A globe

Jehovah’s Witnesses

Official Media Web Site

jw-media.org Home
Russia

About Jehovah’s Witnesses

News

Our Official Web Sites

Media Resources


RULING
December 8, 2009

The Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation
composed of:
Presiding judge V. V. Gorshkov
Judges A. V. Kharlanov and I. S. Getman
Secretary O. A. Minye
examined in court the cassation appeal of representatives of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, Victor Leonidovich Shipilov and Arly Yusupovich Chimirov, regarding the ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated September 11, 2009, in the case of the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s claim to liquidate the Taganrog Local Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, declare it extremist, ban its activity, to carry out a state registration in connection with its liquidation, declare the literature extremist materials and confiscate it, include it in the federal list of extremist materials, and to turn the property over to the ownership of the Russian Federation.

Having heard the report of RF Supreme Court Judge A. V. Kharlanov and explanations of representatives of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, A. Yu. Chimirov and V. L. Shipilov - supporting the arguments of the cassation appeal - and of Prosecutor G. I. Prishchenko of the Rostov Regional Prosecutors Office, of representatives of the Rostov Region Main Directorate of the RF Ministry of Justice, O. A. Goleva and V. V. Bendin, who believed that the court’s decision should be upheld, the Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation

Established:

On June 11, 2008, the Rostov Regional Prosecutor filed a claim in the Rostov Regional Court to liquidate the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses.

In the process of reviewing the claim, the prosecutor amended his demands and requested that the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses be liquidated and declared extremist, that its activity be banned, and that federal registration be made of the liquidation, that the literature (68 printed editions) be declared extremist materials, confiscated, and entered into the federal registry of extremist materials, and that the property be turned over to the ownership of the Russian Federation.

As a basis for his demands, the prosecutor stated that, in carrying out its activity, the said local religious organization persuades individuals to refuse medical assistance on religious grounds in situations that threaten their life and health, encourages citizens to refuse to fulfill their established civic responsibilities, and [encourages] the commission of other unlawful acts. The prosecutor also stated that there is evidence of recruitment of minor children in the organization’s activity in violation of the regulations of the Convention on the Rights of a Child, the RF Constitution, and the RF Family Code; cases of the break-up of relationships with family and relatives on the basis of religious differences related to the activity of the said organization have been established.

The prosecutor also testified that, according to the results of research conducted regarding a number of printed materials distributed by the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the territory of the Rostov Region, the publications contain statements that degrade human dignity on the basis of religious orientation, elements of advocacy of the exclusivity of one religion (Jehovah's Witnesses) over another, a negative appraisal of other confessions, and animosity towards other religions (especially towards Christianity) and their ministers and followers – which testifies to the presence of signs of incitement to interreligious enmity, religious exclusivity, and other violations of human rights.

These actions of the local religious order contradict current legislation and contain signs of extremist activity, which is a gross violation of the rights of an indeterminate group of individuals [the public].

Despite a warning notification dated October 26, 2007 and a warning dated October 31, 2007, regarding the impermissibility of extremist activity, which were not appealed through the established procedure, in 2008 the local religious organization again committed violations of the RF Constitution, the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity, dated July 25, 2002, No. 114-FZ, and the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, dated September 26, 1997, No. 125-FZ, by distributing religious literature containing statements which degrade human dignity on the basis of religious orientation and [containing] elements of advocacy of the exclusivity of one religion over another - which testifies to the presence [in the literature] of signs of incitement to interreligious enmity, religious exclusivity, and the violation of human rights.

As claimed by the Rostov Regional Prosecutor, these circumstances, together with failure by the religious organization to comply with the warning, serve as the basis for its liquidation.

Additionally, violations of the organization’s Charter have been discovered, specifically that it carries out its activity in the Neklinovsky and Matfeyevo-Kurgansk Districts of the Rostov Region, where the local religious organization is not registered.

In violation of Article 5.1 of the Federal Law on State Registration of Legal Entities and Individual Entrepreneurs, dated August 8, 2001, No. 129-FZ, and points 4.1 and 3.10 of the Charter, decisions regarding the exclusion or addition of members of the local religious organization are not documented in simple written form, and the registration agency is not informed of changes in information. With regard to these facts, a notice to eliminate violations of the law was issued by the Taganrog City Prosecutor’s Office to the chairman of the [Presiding] Committee of the local religious organization.

The prosecutor’s claim states that the printed matter for 2007, distributed by the local religious organization (The Watchtower and Awake! magazines and the printed matter Our Kingdom Ministry) does not contain the full identification information of the religious organization, which is a violation of Article 8.8 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, dated September 26, 1997, No. 125-FZ, according to which a religious organization must state its name in full when carrying out its activities, including the distribution of religious literature.

Thus, the subject of this claim is the issue of liquidation of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in connection with its activity of distributing extremist materials and in connection with its violation of current legislation, including the use of illegal methods of activity.

During the trial the representatives of the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s Office fully supported the demands of their claim.

The representatives of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses requested that the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s claim be denied.

The representative of the Rostov Regional Main Directorate of the RF Ministry of Justice upheld the demands of the prosecutor’s claim.

Representatives of the Rostov Regional Directorate of the Russian Ministry of Tax Service and of the Federal Service for Oversight in the Sphere of Mass Communications did not appear during the court session, were notified, and requested that the case be considered in their absence.

By the Decision of the Rostov Regional Court on September 11, 2009, the prosecutor’s claim was granted in the part that the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses was declared extremist and liquidated, the activity of the said organization was banned, the Rostov Region Main Directorate of the RF Ministry of Justice was required to carry out a state registration of the liquidation of the local religious organization, the organization’s property was turned over to the ownership of the Russian Federation, literature (34 printed editions) distributed by the local religious organization was declared extremist:

The indicated literature was entered into the federal list of extremist materials and confiscated. The other part of the prosecutor’s request regarding the literature and informational materials was denied.

In their cassation appeal, representatives of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, V. L. Shipilov and A. Yu. Chimirov requested that the court’s decision be rescinded, since it was rendered with violations of the norms of substantive and procedural law, facts relevant to the case were improperly determined, facts established by the court of first instance were not proven, and conclusions of the court of first instance set forth in the court’s decision are inconsistent with the facts of the case.

Having examined the case materials and considered the arguments in the cassation appeal, the RF Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases does not find grounds for granting the appeal and rescinding the decision which was rendered in accordance with the facts and legal requirements established in the court.

Pursuant to Articles 8.1 and 8.3 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, dated September 26, 1997, No. 125-FZ (with subsequent amendments and additions), a religious organization is a voluntary association of Russian Federation citizens or other individuals, permanently and with legal grounds residing in the territory of the Russian Federation, formed with a view to joint confession [of religion] and dissemination of faith and duly registered as a legal entity. A local religious organization is a religious organization consisting of no less than ten persons not younger than 18 years old that permanently reside in the same locality or the same town or village settlement.

The Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, elaborating on the regulations of the RF Constitution, defines the substance of the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Freedom of conscience and religion is not absolute. There are established limits to the said freedom identified in: Article 9.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms dated November 4, 1950, Article 18.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights dated December 16, 1966, and the RF Constitution.

Thus, in accord with Article 9.2 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Since worship is in the vast majority of cases related to the activity of some religious association, Article 13.5 of the RF Constitution prohibits the creation of associations whose purpose or actions are aimed at incitement of religious discord. According to Article 19.2 of the RF Constitution, discrimination based on religious orientation is prohibited. According to Article 29.2 of the RF Constitution, propaganda or agitation which incites religious hatred and enmity is forbidden. Advocating religious superiority is also forbidden.

The human and civil right to freedom of conscience and religion can be limited by federal law only to the extent necessary to protect the foundations of constitutional structure, morality, health, rights and lawful human and civil interests, and to safeguard the country’s defense and the security of the state. In this regard, the establishment of privileges, restrictions, and other forms of discrimination based on religious orientation is not allowed (Article 3 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations). This regulation reiterates the requirement in Article 55.3 of the RF Constitution.

As can be seen from the case materials and as established by the court of first instance, the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses (“LRO") was registered with the Rostov Regional Directorate of Justice on December 15, 1998, registration number 60, legal address: g. Taganrog, per. Lermontovsky, d. 3, kv. 4 (case papers, volume 2, page 175), and enters into the structure of the existing centralized organization – the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, registered with the RF Ministry of Justice on April 29, 1999, registration number 8, whose location is in p. Solnechnoye, g. Saint Petersburg.

On December 31, 2002, an entry was made in the Common State Registry of Legal Entities with the information of the legal entity registered before July 1, 2002 (case papers, volume 1, page 246).

According to point 2.1 of the LRO's Charter, its goals and objectives are joint confession and dissemination of faith, and satisfaction of spiritual needs. Carrying out group and individual worship services based on the Holy Scriptures (the Bible). Acquainting people with the Holy Scriptures, Bible teachings, principles, and standards. Religious training and discipline. Support for the work of the religious denomination of Jehovah’s Witnesses. (case papers, volume 1, page 13).

Under Article 61.2.2 of the RF Civil Code (“CC”) a legal entity can be liquidated by decision of the court in the case of: gross violations of the law at the time of its creation if such violations cannot be eliminated, performance of an activity without a proper permit (license), performance of an activity prohibited by the law or in violation of the RF Constitution, repeated or gross violations of a law or other judicial acts, systematic performance by a non-commercial organization including a social or religious organization (association) or a charitable or other fund of an activity which contradicts the aims stated in its charter, or in other cases stipulated by the present Code.

According to Article 117.3 of the RF CC, specifics of the legal status of public and religious organizations as the participants in relations regulated by the present Code shall be defined by law. For religious organizations (associations), that law is the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations.

The basis for liquidation of religious associations is stipulated in the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity.

Article 9.1 of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity establishes that the creation and activity of social or religious associations or other organizations whose goals or actions are aimed at carrying out extremist activity is prohibited in the Russian Federation.

The said federal law - in the interests of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms and the foundations of constitutional structure, and to provide for the integrity and security of the Russian Federation – defines the legal and organizational basis for [measures] counteracting extremist activity and establishes responsibility for their implementation.

The following facts serve as the basis upon which the Rostov Regional Prosecutor filed the present claim with the court: the Taganrog City Prosecutor sent a warning notification on October 26, 2007 to the head of the LRO; on October 31, 2007 the Taganrog City Prosecutor’s Office sent a warning to the LRO regarding the impermissibility of carrying out extremist activity.

Since, in spite of the said warning notification and warning, in 2008 the LRO again committed violations of Article 29.2 of the RF Constitution and Article 9 of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity, the prosecutor feels that there are grounds to declare the LRO extremist, liquidate it, and ban its activity.

During the court session, representatives of the LRO objected to the demands of the claim, stating that the warning notification and the warning were issued with violations of current legislation, that the prosecutor did not submit any evidence of distribution of literature by the LRO nor of the discovery of new instances of distribution of literature after the prosecutor’s warning, that the prosecutor did not submit a supervisory procedure regarding the said instances, and that the research submitted does not confirm the extremist nature of the literature.

As correctly established by the court of first instance and as follows from the case materials, the objections of the representatives of the LRO are groundless and contradict the evidence gathered in the case, which was examined in court session and confirms the circumstances stated by the prosecutor.

Thus, from the materials of the inspection of the local religious organization which were examined in court session, it can be seen that in 2007 the Taganrog City Prosecutor’s Office, as directed by the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s Office, conducted an inspection of the above-mentioned organization’s observance of federal legislation.

As the inspection was being conducted, it was established that the literature distributed by the local religious organization contains statements that degrade human dignity based on religious orientation, elements of advocating the exclusivity of one religion over another, and statements that incite hatred, particularly against Christendom. The said facts are corroborated by, among other things, information from the expert institute Rostov Center of Forensic Expert Studies, dated September 3, 2007, No. 127.

The warning notification regarding the impermissibility of violating the requirements of federal legislation, which prohibits the distribution of religious literature that degrades human dignity based on religious orientation or that contains elements of advocating the exclusivity of one religion over another, was sent to the chairman of the committee for the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, P. V. Trotsyuk, who was warned that he could be called to criminal accountability if the said activity continues. The process for appealing the warning notification was also explained.

During the court session it was established that the warning notification was not appealed through the established procedure.

The court established that on October 31, 2007, the Taganrog City Prosecutor’s Office, in accordance with Article 7 of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity, issued a warning to the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the impermissibility of carrying out extremist activity in the form of the distribution by the organization of printed materials containing statements that degrade human dignity based on religious orientation and elements of advocating the exclusivity of one religion over another – which testifies to evidence of signs of incitement of religious hatred and advocacy of exclusivity, the superiority or inferiority of a person based on his religious orientation (case papers, volume 1, pages 54-55).

The said warning stated the basis for its issuance, including the commission by the local religious organization of violations of current legislation.

The said warning was not appealed to the court by the local religious organization through the established procedure.

The arguments by representatives of the local religious organization - that the Taganrog City Prosecutor’s Office issued the warning notification and the warning at nearly the same time for the same reason, which is illegal - were examined and, on the grounds stated in the court’s decision, correctly found to be unsubstantiated. There is no basis for not agreeing with the conclusions of the court.

From the content of Articles 6 and 7 of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity it follows that the warning notification regarding the impermissibility of carrying out extremist activity is served to the head of a social or religious association or to the leader of another organization; a warning of the impermissibility of carrying out extremist activity is issued to the social or religious association or other organization in the event of the disclosure of facts testifying to the presence of signs of extremism in its activity.

The arguments by representatives of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses - that the inspection conducted by the Taganrog City Prosecutor’s Office was illegal in connection with the absence in 2007 of complaints by citizens that their rights had been violated by the religious organization’s activity, i.e. the lack of a basis for agencies of the prosecutor’s office to conduct the search, and that the use of the information from the expert dated September 3, 2007, No. 127, when issuing the warning notification and the warning, was illegal – were correctly declared unfounded for the reasons stated in the court’s decision.

It was established in the court session and can be seen from the case materials that, in spite of prosecutorial measures taken against the local religious organization and its leaders, the organization continued its activity of distributing literature and printed materials containing statements that degrade human dignity based on religious orientation and elements of advocacy of the exclusivity of one religion over another.

This fact was corroborated during the court session and confirmed by claims of Taganrog residents to the city prosecutor’s office (case papers, volume 4, pages 155-159).

In the process of conducting an inspection based on a complaint, citizens Ivashura, Druzenko, and Balov were questioned; they explained in their statements that Jehovah's Witnesses constantly approach people on the city streets and impose on them their religious literature despite the explanations of citizens that they are Orthodox Christians. Upon taking and glancing through the literature being distributed, they discovered many slanderous statements about various religions, including Orthodoxy, which offends their religious feelings.

The fact of continuation of the action of distributing literature, including that which is noted in the information from the expert dated September 3, 2007, No. 127 (What Does The Bible Really Teach book and The Watchtower and Awake! magazines), as the court correctly stated, is also confirmed by the materials of the inspection conducted by the Neklinovsky District Prosecutor’s Office in May-June 2008, according to information from Neklinovsky District Police Officer for the village of Nosovo, S. R. Usayev. During the inspection members of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses: V. A. Burlachenko, K. V. Dyakov, D. V. Lyagovich, and I. A. Sheyko, were questioned and confirmed the fact of distribution of the said literature on May 24, 2008 among the residents of the village of Nosovo, Neklinovsky District, where 16 persons had arrived to preach – to explain and familiarize the local residents with the Bible.

O. A. Semedotskaya and G. S. Kuzmenko, residents of the village of Nosovo who were questioned during the inspection, explained that people, members of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses from Taganrog, came to their home and offered their literature for studying. In the offered literature they saw statements that insulted their faith and challenged the legitimacy of Christian symbols, which to them as Orthodox was unacceptable.

The materials of this inspection were reviewed by the court in court session; the testimony of the said individuals was taken by an assistant to the Neklinovsky District Prosecutor and signed by the said individuals. The authenticity and objectivity of the said testimony and the materials of the inspection were verified by the court and a legal evaluation was made according to the regulations of Article 67 of the RF Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”).

Under Article 7 of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity, if a warning was not appealed to the court in accordance with established procedure, was not declared unlawful by a court, or if within 12 months from the date the warning was issued new facts were discovered testifying to the presence of signs of extremism in its activity, then according to the procedure established in the Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity, the respective social or religious association or other organization should be liquidated and the activity of the social or religious association, which is not a legal identity, should be banned.

Since the warning issued to the local religious organization on October 31, 2007, was not appealed to the court, was not declared unlawful by a court, and within 12 months from the date it was issued new facts were discovered testifying to the presence of signs of extremism in the organization’s activity, the Rostov Regional Prosecutor had grounds to file a claim in court requesting to liquidate the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. The court correctly reached the conclusion that the demands of the claim should be granted on the stated grounds, since they had been confirmed in court session.

The arguments of the local religious organization’s representatives, that the literature indicated in the prosecutor’s claim was not being distributed by the local religious organization, were reviewed by the court and declared invalid, which, as was justifiably stated by the court in the decision, is corroborated by the submitted evidence (reports on the activity of the religious organization for 2006, 2007, and 2008), including testimony of witnesses L. S. Balov, V. A. Salnikov, I. V. Akhanov, and others.

The fact of distribution of this literature (printed publications), as was established by the court of first instance, is also not refuted by the testimony of witnesses questioned per motion of the LRO’s representatives.

No evidence that refutes the indicated circumstances was submitted to the court.

Extremist materials are documents intended for publication, or information in other forms, that call for carrying out extremist activity or that substantiate or justify the necessity for carrying out such activity (Article 1 of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity).

In the trial, arguments that  part of the literature that is distributed by the local religious organization is of extremist nature were corroborated and established by the court, in particular by the certificate of the Rostov Center for Forensic Expert Study dated September 3, 2007, No. 127, and the conclusion of experts of the State Institution Southern Regional Center of Forensic Expert Study (“SI SRCFE”) under the Russian Federation Ministry of Justice dated July 15, 2009, which were properly assessed by the court in accordance with the requirements of Article 67 of the RF CPC.

Having assessed the studies that were conducted by the experts, taking their answers from the trial into account, the court reached the correct conclusion that part of the literature and printed publications that are distributed by the LRO contain a number of expressions that demonstrate the negative attitude of Jehovah’s Witnesses towards different elements of traditional Christianity, a negative image of Catholicism as a path of traditional Christianity, and contain a sharply negative assessment of one religious group, including those that are accompanied by illustrations, towards the Roman Catholic Church and the Russian Orthodox Church in the form of a statement; part of the literature contains information capable of undermining the reader’s respect for Christian religion other than Jehovah’s Witnesses and for its Christian religious figures; there are also expressions that motivate to leave other Christian religions (false religions) and join the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. These motivations are expressed in different forms of expression of will: directives, wishes, calls, and advice. To exert a psychological influence on the consciousness of the reader, manipulative techniques are used.

Therefore, the court’s conclusion - that the local religious organization was distributing the named 34 books and printed publications from the 68 that were studied by the experts, which contain information that is aimed at instigating religious discord (between Jehovah’s Witnesses and Orthodox Christians and Catholics) - is correct, which was also corroborated by the testimony of S. I. Chalenko, M. V. Glukhov, and others.

Having assessed the testimony of the abovementioned witnesses, the court reached the correct conclusion that the information and expressions of Jehovah’s Witnesses that are contained in the literature insult religious feelings, provoke conflicts on inter-religious grounds, incite religious discord, and were corroborated during the course of the case consideration.

Consequently, as the court justifiably stated in the decision, the LRO carries out activity in the form of distribution of religious literature that contains expressions which degrade human dignity on the basis of religious orientation and elements of propaganda of exclusivity of one religion above another, which attests to presence of signs of incitement of inter-religious enmity, religious exclusivity, and violation of human rights.

In the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity, extremist activity is understood to mean and includes: instigation of social, racial, national, or religious discord; propaganda of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of a person on the basis of his social, racial, national, religious, linguistic affiliation, or religious orientation; violation of rights, freedoms, and legal interests of a person on the basis of his social, racial, national, religious, linguistic affiliation, or religious orientation; mass distribution of materials known to be extremist, and also their production or storage for the purpose of mass distribution (Article 1).

That is why the demands to declare the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses extremist, terminate and ban its activity in the city of Taganrog, Neklinovsk, and Matveyev-Kurgan Districts of the Rostov Region, and declare the literature distributed by this organization as extremist material were legitimately granted by the court.

In addition, the court reached the correct conclusion that the prosecutor’s demands to declare the literature as extremist material are subject to be partially granted, since part of the literature does not contain signs of extremist materials.

According to Article 14.1 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, religious organizations can be liquidated by a court decision in the case of frequent and gross violations of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, this Federal Law, and other federal laws, or in the case of systematic fulfillment of activities by a religious organization which contradict the goals for which it was created (the goals in its charter).

According to Article 14.2 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, the grounds for liquidating a religious organization and banning the activity of a religious organization or religious group in a judicial procedure are:

According to Article 14.3 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, agencies of the Russian Federation Prosecutor’s Office have the right to file a submission with the court for liquidation of a religious organization or ban of activity of a religious organization or religious group.

The Rostov Region Prosecutor states that the LRO’s activity resulted in: inciting T. V. Salnikova to refuse medical assistance in the form of a blood transfusion for religious reasons, which lead to a fatal outcome: violation of law on the part of A. N. Gorbatenko, who refused to perform alternative civil service; drawing minors into the activity of the organization; and dissolving family ties and ties with relatives on the grounds of religious beliefs. The stated circumstances were reviewed by the court and were corroborated in the trial.

Under the regulations in Article 4 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, no one should be drawn into forced or compulsory labor. The term “forced or compulsory labor” does not include any service of military nature, or service exacted instead of compulsory military service in countries where conscientious objection is recognized.

According to Article 59.3 of the RF Constitution, a citizen of the Russian Federation shall have the right to substitute military service by alternative civilian service if military service contradicts his convictions or religious beliefs and also in other cases established by federal law. Relations that are associated with the Russian Federation citizens’ exercising of the constitutional right to substitute alternative civilian service for being drafted for military service, the procedure and conditions for performing alternative service are determined by the Federal Law on Alternative Civilian Service dated July 25, 2002, No.113-FZ.

Motivating citizens to refuse fulfillment of civic obligations established by law or to perform other unlawful actions is one of the grounds for liquidating a religious organization and banning the activity of a religious organization or religious group in judicial procedure, under the requirements of Article 14.2 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations.

According to the conclusion of the composite forensic expert study by a commission dated July 15, 2009 that was assigned and conducted on the case in accordance with the Ruling of the Rostov Regional Court dated July 11, 2008, most of the books that were submitted for the study form a directive for the reader to refuse participation in the activities of the state or of public organizations, and also to comply with laws that do not contradict God’s laws (as interpreted by Jehovah’s Witnesses). Independent decision making regarding manifestation of civil activity among the followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses is unlikely.

The expert linguist reached analogous conclusions. In the said expert’s opinion, the submitted literature contains expressions that contain motivation to refuse compliance with state laws because of religious motives, and consequently with civic obligations that are established by these laws.

The court reached a substantiated conclusion that the violation of law by Andrey Nikolayevich Gorbatenko, born in 1983, was a result of the work of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Neklinovsk District of the Rostov Region.

As follows from the case materials and as established by the court of first instance, A. N. Gorbatenko, a person of draft age, for whom military service was substituted with alternative civilian service in connection with religious convictions in accordance with Article 2 of the Federal Law on Alternative Civilian Service, was subject to be drafted for alternative civilian service in accordance with p.1 of the stated Law. However, A. N. Gorbatenko refused to perform alternative civilian service, giving his religious convictions as the reason. A. N. Gorbatenko did not plead guilty in court for committing a crime, as stipulated by Article 328.2 of the RF Criminal Code, and testified that he joined the religious community of Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1999. He refused to perform alternative civilian service in connection with the principles of the community.

From the court report on the questioning of the accused A. N. Gorbatenko from September 19, 2005, which was examined upon consideration of this civil case, as was justifiably stated by the court, it followed that A. N. Gorbatenko “gained biblical knowledge and in 1999 joined the religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses, located in the city of Taganrog in the Rostov Region. The reason given by Gorbatenko for refusing to perform alternative civilian service was that the organization he was directed to for performing alternative civilian service is associated with the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense.

The court assessed these arguments of the defendant and declared them invalid, since the Federal Law on Alternative Civilian Service does not stipulate a draftee’s right to choose a specific location for performing service. The state’s provision of the right to alternative civilian service in itself provides for exercise of rights of citizens whose religious convictions do not allow them to serve in the army. Determination of a specific location for performing alternative civilian service is a prerogative of the Federal Services for Labor and Employment.

The Decision of the Neklinovsk District of the Rostov Region Court dated November 1, 2005, that took legal effect on January 17, 2006, found A. N. Gorbatenko guilty of committing a crime, as stipulated by Article 328.2 of the RF Criminal Code, and punished him with a fine of 5,000 rubles.

Therefore, as was correctly stated by the court, a combination of evidence in the trial corroborated the fact that, on the part of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, there are actions that motivate citizens to refuse performing civic obligations that are established by law. These actions are reflected in the distribution of literature that contain such calls among the believers, discussion of this literature at meetings, and incitement of draft age citizens who do not profess this religion to refuse performance of military service.

Thus the court established that, during the spring draft in 2007, draftees were approached by other young men-draftees and were incited to refuse serving in the army, which was corroborated by witness V. G. Sukach in the trial.

Also, the court established facts of drawing minors into the activity of the local religious organization.

According to Article 5 of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Beliefs dated November 25, 1981, every child has the right to have access to education in the area of religion or belief in accordance with the wishes of his parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, and shall not be compelled to receive teaching on religion or belief against the wishes of his parents or legal guardians, taking the best interests of the child into account.

All matters concerning the child’s upbringing and education are decided by the mutual consent of parents in the interests of the children and takes the children’s opinion into account. The parents or one of the parents, upon presence of disagreements between them, has the right to address a Custody and Guardianship Agency or a court to settle these disagreements.

The Convention on Children’s Rights, which was adopted on November 20, 1989, also discusses a child’s right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship. This Convention stipulates that the participant states respect the right of a child to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Participant states respect the rights and responsibilities of parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, to guide the child in exercising that right in a method that corresponds to the developing abilities of the child. The freedom to profess one’s religion or faith can only be subjected to limitations that are established by law and necessary for protection of national security, public order, morality and health of the population, or protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens (Article 14). Participant states make all possible efforts to ensure the principle of main and equal responsibility of both parents in the upbringing and development of a child. The best interests of the child are their basic concern (Article 18).

Contrary to this guaranteed right, the believers of the LRO, as was established by court of first instance, drew their children in to participate in this organization’s activity without consideration for the opinion, health condition, and personality development interests of their children, which was corroborated by the testimony of witnesses V. V. Solovyov, E. V. Barkalova, and others, which were legally assessed by the court in accordance with the requirements of Article 67 of the RF CPC.

In the course of consideration of this case, the court established that in the activity of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, there were facts of drawing minors into the organization’s activity in violation of the regulations of the Convention on Children’s Rights, the Russian Federation Constitution, and the Russian Federation Family Code.

The circumstances that were established in the trial, as was justifiably stated by the court, attest to violation by the religious organization and its members of the regulations of the Convention on Children’s Rights, the Russian Federation Constitution, and the Russian Federation Family Code, the local religious organization and its members draw minors into the religious organization without the consent of the second parent who has equal rights and responsibilities in the child’s upbringing and without consideration for the opinion and interests of the child.

In the trial, facts were established that attest to dissolution of family ties and ties with relatives on the grounds of religious differences in connection with the activity of the named religious organization.

As the court correctly stated in the decision, representatives of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses oblige [others] to distance themselves from the family circle in sermons and books that are distributed among the believers, since their loved ones do not possess the true ideology, from the point of view of the said specific religious teaching.

The stated circumstances are corroborated by the submitted evidence, the conclusion of the composite expert study by commission dated July 15, 2009, and the testimony of witnesses V. L. Mankov, V. A. Kolesnikov, and others.

Also as was established by the court and seen from the case materials, the local religious organization allows infringement on the person, the rights, and freedoms of citizens in its activity.

According to Article 23 of the Russian Federation Constitution, everyone shall have the right to the inviolability of private life, and personal and family secrets. Private life includes the right to solitude, reflection, engaging in contact with other persons or avoiding such contacts, and residential privacy.

For the purpose of dedicating more time to preaching and service, making the organization’s work a priority, the local religious organization recommends the Jehovah’s Witnesses to choose part-time work, which was corroborated by the literature’s texts.

Each Jehovah’s Witness must keep a report on preaching service, where he should write how many individual copies of publications were given to people who are not baptized Witnesses, the concept “return visit” is given, and the need is indicated to report on the hours spent in preaching service – time spent in preaching from house to house, on the street, and on return visits, which is indicated in the book Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will (pages 85-86).

Auxiliary, regular and special pioneers and also missionaries have to devote a specific amount of hours for service. Congregation publishers should also give priority to Kingdom interests and according to personal circumstances exert every effort to do as much as possible in service (pages 86-87 of the book Organized to Do Jehovah’s Will).

The indicated circumstances are corroborated by the testimony of witnesses V. A. Salnikov about his wife having to preach for a certain amount of time; witness V. L. Mankov who testified that his wife, just like the two daughters, [all of whom] profess the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses, do not work anywhere and only preach; and witness L. N. Timchenko who testified that she preaches one to two hours each day, when possible, or every other day.

The LRO determines how the believers’ free time is spent, forbids them to celebrate holidays and birthdays, which is also corroborated by the conclusion of experts and witness testimony.

As seen from the case materials, the subject of this case is inspection and examination of issues connected with the activity of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses and compliance of its activity with the current legislation of the Russian Federation with consideration of international law norms. Other issues were not resolved by the court.

The submitted evidence, as was correctly stated by the court in the decision, corroborates that the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, in its activity, allows incitement of religious discord, propaganda of exclusivity, superiority of religion at the expense of degradation of other religions, distribution of extremist materials and their storage for the purpose of mass distribution, and has also allowed gross and frequent violations of rights and freedoms of citizens, which constitutes grounds for declaring it extremist, for the liquidation and ban of activity of this organization under Articles 7 and 9 of the Federal Law on Counteracting Extremist Activity and Article 14 of the Russian Federation Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations.

In the LRO’s activity, violations of civil legislation were educed, in particular, in charter activity; even though the Taganrog LRO of Witnesses does not have structural subdivisions according to the organization’s documents, it was established that, in fact, the LRO fulfills religious activity on the territory of the Neklinovsk and Matveyev-Kurgan regions, which was established in the trial.

The Taganrog LRO of Jehovah’s Witnesses organized 8 congregations: Zapadnoye, Severnoye, Vostochnoye, Nikolayevskoye, Primorskoye, Veselovskoye, Matveyevo-Kurganskoye, and Yuzhnoye, out of which the Veselovskoye is conducted in h.Vesely on ul. Lenina, d. 3 and the Matveyevo-Kurganskoye in p. Matveyev-Kurgan on ul. Frunze, 37.

According to the spirit of Article 8.2 of the Federal Law on Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations, the territorial sphere of activity of a local religious organization is the territory of the respective city, rural, or other settlement. The territorial sphere of activity of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses is the territory of the city of Taganrog. The Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, as established by the court, is violating the principle of the territorial sphere of its religious activity, which contradicts the charter of said organization. The Taganrog organization of Jehovah's Witnesses conducts meetings in the populated areas mentioned above, which is one of the forms of its religious activity.

On the basis of what has been stated and guided by the regulations of the laws named above, the court made a grounded decision to satisfy in part the demands of the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s claim.

The court’s conclusion that there were grounds to satisfy in part the demands of the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s claim was based on an analysis of evidence, was justified, was in harmony with the case materials and requirements of the law, and the Judicial Chamber finds no basis for considering it incorrect.

The applicants did not present any evidence in the court session to refute the court’s conclusion.

The arguments contained in the cassation appeal were examined by the court and [found to have] received a correct assessment in the decision, in harmony with the requirements of Article 67 of the RF CPC; the Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases does not find any basis not to agree with the said conclusions.

The arguments of the cassation appeal that facts material to the case and established by the court of first instance were not proven, are refuted by evidence in the case materials which received a correct assessment in harmony with the requirements of Article 67 of the RF CPC.

Neither does the evidence accepted by the court of cassational instance refute the conclusions of the court: the diagram of the structure of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, the reply from the Religious Organization Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia to the question of lawyer A. Yu. Chimirov on groups, entering into [its] structure, and the medical conclusions of Professor V. D. Slepupzhin dated August 12, 2009, who was questioned in court and whose testimony was legally assessed by the court in harmony with the requirements of the law.

Facts material to the case were correctly established by the court and the court’s conclusions as stated in the decision are in harmony with the facts of the case.

The assertion in the cassation appeal, that the court ruled on issues involving the rights and responsibilities of individuals who were not called to participation in the case, is refuted by the contents of the court decision being appealed.

No responsibilities of a foreign organization (publisher) are stated in the decision, nor didthe court lay any responsibilities on the Religious Organization Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia or rule on issues involving its rights.

Also, the argument in the cassation appeal - that the Rostov Regional Prosecutor simultaneously changed the subject and grounds of the claim and that the court went beyond the bounds of the Rostov Regional Prosecutor’s claim – contradict the case materials.

The argument in the cassation appeal that the failure by representatives of the LRO to appear in the court session on August 19, 2009, was for legitimate reasons, is refuted by the case materials. Additionally, the representatives of the LRO participated in all other court sessions and were not deprived of opportunities to give their explanations and to present evidence.

All informational materials declared extremist were examined by the court, as follows from the contents of the court session protocol.

If the LRO feels that the court made typographical errors when naming the publisher, it is not deprived of the right, according to Article 200 of the RF CPC, to request the court who issued the decision to correct them.

The arguments in the cassation appeal – concerning the nature of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and its appraisal and concerning the activity of the organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses in the territory of the Russian Federation – cannot be a basis for reversing the court ruling since they were not the subject in contest.

The court examined the issues concerning the activity of a specific legal entity and its members, and concerning the conformance of this activity to Russian legislation.

In considering the case, the court did not commit violations of substantive or procedural law which led to, or could have led to, an incorrect consideration of the case – not even those cited in the cassation appeal.

The decision of the Rostov Regional Court on September 11, 2009 is legal, and the arguments of the cassation appeal provide no basis for its reversal.

Guided by Articles 360-362 of the RF CPC, the Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases

RULED:

to uphold the decision of the Rostov Regional Court on September 11, 2009, and to deny the cassation appeal by representatives of the Taganrog Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, Victor Leonidovich Shipilov and Arly Yusupovich Chimirov.

Presiding: [signed]
Judges: [two signatures]

[official seal of the RF Supreme Court Judicial Chamber for Civil Cases]
[Certified copy stamp]

Copyright © 2010 Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania. All rights reserved.