Court Summary
February 15, 1999
(Russian)
Following weekend recess, the hearing settled down with defence continuingits questions of prosecutor on remaining issues in Amended Complaint of 15January 1999. Questions considered allegations of coercion to destroy family,inclination to commit suicide, infringement on personal rights and luringteenagers and minor children into the religious organization.
Prosecutor’s answers wandered from her disagreement with religious doctrineto her opinions as to traditional holidays that should be celebrated by Russiancitizens. For example, she alleged that Jehovah’s Witnesses contributed todestruction of families because they do not celebrate traditional holidays suchas New Year’s and Orthodox Christmas. She stated these were generally acceptedas common to all progressive humankind. Later in the day, however, she admittedthat Russian law did not require an atheist to celebrate Christmas.
The prosecutor claimed that the religious teaching of Armageddon by Jehovah’sWitnesses caused mass psychosis. She had no specific evidence at that point tosupport the claim but would rely on later testimony of witnesses. Prosecutorfurther claimed the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses cause psychological damagebut could not cite a single example of such damage.
Throughout the questions, it was apparent that the prosecutor’s case wasprimarily based on selective gleanings from religious literature or internalforms used by congregations or the Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses.For example, she alleged that the arrangement for individual Witnesses to servein the religious administrative centre (“Bethel”) violated Russia’s labour laws.She referred to an application form that requires members to live by the rulesof the religious order. On questionning, she admitted that she had never visitedBethel or interviewed any of the members. Her criticisms were based only onreading the application.
In the Amended Complaint, she also asserted that the “organization disorientsyouth in their choice of their future” and “deprives children from normal restand emotional joys.” On cross-examination, she admitted that she had nevertalked to any adults or young persons who had been reared by parents who wereJehovah’s Witnesses. Her claim was founded on her interpretation of literatureand what critics of Jehovah’s Witnesses have told her.
Among the reasons given by the prosecutor for the need to order a governmentban on Jehovah’s Witnesses, the prosecutor stated that speaking about thepossibility of government bans at the meetings of Jehovah’s Witnesses “incitesfear” among believers.
Toward the day’s end, defence counsel asked the prosecutor, ‘what activity ofJehovah’s Witnesses do you want this court to ban?’ She refused to give astraight answer. After some argument between the defence, the judge and theprosecutor, the judge directed that she answer the next day-Tuesday, 16 February1999. Court adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
On 16 February, court will hear submissions from defence counsel as to thecase put forward by the prosecution to date.