Source: www.forum18.org
Date: December 20, 2022
A Leningrad Region court upheld Pavel Mushumansky's request to have his
mobilisation order cancelled. He had stated in his application for
alternative service that based on his Christian beliefs he could not "carry
out orders aimed at the destruction and utter defeat of living people".
Once the decision enters legal force, he should be able to return home from
his military base. Dmitry Zlakazov, a Protestant whose application for
alternative civilian service was rejected, lost his lawsuit against the
military authorities. His whereabouts are unclear.
RUSSIA: Refusing to "carry out orders aimed at destruction and utter defeat
of living people"
https://www.forum18.org/archiv
By Victoria Arnold, Forum 18
A Russian Protestant who sought to do alternative civilian service has
succeeded in having his military mobilisation order declared illegal in
court. While his lawyers have welcomed this decision as a "real act of
justice", the situation for conscientious objectors – religious and
otherwise – remains murky during Russia's "partial mobilisation", which
President Vladimir Putin has still not formally ended by decree.
In the absence of any clear legal mechanism for requesting alternative
civilian service (ACS) under conditions of mobilisation, the fate of men
who object to using weapons or serving in the armed forces depends on
individual recruitment offices or on the courts (see below).
On 30 November, a Leningrad Region court upheld Pavel Mushumansky's request
to have his mobilisation order cancelled. Once the decision enters legal
force, he should be able to return home from his military base (see below).
Mushumansky, who stated in his application for alternative service that on
the basis of his Christian beliefs he could not "carry out orders aimed at
the destruction and utter defeat of living people", had already completed
ACS as a conscript. Some other mobilised men who have requested (and been
denied) ACS carried out military service as conscripts; both forms of
service place a person in the reserve upon completion, rendering them
liable to call-up in the future.
The fact that Mushumansky undertook alternative civilian service as a
conscript was "important, even if not key" to his case, his lawyer
Aleksandr Peredruk told Forum 18. "However, the freedom of conscience and
religion, as well as the related right to ACS, cannot be limited only to
those who have previously completed ACS – the question of exemption from
military service of citizens whose beliefs oppose such service should be
resolved in each specific case" (see below).
Among other ACS cases known to Forum 18 are those of Kirill Berezin, an
Orthodox Christian who was ultimately allowed a non-combat role in a
Russia-based unit, and Dmitry Zlakazov, another Protestant who also lost
his lawsuit against the military authorities and whose whereabouts are now
unclear (see below).
Forum 18 sent enquiries to the Defence Ministry's Information Department
and the Western Military District, asking why military recruitment offices
were denying requests for alternative civilian service when the
Constitution guaranteed this right to all citizens. Forum 18 also asked
whether mobilised conscientious objectors would be allowed to serve in
unarmed roles. Forum 18 received no reply by the end of the working day of
20 December (see below).
Despite the constitutional right of all Russians to carry out alternative
civilian service instead of military service if the latter goes against
their beliefs, President Putin's 21 September mobilisation order and
associated legislative changes make no mention of provision for reservists
who are conscientious objectors (see below).
"Protect your rights"
The lack of an explicit provision for a civilian alternative for those
mobilised "does not mean that the right of citizens can be crossed out by
the inaction of the state", lawyer Sergey Chugunov of the Moscow-based
Slavic Centre for Law and Justice commented on his Telegram channel on 25
September. "[Alternative service] is not provided for, but the right is
guaranteed. Protect your rights."
Chugunov and other lawyers have encouraged conscientious objectors who have
received a summons for mobilisation to lodge applications for ACS anyway.
"In the application, you must inform [the mobilisation commission] about
your anti-war beliefs or religion and provide a link to Article 59 of the
Constitution," Chugunov advised draftees on his Telegram channel on 22
September. "The application will be followed by a refusal, possibly threats
of criminal prosecution, so you need to be ready to continue to fight for
your constitutional right. The refusal can be appealed in court."
Fleeing mobilisation
After Putin announced the "partial mobilisation" of reservists on 21
September, hundreds of thousands of men are believed to have left the
country to avoid being called up
(https://www.reuters.com/world
although exact figures have been difficult to ascertain.
Mobilised men have complained of a lack of basic equipment and supplies,
and of being sent into combat with virtually no training. Both mobilised
and contract soldiers who have refused to fight once in Ukraine have
reportedly been beaten, threatened, and detained without due process
(https://en.zona.media/article
The Defence Ministry announced on 29 October that mobilisation had been
completed and the target figure of 300,000 recruits met. Although Putin
said on 9 December that there was "no need" for a second wave of
mobilisation, he has not issued a decree cancelling the original
announcement.
Gap in the Law
The right of those with conscientious objections not to be forced to take
part in military structures or activity derives from Article 18 "Freedom of
thought, conscience and religion" of the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights, which enshrines "Freedom of thought, conscience and
religion". "No derogation" from the rights enshrined in Article 18 may be
made even in a "time of public emergency which threatens the life of the
nation (https://www.forum18.org/archi
existence of which is officially proclaimed".
Lawyers and human rights advocates agree that Russian federal legislation
does not provide for alternative civilian service for reservists during
mobilisation (https://www.forum18.org/archi
insist, however, that the Constitution guarantees the right to ACS in any
case, and that men who object to fighting on religious or other
conscientious grounds should therefore lodge applications for ACS and go to
court when they are refused.
The gap in the law has led to military recruitment offices turning down
conscientious objectors' requests for alternative civilian service on the
grounds that there is no provision for ACS during mobilisation and/or that
ACS is only for conscripts, despite this being contrary to the
Constitution.
Call to Conscience (Prizyv k sovesti) – which supports conscientious
objectors - has recorded cases of such refusals in Samara, Perm, Kostroma,
and Nizhny Novgorod Regions and the Khakasiya Republic. It is not known
whether the men involved objected to military service for religious or
other conscientious reasons. Lawyer Pavel Chikov of the human rights group
Agora noted on his Telegram channel on 18 October that courts had applied
preliminary protective measures while their cases were considered to at
least two men in the Penza Region who had requested ACS.
It appears, however, that applying for alternative service, even though
there is no mechanism for it to be carried out, can sometimes be an
effective way for conscientious objectors to avoid mobilisation, though in
the absence of any regulations, this depends on military recruitment
offices themselves.
Call to Conscience noted on its Telegram channel on 26 October that when a
person applies for ACS, "more often than not, military recruitment offices
lose interest and mobilisation activities are stopped", while sometimes
they respond that "If there is a requirement for specialists who need to
replace military service with alternative civilian service, we will
definitely turn to you" or "You are not subject to mobilisation".
The channel also noted the case of a man whose repeated requests for ACS
and refusal to participate in training at his military unit eventually led
to his being sent home.
Leningrad Region: Mobilisation overturned
On 30 November, after a closed hearing lasting more than three hours, Judge
Marina Girenko of Gatchina City Court upheld 23-year-old Pavel
Mushumansky's lawsuit against the military authorities, ruling that his
mobilisation had been unlawful. Mushumansky, a Protestant who had requested
and been refused alternative civilian service, should be able to return
home from his military unit once the decision comes into force on 10
January 2023.
In the continued absence of a mechanism for ACS during mobilisation, it
remains unclear whether or how Mushumansky will serve.
"I am very glad that during this process nobody has created the illusion
that it is normal for a person with such views to be called up,"
Mushumansky's lawyer Aleksandr Peredruk commented to the Advokatskaya
Ulitsa legal news website on 30 November. "This is not normal, he should
not be in the army – and the court agreed with this."
Mushumansky – whom his lawyer describes as a "deeply believing person"
– received his call-up papers on 24 September. He went to the military
recruitment office with his application for ACS on 25 September, but
officials ignored this. Instead, they sent him to a military unit in Luga,
despite the fact that he had previously done ACS as a conscript (and
therefore had no military experience), working from 2019 to 2021 in the
laundry of a psycho-neurological residential institution in Kingisepp.
Mushumansky lodged an administrative suit against the military authorities
on 7 October, asking the court to overturn and declare unlawful the
decision to mobilise him and oblige the district mobilisation commission to
release him from military service. On 12 October, the court ordered that
his mobilisation should be suspended and "preliminary protective measures"
put in place for the duration of the proceedings, ordering that he should
be sent home in the meantime.
Despite this, Mushumansky was not released from his military unit. While at
the base, he refused to carry out orders, wear a uniform, or accept army
pay.
"I cannot carry out orders aimed at the destruction and utter defeat of
living people," Mushumansky said in his statement to the court. His lawyers
– Aleksandr Peredruk and Arseny Levinson – argued that the judge should
proceed on the basis of the Constitution, even in the absence of a federal
law, and that the 2002 Law on Alternative Civilian Service does allow for
the possibility of ACS during mobilisation, but there is simply no
appropriate mechanism for it.
Judge Girenko ruled Mushumansky's mobilisation unlawful, but it remains
unclear exactly why. Gatchina City Court refused on 8 December to explain
the judge's reasoning on the grounds that Forum 18 was not a party to the
case. Mushumansky's lawyer Peredruk told Forum 18 on 7 December that he did
not yet have a copy of the decision and would be unable to share it because
the hearing had taken place under closed conditions.
In an attempt to clarify the situation for others seeking to do ACS,
Peredruk and Levinson requested that Judge Girenko ask the Constitutional
Court to rule on the question of alternative service during mobilisation.
They noted that certain provisions of the Law on Mobilisation are
inconsistent with the Constitution and argued that the failure to uphold
the constitutional right to ACS is a violation of the freedom of religion
and belief, even in a state of emergency. The judge refused.
The Gatchina City Court decision is important for other men who have
previously completed ACS, Peredruk observed to Advokatskaya Ulitsa on 30
November. He noted, however, that "this does not mean that you can ignore
any new views that people have formed after serving in the army".
The fact that Mushumansky undertook alternative civilian service as a
conscript was "important, even if not key" to his case, Peredruk told Forum
18 on 8 December. "However, the freedom of conscience and religion, as well
as the related right to ACS, cannot be limited only to those who have
previously completed ACS – the question of exemption from military
service of citizens whose beliefs oppose such service should be resolved in
each specific case."
Forum 18 sent enquiries to the Defence Ministry's Information Department
and the Western Military District, asking why military recruitment offices
were denying requests for alternative civilian service when the
Constitution guarantees this right to all citizens. Forum 18 also asked
whether mobilised conscientious objectors would be allowed to serve in
unarmed roles. Forum 18 had received no reply by the end of the working day
of 20 December.
St Petersburg: Mobilisation goes ahead
On 18 October, Nevsky District Court in St Petersburg refused to uphold
27-year-old Kirill Berezin's request to have his mobilisation ruled
illegal. After the hearing, he had a panic attack and had to be taken to
hospital, before he was discharged to a military base in the city's
Vasileostrovsky District.
Berezin, a Russian Orthodox Christian who had applied for and been refused
alternative civilian service, appealed unsuccessfully against the lower
court's decision at St Petersburg City Court on 29 November. He is now
serving in an unarmed role at a support unit in Luga (Leningrad Region).
"Kirill and I have not yet discussed a cassational appeal," his lawyer
Nikifor Ivanov told Forum 18 on 9 December. "I'm concentrating on the fact
that he's not been sent to the zone of the special military operation,
because for him this would be certain death, since he will not take up arms
under any circumstances."
Berezin – who, unlike Mushumansky, did military service as a conscript in
2013-14 – was summoned to appear for mobilisation on 24 September. He
submitted an application for ACS the same day, but the recruitment office
refused this and sent him to an army unit in Kamenka, near the Finnish
border.
Berezin was then sent to a camp at Khokhlovo in Belgorod Region, close to
the border with Ukraine. There, his commanding officer threatened him with
violence and taunted him that he would have to kill people in Ukraine,
Berezin's friend Marina Tsyganova said in a video on the Conscientious
Objectors' Movement YouTube channel on 10 October.
Judge Oksana Yakovchuk of Nevsky District Court heard Berezin's
administrative suit against the St Petersburg Military Recruitment Office,
the St Petersburg Mobilisation Commission, and the Nevsky District
Mobilisation Commission in his absence on 18 October.
According to the court decision, seen by Forum 18, Berezin asked the court
to overturn and declare unlawful the decision to mobilise him, and oblige
the district mobilisation commission to release him from military service
"in connection with its replacement with alternative civilian service". His
lawyer, Nikifor Ivanov, noted in court that Berezin had reported to his
commander that his "health had deteriorated, [and he was] in a depressed
moral state, on the verge of despair".
A lawyer for the military authorities stated that federal legislation does
not provide for the replacement of military service with alternative
civilian service during mobilisation. The lawyer added that Berezin had
completed military service as a conscript and was therefore enrolled in the
reserve (with the specialism of driver) and recognised as fit.
Referring to the 2002 Law on Alternative Civilian Service and 1998 Law "On
military duty and military service", the judge concluded that "alternative
civilian service is currently provided for only for a certain category of
citizens, specified in Article 22, Part 1 of [the 1998 Law "On military
duty and military service" – that is 18-27-year-olds who are not in the
reserve]. She added that "for citizens subject to mobilisation, the
replacement of military service with alternative civilian service is not
provided for".
Forum 18 wrote to Nevsky District Court to ask why Berezin's constitutional
right to alternative civilian service had not been upheld. In her reply of
15 December, court chair Irina Khabik only directed Forum 18 to the written
decision on the court website.
On 25 October, Berezin left his Belgorod Region camp and took a taxi back
to St Petersburg
(https://novayagazeta.eu/artic
where he handed himself in to the Investigative Committee (he was not
charged with going absent without leave, as this only applies if a soldier
has been away from base for more than 48 hours). He was sent to a local
unit to await his appeal to St Petersburg City Court on 29 November.
Berezin argued that he is a churchgoing Christian and military service goes
against his way of life, and that he had realised during conscript service
that "I'm not capable of shooting a person". Despite this, the appeal judge
upheld the district court's decision in a hearing which took place in
closed conditions at the request of the Defence Ministry (on the grounds
that "defence secrets" may be disclosed, as the Christians Against War
Telegram channel reported on 30 November).
"Let me remind you that Kirill does not refuse to serve," lawyer Nikifor
Ivanov told Forum 18 on 9 December. "He is ready to serve, but not with
weapons in his hands."
Despite fears that he would have to return to the camp in Belgorod Region
(and possibly go to Ukraine), on 12 December, Berezin was transferred to
serve as a driver and mechanic at a unit in Luga whose task is the repair
of military vehicles. This is the same unit in which he carried out his
conscript service eight years ago, Berezin told the BBC Russian Service on
10 December (https://www.bbc.com/russian/n
his experience, his former commander offered to give him a role "without
weapons".
"This is not ACS, but nevertheless, I will not have to shoot at people, and
that's good," Berezin commented to the BBC.
Forum 18 sent enquiries to the Defence Ministry's Information Department
and the Western Military District, asking why military recruitment offices
were denying requests for alternative civilian service when the
Constitution guaranteed this right to all citizens. Forum 18 also asked
whether mobilised conscientious objectors would be allowed to serve in
unarmed roles. Forum 18 received no reply by the end of the working day of
20 December.
Sverdlovsk Region: Mobilisation goes ahead
Dmitry Yuryevich Zlakazov unsuccessfully challenged his mobilisation at
Krasnoturinsk City Court on 14 October. He had lodged an application for
alternative civilian service on 24 September, the day after he had received
his call-up papers. He requested that he be allowed to serve somewhere "not
under the jurisdiction of the Defence Ministry, since any participation in
the Armed Forces, in any capacity, is contrary to my beliefs". He appealed
unsuccessfully at Sverdlovsk District Court on 8 December.
It is currently unknown where Zlakazov is now serving or whether military
authorities have allowed him an unarmed role.
When the 41-year-old Zlakazov went to the recruitment office as ordered on
26 September, however, he received only a verbal refusal and was sent
straight to his military unit.
On 10 October, Zlakazov – who also did military service as a conscript
from 2000 to 2002, according to court documents – lodged a lawsuit
against Krasnoturinsk and Karpinsk Military Recruitment Office, Sverdlovsk
Region Military Recruitment Office, and the Krasnoturinsk Mobilisation
Commission. He asked the court to overturn and declare unlawful the
decision to mobilise him and oblige the district mobilisation commission to
release him from military service "in connection with its replacement with
alternative civilian service".
According to the court decision, seen by Forum 18, he cited Articles 28 and
59 of the Constitution, and argued that the right to ACS "can be exercised
regardless of whether the relevant federal law has been adopted" and that
"A citizen should not be held responsible for the fact that the state has
not yet created a mechanism for the practical implementation of [this]
right".
In court, Zlakazov – who does not appear to have had a lawyer –
explained that his religious views do not permit him to be mobilised for
military service, "so he is trying to restore his right to alternative
civilian service".
According to Vecherniy Krasnoturinsk news website's 14 October report
(https://krasnoturinsk.info/no
of the hearing, Zlakazov quoted the Gospel of John (15:12) in court: "This
is my commandment: love one another as I have loved you". He observed that
"These verses show that when Jesus Christ was on earth, instead of hatred
he taught people to love each other unselfishly … Jesus Christ does not
want me to use weapons and participate in hostilities."
Zlakazov added that he studied the Bible every day, and "my character has
changed for the better. I am experiencing a serious insurmountable conflict
between the requirement to do military service and my beliefs."
Zlakazov also stated that he respects the law, maintains political
neutrality, and does not "divide people by nationality".
The military authorities stated that "the defence of the Fatherland" is the
constitutional duty of every Russian citizen, that Zlakazov is registered
as a reservist, and that according to the Law on Alternative Civilian
Service, only non-reservist conscripts can do ACS.
Judge Tatyana Syomkina of Krasnoturinsk City Court agreed with these
arguments. She also concluded that a citizen may exercise their human and
civil rights only to the extent that they do not "contradict the
fundamental principles of the existence of society and the state:
"The very concept of mobilisation .. and the procedure for its organisation
speaks of the exceptional circumstances under which the provisions of [the
1997 Law on Mobilisation] are applied. Accordingly, in the event of these
exceptional circumstances, the rights of a citizen that protect their
beliefs (religion), and at the same time, lead to the impossibility of
fulfilling the duty to protect the Fatherland in conditions of partial
mobilisation, cannot be exercised."
Forum 18 wrote to Krasnoturinsk City Court to ask why Zlakazov's
constitutional right to alternative civilian service had not been upheld
and whether he now had the opportunity to serve in an unarmed role. In her
response of 12 December, court chair Yelena Korobach reiterated the
arguments set out in the written decision, emphasising that "Defence of the
Fatherland is the duty and obligation of a citizen of the Russian
Federation", according to the Constitution, and the "exceptional
circumstances" of mobilisation.
Forum 18 sent an enquiry to the Defence Ministry's Information Department,
asking why military recruitment offices were denying requests for
alternative civilian service when the Constitution guaranteed this right to
all citizens, and whether mobilised conscientious objectors would be
allowed to serve in unarmed roles. Forum 18 received no reply by the end of
the working day of 20 December. The telephone at the Krasnoturinsk and
Karpinsk Military Recruitment Office went unanswered when Forum 18 called
on 8 and 15 December. (END)
Full reports on freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Russia
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
For more background see Forum 18's survey of the general state of freedom
of religion and belief in Russia
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
18's survey of the dramatic decline in this freedom related to Russia's
Extremism Law (https://www.forum18.org/archi
A personal commentary by the Director of the SOVA Center for Information
and Analysis (https://www.sova-center.ru), Alexander Verkhovsky, about the
systemic problems of Russian "anti-extremism" laws
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Forum 18's compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Follow us on Twitter @Forum_18 (https://twitter.com/forum_18)
Follow us on Facebook @Forum18NewsService
(https://www.facebook.com/Foru
Follow us on Telegram @Forum18NewsService
(https://t.me/s/forum18newsser
All Forum 18 text may be referred to, quoted from, or republished in full,
if Forum 18 is credited as the source.
All photographs that are not Forum 18's copyright are attributed to the
copyright owner. If you reuse any photographs from Forum 18's website, you
must seek permission for any reuse from the copyright owner or abide by the
copyright terms the copyright owner has chosen.
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855.