of the Russian Federation are to make up a constituent part of the Russian judicial system. The grounds upon which the prosecutor bases his demands are also in violation of article 9 of the European Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms, which also excludes the examination of doctrinal arguments by a court of general jurisdiction. The rulings of the European Court for human rights also exclude this. In part, in the case of Manoussakis vs. Greece, the European Court unanimously ruled: "the right to freedom of religion as guaranteed under the Convention excludes any discretion on the part of the State to determine whether religious beliefs or the means used to express such beliefs are legitimate." Therefore a court of general jurisdiction is not authorized to decide religious debates and, accordingly is not authorized to examine evidence of a confessional nature, all the more so when one religion is evaluating another religion. Based on the included information and under the guidance of paragraph 1 article 219 GPK RSFSR, I REQUEST: that this civil case be dismissed. 9 February 1999 Attorney at law G.A. Krylova |
