RUSSIA
RELIGION NEWS
Monitoring news media reports about religion in Russia and
other
countries of CIS
Copyrighted material. For private use only.
If you quote material, please credit the publication
from which it came. It is not necessary to credit this Web page for any
print use of the material. If any electronic reproduction is made,
please
acknowledge the URL: http:www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/
|
Archive
of News Items
|
Abbreviations
|
Links
to Useful
Information |
Decision of Golovin court
regarding Jehovah's Witnesses
DECISION OF THE GOLOVIN DISTRICT COURT OF THE NORTHERN ADMINISTATIVE
DISTRICT OF MOSCOW OF 26 MARCH 2004, part two
[For the first part, follow this link:Decision of
Golovin Court]
In a reference on Alesha Beliakov it is noted that the child has become
reserved and does not participate in holiday events. In a reference on
Vika Ogneva it is stated that the girl does not attend basic holidays,
is reserved, and often plays alone. As a result of a review of the
appeal of the Fedorov, the office of guardianship and care made the
decision to indicate to the mother the impermissibility of children's
attending Jehovah's Witnesses meetings. In 2004 the offices of
guardianship and care of the "Ysenevo" district of Moscow presented
documents in which they suggest that the situation in the family had
improved. The court critically assesses the new documents presented by
the district and comes to the conclusion that involving the children in
the activity of the religious organization took place without taking
account of their own opinion and their interests. The change of opinion
of the office of guardianship and care occurred immediately after K.V.
Beliakova appealed to court with a request to rescind their previous
decision prohibiting taking the children to the religious organization.
At the same time, in the reference on Vika Ogneva it is noted that she
is reserved, she does not share experiences from her personal life, and
she does not have friends. In the reference on Alesha Beliakov it is
stated that he has a very strong appetite, he never refuses food in
school, he is not fussy about food, and he eats everything in a row.
The distinctiveness of the children described in the references
implicitly confirms the Fedorova statement about the continuing
compulsion of children to participate in the religions organization.
Agencies of internal affairs, whose report was used by the district for
making the decision, despite what was obvious and known, consider it as
an established fact that Yu.V. Beliakov was not a member of the
Jehovah's Witnesses organization. The conclusions of the district
regarding the positive changes and the situation in the family, in
addition, are contradicted by the testimony of witness L.I. Trofimova,
who reported that arguments constantly broke out in this family during
the years of 2003-2004, from which the children suffered, and she
herself had to calm Alesha down when the child cried hard and the
entreaties of the mother had no effect on him. At the same time she saw
that the boy's back was all red and the child's mother said that he
simply "had been shoved."
Witness Yu.A. Zhuravlev testified that his wife became a member of the
Jehovah's Witnesses organization after their divorce when the younger
boy was in the fourth and fifth grades. His wife forced him to attend
meetings "in a stuffy gathering," and he cried and refused to go. The
child was deceived and was threatened that he could not visit his
father if he would not go. The son complained that he was beaten and
forced to read these pamphlets. As a result of such actions the son
departed from the organization and from the mother.
Witness A.I. Kuznetsov testified that his wife joined the organization
when her older son was eleven and the younger was three. The children
participated in religious meetings where people prayed and cried and
the older son also cried. After a year and a half of participation in
the religious society he did not recognize the children. They had fear
in their eyes and when he questioned them they said that he did not
know what was awaiting all of them, the end of the world and
Armageddon. These conversations made a great impression on the younger
child and during a field trip with his class he refused to go to the
Ostankino tower because it was near to heaven. Under the influence of
conversations about death the younger boy at such an early age began to
talk about death and asked him with tears whether he had killed people
in Afghanistan. He had been at the religious meetings of the society
and his children were there, and the atmosphere in the hall was such
that the children cried. His wife continually took the children with
her to various places, strange apartments, by metro, and she preached
three times a week for several hours each. In the winter the children
froze.
Witness D.V. Moskalev testified that small children attend the meetings
of the society where there is nothing that is interesting; they
preferred to run and play or at least read a magazine. There was a case
when two twelve-year-old children ran away, who were not up to
such a life of constant strictness, where they were constantly required
to attend meetings, read something, preach, and study. The evidence of
private persons about the negative effect on family relations of the
activity of the Moscow society is corroborated by evidence of
specialists in the area of education, psychology, and psyches of
children.
Witness I.V. Metlik, who deals with questions of the influence of
religion on the formation of children's worldviews and pedagogy,
testified that the organization does not engage in familiarizing
children with the state and considers as values the business of the
organization, life goals directed to service specifically for it,
preaching, and spreading its teachings. The organization orients
children not to participate in acquiring supplementary study having
educational value , since such education differs from the ideals and
views of the organization itself. In the course of study they
discovered a negative attitude to extracurricular activity which
develops children and familiarizes them with culture. The organization
has worked out a harshly negative attitude toward the entire social
construct beyond the association. The teachings of the organization
hinder the formation in youth of a feeling of patriotism and love for
the motherland.
Witness Yu.A. Polishchuk, a psychiatrist, testified that a literal
following of the principles of the Bible, which is practiced in the
activity of the Jehovah's Witnesses, restricts the possibility of
independent thought by a person and forces him to reject many
influences that facilitate the enrichment of the individual. This
restrains the psychic development of the personality. As a result of
the activity of this religious organization, a one-dimensional
personality is formed and harmonious and all-around development of the
intellect, the general personality, and spirituality as a whole are not
achieved. Russian society is interested in having its youth go in
traditional paths and be socially active and not be asocial.
Witness F.V. Kondratiev, a psychiatrist, testified that when a child
develops in isolation from society, and does not celebrate holidays, he
becomes inept in a social context and there is no normal socialization
of the individual, and this creates a risk factor. It is possible to
say that without society a normal personality cannot be formed. And
even more so when he is told that everything is bad in the state, the
realm of the devil, Satan. This is a factor of psychotrauma for the
child. It is possible to say a priori that this is a way to develop an
incompletely socialized individual.
The Moscow society of Jehovah's Witnesses commits violations of the
rights of citizens and freedom of conscience and of choice of religion
and religious confession.
Witness D.V. Moskalev testified about how the organization lures new
members into its ranks without revealing to them before their joining
the prohibitions and restrictions imposed by the society. He also
explained that the organization uses recommended methods for intrusion
into apartments and foisting on them their own views and psychological
influence of people for the purposes of making new converts.
Specialists in the area of psychology and psychiatry I.V. Metlik, Yu.
I. Polishchuk, and F.V. Kondratiev testified that the methods used by
the organization for attracting new members were associated with
influences upon the consciousness of people that effectively forced
them to select the recommended religion. According to the conclusion of
a philological-psycholinguistic expert analysis, in its activity the
organization uses psychological methods of control over the
consciousness, the essence of which consists in imposing certain
standards of conduct, thought, emotional relations, and presentation of
information. In judicial session expert K.I. Alekseev confirmed the
conclusions drawn and explained the reflection of this method in the
texts of literature, including obligatory recommendations and
requirements of the organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. Psychologist
L.V. Kulikov gave to the court a detailed analysis of the application
of this method . In response the defendants cited the conclusion of
psychiatrist L.E. Kagan, that established the absence of a connection
between participation in the organization and the state of
psychological health of citizens. At the present time Kagan lives
regularly in USA and the explanation of his conclusion was given to the
court by psychologist T.V. Vinogradov, who supported the conclusions
reached. The court considers the conclusion reached to be one-sided.
Persons were subjected to examination selectively, in accordance
with lists provided by the organization; only members of the religious
society were examined and the opinion of the relatives were not
investigated by anyone and were not taken into account. The
relationship between the length of time of participating in the society
and the state of the psyches was psychologically determined on the
basis of data provided by the subjects themselves regarding the date of
their joining the organization. L.E. Kagan suggests that he
investigated the condition of people over the course of a certain
period of time, although, in reality, he studied different people with
different lengths of membership in the society. Taking into account
what has been said, the court critically assesses the conclusion
presented as insufficiently established and contradicting other
objective circumstances of the case.
According to article 37 of the Russian constitution labor is free; each
person has the right to apply his abilities to labor, to select the
kind of activity and profession, and to receive compensation for labor.
The religious society, interfering in the private life of its members,
recommends to them that they choose work not on the basis of their
profession but in terms of having a sufficient amount of time for the
benefit of the business of ministry. At all meetings in Moscow
questionnaires are distributed for voluntary service in Vefil, the
center where members of the organization work without any compensation
for their labor.
Witness D.G. Burenkov testified that he was baptized and joined the
Moscow society of Jehovah's Witnesses in 1994. Six months later in a
meeting it was suggested that he go to the construction of a new
affiliate in the Solnechnoe settlement. In September 1995 he went to
this construction. He had an engineering degree and he worked as a
concrete layer and plasterer. He was not paid for this work and he
received there a monthly allowance.
Witness V.M. Kalin, the director of the Administrative Center, lives
there himself and works in Vefil in St. Petersburg. He testified that
approximately 350 persons work in Vefil. They are provided
housing and food, and they receive money for transportation and pocket
change in a rather modest amount of approximately 870 rubles,
depending upon the location of the meeting to which they go. The
working day lasts eight hours. This work is not based upon a labor
contract and it is a form of ministry. In his responses to the
presentation the defendant appealed to the fact that for each member of
the organization there is a voluntary renunciation of the earlier
form of life and that parents have the right to determine the religion
of their children. Members of the organization wrote numerous
appeals to the court and prosecutor for maintaining their rights to
believe and to attend the society and they express their opposition to
the request of the prosecutor for liquidation of the Moscow society.
The court thinks that the numerous appeals of members of the
organization in defense of the activity of the Moscow society give
evidence not of the voluntary choices of specific people but of the
application of pressure by the organization on its members proceeding
from the obligatory orders of the leading bodies of the Moscow society.
Witnesses N.Yu Zhuralev and A.A. Khanin explained to the court how they
prepared their appeals and that their text was given to them in the
meetings and that there also exists a bulletin, "Our kingdom service,"
in which it is recommended to issue such appeals to offices of state
authority. The testimony presented confirms that the appeals signed by
citizens, in reality, expressed the opinion of the religious society
and were directed to the defense of the interests of the organization,
even when it is an infringement of the interests of individuals.
The court came to the conclusion that the Moscow society of Jehovah's
Witnesses predisposes its members to suicide and to the refusal, on the
basis of religious motives, of medical help for people who are in a
condition threatening their life and health. In particular, members of
the religious society, under the influence of the organization, have
refused transfusions of blood or of its components under any
circumstances, even the most dire and life-threatening. According to
the conclusion of the complex expert analysis, Jehovah's Witnesses
impose restrictions upon permissible form of medical care and forbid
blood transfusion. This conclusion was confirmed in the study of the
texts by the conclusion of the psycholinguistic expert analysis in
which it is noted that the organization categorically forbids its
members to accept transfusion of blood or its components. The
organization never leaves the decision about blood transfusion in each
specific case to the review of its members. The organization insists
upon the obligatory fulfillment of the prohibition on blood, even in
the face of death.
In the materials of the case there is a document called "No blood
whatever," that is distributed in the religious society for members of
the organization. There is a certification by Natalia Zhuravleva, that
was examined in judicial session, in which it was certified that on the
basis of their convictions the family of Jehovah's Witnesses rejected
blood transfusion. Yu.A. Zhuravlev, the father of N. Zhuravleva, and
she herself, N.Yu. Zhravleva, confirmed the existence of such a
document and they explained its meaning and significance as obligatory
for fulfilment in accordance with the doctrine of the society. The
medical instructions, which is another name for this document, grants
the right to authorized members of the organization to choose the
method of treatment instead of the citizen himself, if he is
unconscious; this directly contradicts the requirements of the
constitution of the Russian federation and the "Basic legislation of
the Russian federation for maintaining the health of citizens," and it
is an infringement of the legal right of the citizen himself.
Witnesses examined by the court regarding the petition of the
defendant, N.V. Gruzintseva, Kh.M. Dzhafarov, and G.V. Bezhenar, whose
relatives are members of the religious society, testified that their
wives, husband, and daughter had such cards and refused blood
transfusions according to the dictates of their religious convictions.
Witness V.G. Arsenkin, a member of the organization, reported to the
court that in December 1999 she underwent an operation for removal of a
kidney. From the very beginning she refused blood transfusion and she
possesses a personal medical document refusing blood transfusion, which
she got at the religious organization.
The position of the organization on the question of blood transfusion
was objectively confirmed by the existence of the Committee for
Communication with Hospitals. Testimony about the activity of this
committee was given to the court by witness D.D. Protsenko, the
director of the committee and member of the Jehovah's Witnesses
organization since 1993. The goal of the committee's work is presenting
to physicians information about the possibility of providing medical
care without blood transfusion. The witness also confirmed that he has
had occasion to counsel believers in hospitals during their treatment
for the support of their moral condition.
Witness D.V. Moskalev testified that in their society Liudmila
Reshtanenko needed an operation that entailed the possibility of a
blood transfusion. In that specific hospital they refused to perform an
operation without blood and there was no possibility of transferring
her to another hospital. Throughout the whole time alongside this woman
there were fellow believers who tried to confirm her in the position of
refusing blood transfusion, which gives evidence that there was a
psychological impact upon a member of the organization.
Witness N.M. Omelianenko, a hermatologist physician, testified that in
hospital No. 40 of Moscow, where she works as supervisor of the
department, in 1996 eighteen-year-old Pavel Semitko underwent
treatment. The condition of the patient was extremely grave and
required transfusion of components of blood. The patient, appealing to
his religious convictions, categorically rejected blood
transfusion. The physician testified that she knew that fellow
believers who visited the patient insisted that she refuse blood
transfusion, despite the gravity of her condition, and that they would
bring others from St. Petersburg. Subsequently the physicians were
forced to transfuse the patient while she was asleep, thereby saving
her life.
In another case a patient rejected treatment and requested a
conversation on the topic with a fellow believer. This person refused
to discuss the question of comprehensive medical treatment,
smiled, and left in silence. The patient, Yu.F. Molchanova, was
deprived of the possibility of getting treatment and of the chance of
prolonging her life, however briefly.
These cases are confirmed by notes on the medical charts of the
patient, where it is stated that the patient refused blood transfusion
because of religious considerations. The testimony of the witness is
also confirmed by notes on the medical chart of the patient P.V.
Semitko, that were reviewed by the court. It is stated in the document
that the patient refused blood transfusion because of religious
consideration and that he required such a transfusion to save his life.
S.I. Savostin underwent treatment in a clinic of Moscow; he required a
blood transfusion but refused this procedure for religious reasons,
which was confirmed by notes on the medical chart. The refusal and the
religious motivations for such a decision were stated in a separate
declaration that was presented at the time of admission to the
hospital. The indicated medical documents were investigated by the
court. L.Ya. Minogin suffered from cancer and required surgery; a
refusal of blood transfusion for religious reasons, including a release
of the physicians from responsibility of the consequences of this
refusal, was attached to her medical chart; her treatment was
interrupted and the patient was discharged from the hospital.
E.V. Rybchenkov entered a hospital for obstetrics and expressed her
consent to a Caesarian operation, although she refused blood
transfusion on the basis of religious considerations and this was
entered in her medical documents. On the chart there is a note about
the extremely dire condition of the patient with a repeated refusal of
transfusion. At the same time, the patient's husband expressed
the refusal of a transfusion for his wife, consenting to any outcome
all the way to a fatal one.
In the materials of the case there is a letter from the Department of
Health of Moscow enumerating a number of cases of refusal of blood
transfusion by members of the organization for religious motives, which
led to serious consequences, worsening the condition of health,
increasing the period of treatment, intensification of the duration of
illness and the impossibility of providing suggested medical care. In
particular, blood transfusion was refused by V.A. Karpukhina, which was
confirmed by an excerpt from the records of the illness, and by
M.Ya. Khoroshaev The new-born Sofia Suvorova underwent treatment
in the institute of pediatrics; she was admitted in critical condition.
The girl's mother categorically refused blood transfusion for the
infant on religious bases, even in the case of vital necessity of such
a procedure. The medical documents clearly indicate that
transfusion was a vital necessary and that transfusion could stabilize
the child's condition quickly.
In written testimony the court received explanations from the famous
specialist in hematology, A.I. Vorobiev, who verified the
existence of several illnesses where transfusion of blood and its
components is necessary.
Witnesses Yu.V. Tarichko and V.D. Slepushkin, who are surgeons who
specialize in the area of bloodless surgery, confirmed that rejection
of transfusion of blood is today viewed as a promising direction in the
development of medical science. However at the present time it is
impossible to reject completely transfusion of blood. The court finds
unconvincing the conclusion of the defendant that refusal of one kind
of treatment cannot be viewed as a refusal of all medical treatment,
since refusal of transfusion of blood can lead to a fatal outcome, when
another means of treatment turns out to be impossible. Considering that
the establishment of the fact of causing harm to the health of even one
person is a proven violation of the law, the activity of the Moscow
Jehovah's Witnesses society cannot be continued.
The court established that the Jehovah's Witnesses religious society of
Moscow has caused harm to the health of citizens, which is reflected
both in the predisposition to refuse blood transfusion and in the
negative effect of their activity on the condition of the psyche and
psychological health of their adherents. The sharp and negative changes
in personality that came after their relatives joined the organizations
were described for the court by witnesses R.A. Zemlianskaia, N.G.
Vishneva, T.N. Fedorova, , A.I. Kuzhetsov, A.A. Zhavoronkova, and S.Yu.
Pikulev. Witness A.I. Kuznetsov, observing the reaction of people
to what happened in meetings of the society, noted that many people
cried. Witnesses questioned by the court who personally observed the
activity of the organization note the negative emotional reaction of
people attending the meeting for a religious event that was being
conducted. Witness D.V. Moskalev testified that members of his meeting
complained about the enormous moral weariness and that he was forced to
calm them down and comfort them. According to the conclusion of
psychiatrist F.V. Kondratiev, the teaching and activity of Jehovah's
Witnesses contain factors which can lead to nervous and depressed
states. Yu.I. Polichuk, who was questioned as a witness, explained that
attendance at the religious organization negatively affected the state
of health of people who suffered from an unstable psyche. He
recommended that Aleksei Ivanov be separated from the society.
The court found unconvincing the responses of defendants that were
based on the opinion of the Russian Society of Psychiatrists and the
testimony of psychiatrist A.G. Gorman. The conclusions of the society
of psychiatrists were made on the basis of the results of a report by
Yu.I. Polishchuk without their own study of this question and they were
of the nature of a recommendation. In addition, in science there can
exist several points of view and the appearance of new views is a means
for the development of scientific thought; the position of Yu.I.
Polishchuk corresponds to actual circumstances and other testimony in
the case. A.G. Gofman agreed in essence with the position of F.V.
Kondratiev, who recognized the possibility of the development of the
consequences indicated by his colleague, that is, the negative
influence of the organization on the health of citizens.
The claim by the prosecutor that the Moscow Jehovah's Witnesses society
performs actions directed to accomplish extremist activity, and incites
religious, social, and ethnic strife, connected with coercion or calls
for coercion is considered by the court to be confirmed partially.
According to the conclusion of religious studies specialists F.G.
Ovsienko and I.A. Galitskaia, who were members of the expert commission
and who composed the complex conclusion, literature distributed by the
Moscow religious society contains views and ideas that undermine
respect for other religions. The presence in the literature of critical
statements against other confession was confirmed by other religious
studies specialists also, in particular N.S. Gordienko, and N.V.
Shaburov, who are specialists of the Institute of Religion and Law, and
by S.I. Ivanenko. As a result of an analysis of the contents and
understanding of the texts, the pscholinguist and linguists came to the
conclusion that in the literature presented for expert analysis, the
activity of existing religious organizations is assessed negatively. To
a great extent, the negative assessment is expressed correctly. The
organization provides its own members a single standard of conduct--not
to participate in their activity-- but it does not specify for its
members normative negative emotions and negative conduct toward
religious associations or individuals as their representatives. At the
same time, the court did not establish testimony confirming incidents
of any conflicts on religious bases provoked by members of the Moscow
Jehovah's Witnesses religious society. In accordance with article 17 of
the Russian constitution and the traditionally developed
multiconfessional heritage, in Russia there is guaranteed the right of
a person to choose, to profess his chosen religion, to try to persuade
associates of the correctness of his faith, and freely to express his
opinion with regard to other religious preferences. The court finds as
unproven the presence in the activity of the Moscow religious society
of indicators of extremist activity in the form of incitement of
religious strife with a call for coercive actions.
In the activity of the Moscow organization of Jehovah's Witnesses there
is violation of the law of the Russian federation "On freedom of
conscience and religious associations," namely enticement of minor
children into the organization.
In the course of review of the case the court established incidents of
the attraction of minor children into the activity of the organization,
which is viewed as infringement of the right of the children to
freedom of conscience, along with the right of both parents to
participate in the raising of their children with all the legal
consequences flowing from this. Such incidents were established in the
families from the testimony of witnesses N.G. Vishneva, A.I. Kuznetsov,
and others, which is an infringement on the rights of children to
freedom of conscience and the right of both parents to participating in
the raising of their children with all the legal consequences flowing
from this.
In the representation that was submitted, one of the indicators of
inducing the destruction of the family was the collection of
contributions. The text of the prosecutor's statement and explanations
maintains that regular contributions by believers for supporting the
activity of the organization lead to a worsening of the financial
condition of the family. The organization specifies that to cover the
existing expenses they use the contributions of believers in the form
of money, immovable property, insurance, and bequests. Witnesses
questioned by the court did not confirm that the contributions of their
relatives to the religious organization had an impact on the financial
condition of their families. Representatives of the defendants denied
that the organization received immovable property and other valuable
property. Thus the court considers as unproven the conclusion presented
and does not view a violation of the rights of citizens in the
collection of contributions of members of the organization for the
benefit of the society.
Through its activity, including the distribution of literature, the
Moscow Jehovah's Witnesses organization incites citizens to refuse to
fulfill civic obligations (refusal of service in the army and of
alternative service), forms a disrespectful attitude toward state
symbols, the flag and anthem, and forbids its adherents to celebrate
state holidays.
Witness V.P. Sosnin, whose father died at the front in the Great
Patriotic war, proceeding from the convictions induced by the
organization, does not think that the Day of Victory and the end of the
war with fascist Germany brought anything good into his life and he
does not celebrate that day. All of the enumerated distinctives
of the Jehovah's Witnesses organization were noted by experts
conducting the investigations for the civil and criminal cases, by F.G.
Ovsienko, and by the commission that composed the complex conclusion of
the psycholinguistic expert analysis, in full conformity with the facts
of the circumstances of personal life reported in witnesses' testimony.
In the judicial session the defendants affirmed that the prosecutor
placed in doubt the correctness of their religious teachings and
proposed that the court review a theological dispute. The prosecutor
did not make such a demand for the resolution of a dispute and thus the
court did not discuss this question. The court did not ascertain the
legitimacy of the doctrines of the Jehovah's Witnesses and did not make
a comparison between them and those of other religious confessions,
including those that historically have predominated on the territory of
the country. The defendant pointed out contradictions between the
position of the prosecutor and the decisions of the state, namely,
permission to import into the Russian federation the literature
distributed by the religious society, and the decision to register the
Administrative Center of the Religious Society of Jehovah's Witnesses.
The state religious studies expert analysis investigates only the
generally available literature, as shown by the conclusion itself. At
the same time the religious society uses in its activity and
distributes internal documents, the Bulletin of Our Kingdom Ministry,
the book "Take heed to yourselves and your flock," and other
publications which contain orders obligatory for members of the
organization and explain and supplement the generally available
literature and lead to negative consequences that have been revealed,
in particular, to refusal of blood transfusion, enticement of minors
into the organization, infringements of the rights of parents and
children, and to other actual events presented in the court's decision.
In conclusion, it is noted especially that the state has the right to
control the activity of religious organizations and, when violations of
the law are revealed, to decide the question of its liquidation.
Representatives of the defendant appealed to a decision of the European
Court of Human Rights in the case of Kokinakis, in which it was shown
that the Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy the status of a "famous religion."
In the opinion of the defendant, the request for liquidation of the
religious society is interference with the principle of freedom of
conscience and infringes the rights of members of the society and of
the whole religious organization.
The court finds that in itself the decision of the European Court does
not exempt the Moscow Jehovah's Witnesses organization from
responsibility before the law for violations that they permit in their
actual activity. The object of the present court review is the activity
of the specific religious society of the city of Moscow, and not the
contents of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole. In the
opinion of the defendant, the request for liquidation of the religious
society is an interference in the principle of freedom of conscience
and an infringement of the rights of members of the society and the
whole religious organization. In accordance with articles 7, 17, and 28
of the constitution , the Russian federation is a social state whose
policies are directed to the creation of conditions that guarantee a
worthy life and the free development of a person. Ideological pluralism
is recognized in the Russian federation and the rights and freedoms of
person and citizen are recognized in accordance with generally accepted
principles and norms of international law. Every person is guaranteed
freedom of conscience and freedom of religious confession. In
implementing these principles, the state registered the religious
society of Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow in 1993. However,
international standards of law recognize the right of a state to verify
whether harm is caused to society by the activity of a registered
movement (organization), to which the European Court for Human Rights
has pointed often in its conclusions. In accordance with part 2 of
article 9 of the Convention, freedom to profess one's religion is
subject to the restrictions that are necessary in a democratic society.
Thus in full conformity with the principles stated for the purpose of
exercising and protecting the human rights and freedoms, federal law
has established such restrictions and established the possibility of
putting an end to activity of a religious organization in the case of
frequent and gross violations of the constitution of RF and other
federal laws.
In the review of the present case it was established that the Jehovah's
Witnesses religious society of the city of Moscow has engaged in such
violations. Thus, interference in the freedom of religious confession
and in the activity of a religious organization on the part of the
state is justified and, as established by law, pursues a legitimate
goal. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international
agreements concerning economic, social, and cultural rights and civil
and political rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights
provide that misuse of a right or use of rights in infringement upon
other persons is impermissible and establish the definite obligations
of a person before society. The state is obliged to recognize, observe,
and protect human rights and freedoms. The exercise of the right and
freedoms of one person or group of persons must not violate the rights
and freedoms of other persons.
It follows from the conclusions of the representation and existing
testimony that the Jehovah's Witnesses religious society of the city of
Moscow engaged in violation of the rights and freedoms of citizens, its
"activity leads to breaking up of families, and is connected with
infringement on the basis rights and freedoms of citizens, is
accompanied by calls for refusal to fulfill obligations before society.
Therefore the interference under consideration, since it is directed to
the protection of the rights and interests of citizens and of society
as a whole, must be considered as necessary in a democratic society.
Considering that the society violated the constitutional rights and
freedoms of citizens, the proposed restriction of its rights and the
termination of the activity of the religious society are justified and
commensurate with constitutional significant goals.
The evidence presented confirms that the Jehovah's Witnesses religious
society of Moscow committed crude and frequent violations of the rights
and freedoms of citizens, which is the basis for its liquidation and
prohibition of the activity of this organization on the strength of
article 14 of the Russian law "On freedom of conscience and religious
associations."
In reaching its decision the court reviewed the question of assessment
of judicial expenses incurred. Two expert analyses were conducted for
the case. The members of the expert commission of the complex
investigation, D.A. Leontiev, S.I. Ivanenko, V.Pp. Belianin, M.M.
Gromyko, and S.A. Nebolsin submitted expense reports for the work
performed by each of them for a total sum of 19,377 rubles, 50 kopecks.
On the basis of the amount of reported and actually performed work, the
court considers it necessary to assess16,000 rubles for each of the
experts. The performance of the philological-psycholinguistic expert
analysis was paid for out of the federal budget to the two experts for
a total sum of 102,000 rubles; the expert K.I. Alekseev submitted a
statement of the cost of his work for a total sum of 22,400 rubles,
with which the court agrees. All of the legal expenses are the
responsibility of the losing side, that is, the Jehovah's Witnesses
religious society of the city of Moscow.
Guided by articles 194-198 of the Civil Procedure Code of RF, the court
has decided:
To satisfy the presentation of the prosecutor of the northern
administrative district of the city of Moscow.
To liquidate the religious organization "Religious society of Jehovah's
Witnesses of the city of Moscow" as a legal entity and to forbid its
activity in the city of Moscow.
To assess the religious organization "Religious society of Jehovah's
Witnesses in the city of Moscow" in the favor of experts Dmitry
Alexevich Leontiev, Sergei Igorevich Ivanenko, Valery Pavlovich
Belianin, Marina Mikhailovna Gromyko, and Sergei Andreevich Nebolsin
compensation for conducting an expert analysis a sum of 16,000 rubles
for each, and in favor of Konstantin Igorevich Alexeev, compensation
for conducting expert analysis a sum of 22,400 rubles.
To assess from the religious organization "Religious society of
Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Moscow" for the state budget court
expenses in the sum of 102,000 rubles.
This decision may be appealed and protested in Moscow City Court within
ten days.
Judge V.K. Dubinskaia
(tr. by PDS, posted 30 May 2004)
Russia
Religion News Current News Items
If material is quoted, please give credit to the
publication
from which it came.
It is not necessary to credit this Web page. If
material
is transmitted electronically, please include reference to the URL,
http://www.stetson.edu/~psteeves/relnews/.