22 January 1998,
Moscow, Russia

On September 19, 1997 a new Federal Law, "On freedom of conscience and religious organizations," was passed. On September 24, 1997 it was approved unanimously by the Federal Council and on September 26, 1997 the law was signed by President Yeltsin.

In the summer of 1997 there had been heated debates over the issue in the two chambers of the Russian Parliament, followed by harsh criticism by various influential political figures, including the Pope and President Clinton. As a result, the law in draft was declined by President Yeltsin with a message to the lawmakers which pointed out quite professionally that the clauses of the law contain multiple violations of human rights. How to explain the fact that after a few months a new, even stricter variant of the same law was passed and signed almost without discussion? Let us look through the background history of the issue. On the wave of the democratic uprise in 1990 there appeared the Law on freedom of conscience, which permitted the believers of all confessions to really enjoy the granted rights, and which was based on principles of legal equality of all religious confessions. It radically changed the quality of state-church relations, providing a real separation of church from the state, at the same time not limiting the rights of the former. Many religious organizations, severely persecuted during the Soviet regime, became legal. The enthusiastic spiritual activity of the citizens of the huge state, casting off the chains of the monotonous ideology, welcomed the foreign missionaries whose sermons gathered together large audiences. Leaders of different religious confessions were admitted on television, and the mass media generally were unbiased, focusing on the charitable activities of these organizations.

But the religious pluralism and quick growth in the number of registered non-Orthodox religious units worried not only the Russian Orthodox Church, which considered Russia its own canonical territory, but also political influentials, who opposed foreign activities influencing the home spiritual sphere.

Since 1992 numerous attempts were made to change the law currently in force, and they became successful in 1997. The procedure of passing the bill was accompanied by numerous violations of the strict Duma regulations on how the bill should be voted and worked on.

The initial draft law introducing amendments and supplements to the existing Federal Law "On religious freedom in the RSFSR" caused numerous objections and amendments. However, taking exception to Articles 105 through 110 of the Duma Procedures, the June 1997 draft law appeared unexpectedly: the draft prepared for the second reading was never discussed beforehand; and it was not only a draft with certain amendments but a completely new text which was adopted.

It is interesting to trace the consideration process of such an important statute affecting all the basic human rights and freedoms. As it was quite reasonably stated during the discussion on June 18, 1997 by the Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Public Associations and Religious Organizations V.I.Zorkaltsev (of a faction of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation), who directly headed the elaboration of the new bill, "This law establishes relations between the government and the church, the church and the society, and the society and the government". I think that the use of term "the church" rather than "churches", here is not an occasional fluff. It precisely defines the essence of the law - the relations between the dominant Church and the government and society as a whole. V.I.Zorkaltsev admitted that the legislative assemblies of the Members of the Russian Federation have adopted these laws prohibiting any new confessions and thus breaching the Constitution, but that the adoption of the new Federal Law was necessary for the purpose of "directing its cutting edge toward preventing the growth of various destructive sects".

The discussion of the bill and the voting process on June 18, 1997 took only 33 minutes and 8 seconds. The parliamentarians were not anxious about basic human rights and freedoms. The aspects of expediency in providing ownership of land to religious organizations (though not for unlimited-time use) and the possibility of fabrication of objects of worship at enterprises not owned by them were discussed. 5 persons voted against the bill and 1 abstained in the vote following the second reading, while 337 supported the bill. (Record of the Session, Bulletin No. 107)

The discussion of the bill at the third reading only took 1 minute and 36 seconds. The only problem discussed was a grammar mistake in one of the Articles, and the law was adopted with 8 persons voting against the law and 2 abstaining. (Record of the Session, Bulletin No. 110)

The Federal Law was submitted for consideration to the other Chamber of the Federal Assembly, the Federation Council, in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 2, Article 105, and approved by the Federation Council on July 4, 1997.

The President of the Russian Federation, who according to Article 80 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation is appointed its guarantor, as well as the guarantor of individual rights and liberties of Russia's citizens, on July 22, 1997 declined the law in draft, which was sent back to the Parliament followed by strong criticism.

The President noted that the disappearance of references to international legal agreements as an integral part of Russian legislation was not accidental. Listing numerous violations of individual rights implicit in the bill, the President pointed out that, in the name of limiting the activities of pseudo-religious organizations, the law will be used as a means to introduce discriminatory regulations for registration and re-registration that will force the liquidation of juridical bodies, it presumes religious inequality, violates the principle of equality before the law of all religious organizations, and places the representation of foreign religious organizations in direct dependence upon the attitude of Russian religious organizations toward them.

Indicating by his two refusals to sign the law as contradictory to the Constitution and to the norms of international law signed in 1993, the President gave a warning that, as the guardian of the Constitution, in case the law should be adopted in its existing form at its second hearing, he will sign and promulgate the law together with a letter to be published listing all the norms that cannot be applied.

Strong reaction to the law by many denominations within Russia and around the world, in particular by Pope John Paul II, the American Senate, US President Clinton and many others, showed President Yeltsin the possible consequences of the adoption of such a discriminatory law. In his appeal the President justifies his rejection not only out of the necessity to ensure correspondence of the law with the Russian Constitution and international law, but also to ensure the participation of Russia in the integrative processes in Europe and around the world, keeping in mind the multidenominational population of the Russian Federation, and striving to avoid international isolation of Russia's traditional denominations and religious conflicts within the country, as well as to prevent Russia from being accused of ideological persecution.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia Alexy II replied strongly to the presidential decision, warning that the rejection of the law in its existing edition will bring "tension in the relationships between the government and the people". But it seems that the people have not read the contents of the law, and the legislative authorities are not yet ready for an open confrontation with the President.

It is well known that the Russian Orthodox Church, practically considered to be the state church, though formally it has no such status, could not be ignored.

The state mechanism mechanism began its intrigue, which was called "a process of co-ordinating the correction of the bill between the involved parties."At the same time the Internal Ministry belonging to the President of the Russian Federation didn't shy away from direct forgery and fraud. The leaders of many religious confessions were often invited to conciliatory procedures as well as for individual consultations. As a result, they signed a letter addressed to the deputies, the context of which confirmed the achieved mutual consent and underlined the necessity of urgently passing the law, which "would reflect the home specific conditions and create active mechanisms of defense against spiritual aggression."

On September 4, 1997 there appeared in the Duma the draft law signed by the President of the Russian Federation. The new wording of the law, formerly declined by him, resembled the old text as a slightly maquillaged version, demonstrating to the society the achieved compromise. But practically, the president's previous critical remarks were not considered, and it means that he retracted them altogether. It is hard to believe that Yeltsin (or those behind him), who had criticized this draft law severely for violating the Constitution and standards of international law, was being guided by considerations of principle and offered a new version that would be even more restrictive and limiting to the activities of many religious organizations.

Having looked through the casual amendments, which in no way changed the discriminatory essence of the new law, representatives of different confessions -- Catholics, Protestants, Adventists, Pentecostalists -- sent a letter to Yeltsin, pointing out that they had been persuaded to sign the declaration to the President of the Russian Federation, in which they were asking him to accept the coordinated variant of the law, without checking the text. In this connection, having reliable proof of the President's Administration officials' forgery, they were compelled to openly recall their signatures; the fact was made public on September 11, 1997. But it couldn't change anything. If such an attitude was demonstrated toward officially respected confessions, there's nothing to talk about numerous others officially registered in the Russian Federation. They were considered unworthy to discuss the question of coordination.

On September 19, 1997 the law was passed. The debates on the subject in the State Duma lasted less than one and a half hours, including four votes and solving questions on procedure. Four deputies voted against the law, four remained neutral. The position of the lawmakers was expressed by the Chairman of the Liberal-Democratic Party Zhirinovsky with his typical straightforwardness: "We should follow the position of the Orthodox Church. If they from the Patriarchate now tell us to pass the law -- we'll do it; if they tell us, don't pass it -- we won't. But no one among those standing in front of the Duma building is going to dictate to us what to do, and not even the President of the USA.". (Bulletin of the RF State Duma K 117 (259), September 19, 1997). The Duma building was picketed by Catholics, Baptists, Adventists, Pentecostalists, old believers, Jehovah's Witnesses and representatives of many other confessions, who strongly expressed their opposition to the law. For many of them, the result of their sincere attempts to find a compromise with the authorities became obvious. Even more obviously, there is no freedom of conscience for the followers of so-called "respected confessions," such as Catholics or Protestants, that is compatible with discrimination against others, often called non-traditional or new confessions.

The adoption of this normative legislation constitutes a flagrant violation, elevated to the status of a Federal Law, of human rights and freedoms by the Russian Government, and its contempt of its international obligations. Russia recognizes and guarantees human and civil rights and freedoms, in accordance with generally recognized norms and principles of international law that are considered as constituents of its legal system. The Constitution of the Russian Federation recognizes the priority of international law over its own internal laws. This means that no Russian law may contradict the Declaration of Human Rights, treaties on human rights, and other international conventions in this sphere. The adoption of this new Federal Law not only represents a violation of the Russian Constitution but also a violation of the standards of international law.

The Federal Law declaratively states:

- that it confirms the rights of each for freedom of conscience and religious freedom, as well as legal equality irrespective of religious preferences and convictions (in the preamble of the Federal Law);

- that no legislation on the freedom of conscience, religious freedom, and religious associations may be constructed so as to diminish or abrogate the human and civil rights of freedom of conscience and religious freedom established by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and arising from international conventions signed by the Russian Federation (Part 3, Article 2 of the Federal Law);

- that freedom of conscience and religious freedom are guaranteed, and no preference, restrictions or other forms of discrimination related to religion may be established (Article 3 of the Federal Law);

- that religious associations are equal before the law (Article 4 of the Federal Law),

The legislative authorities have approved a law which both in its essence and in its very letter (not only in its interpretation) possesses a discriminatory nature blatantly violating the Constitution of the Russian Federation, legislation of the Russian Federation, and standards of international law. Furthermore, any references to limitations connected with public order, health and morality, or the protection of other persons' rights and freedoms are not applicable in such a case, as it is not these values which are upheld; rather it openly promotes discrimination against the overwhelming majority of religious organizations legally registered at present in the Russian Federation.

The new Federal Law in question is a vivid manifestation of intolerance and religious discrimination against almost all religious organizations. It deliberately abrogates the rights of believers - both of Russian citizens, and of foreigners or those persons having no citizenship. Its norms not only fail to provide any protection against arbitrary bureaucratic and departmental regulation (a very widespread phenomenon in Russia today), but are themselves the manifestation of such arbitrary rule elevated to the level of Federal Law.

As for the compliance of its text with legislative techniques and legal finesse, it should be regarded more as a mediocre propaganda brochure than as a normative Federal Law.

In contempt of the Declaration on Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, it not only fails to provide the rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion, the freedom to believe and the free manifestation of faith, along with effective protection of such freedoms from religious discrimination, but on the contrary, ignores and violates human rights and basic freedoms set forth in both international and Russian legislation.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation proclaims human rights and freedoms as a supreme value, and correspondingly, the priority of such rights and freedoms in the activities of all governmental bodies. Accordingly any legislation should be founded upon the principle of inalienability of human rights.

According to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 1, Article 15, this Federal Law will have supreme legal force, direct effect, and shall be applied throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation. Any Laws and other legal documents in effect within the Russian Federation must not contradict the Constitution. The Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 4, Article 15 recognizes all generally accepted principles and norms of international law and international conventions signed by the Russian Federation as an integral part of its legal system.

The Constitution of the Russian Federation, Part 2, Article 17 upholds the basic human rights and freedoms as inalienable and inherent to each person since birth, while Article 18 of the Constitution defines such rights and freedoms as having direct effect and governing the essence, content and applicability of statutes, as well as the activities of legislative and executive authorities, local governments, and the justice system.

Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees human rights and freedoms, to be protected by the government without regard to religion, ideology, or affiliation with public associations. All forms of restrictions of civil rights on the grounds of religion are prohibited.

Article 28 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of conscience and religious freedom to everyone, including the right to profess, individually or together with other persons, any religion or to profess no religion, to freely choose and freely disseminate any religious or other beliefs, and to act in accordance with such beliefs.

The extent of implementation of these political declarations is demonstrated by the newly adopted Federal Law. Analysis of a number of its provisions demonstrates that each person's rights and freedoms differ according to his or her religious confession. Such differentiation includes the right to profess a certain religion together with others, to disseminate religious ideas, and to act in accordance with such ideas.

Religious freedom is understood not only as the right to profess any religion individually, but also together with others, that is, the Constitution allows the association of citizens freely professing the religion of their choice. The right to profess a religion together with others is far from being universally provided, due to various restrictions. Article 7 of the new Federal Law upholds the concept of a religious group carrying out its activities without governmental registration nor the acquisition of legal rights as a legal entity. Yet, not withstanding the declaration of such a group's right to conduct its ministry, hold religious ceremonies and rituals, according to the new Federal Law, a religious group deprived of the status of a legal entity cannot in fact exercise such a right (as it can neither acquire nor lease the premises for such purposes, cannot issue publications, invite missionaries, etc.). The same Article requires citizens to compulsorily notify local authorities of the establishment and initiation of activities of any new religious group, thus violating the right to immunity of private life guaranteed each person by Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Each individual's attitude toward religion is his or her private matter, and accordingly a person's right to profess a religion individually does not require him or her to perform any significant legal actions. As such a group does not attain the status of a legal entity, an individual's membership does not necessitate registration by local authorities. Despite the fact that Part 5, Article 3 of the Federal Law states that no person is obliged to report his or her attitude to religion, the statutes concerning religious groups actually negate these declared principles.

If these legal standards are translated to a level comprehensible to each believer, it would be obvious that his or her right to pray at home or to gather with co- religionists for a camp-meeting also entail his or her responsibility to inform the authorities about such "activities".

According to Article 16 of the Federal Law, religious rituals and ceremonies may be conducted freely in houses of worship, buildings, and their adjacent territory, in other places provided to religious organizations for these purposes, places of pilgrimage, institutions and enterprises of religious organizations, at cemeteries and crematoria as well as in dwelling premises. In other cases public worship meetings, religious rituals and ceremonies are to be performed in the manner prescribed for public meetings, marches and demonstrations.

Religious groups which do not exist as legal entities, and thus have no right to lease or own any premises for the purpose of conducting service, etc., are obliged to apply for permission in each individual case. This means that, according to the specified procedures prescribed by law for holding meetings, marches and demonstrations, a written notification must be filed with local authorities in order to conduct any public event, religious ritual or ceremony no later than 10 days before its planned date. Authorities shall consider such an application and respond with a decision (whether permission or denial) no later than 5 days before the planned event.

Here the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 30, providing for each person's right of association, is violated. The fact that a group lacks status as a legal entity actually deprives the citizens (members of such a group) of the right to association. Article 18 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation also describes citizens' lawful right to establishing legal entities, yet this right is infringed in the case of believers.

The concept of religious group contradicts Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, by which each person is entitled to own, possess and utilize property either individually or jointly with any other persons. "Jointly" means a citizen's right to be a participant in ownership within an organization, that is, within a legal entity. The new Federal Law deprives a group of the right to acquire property necessary for its members to implement their right to religious freedom.

Freedom of conscience also includes the freedom to disseminate one's ideology, as upheld by Article 3 of the present Law, which formally guarantees the right to choose, to change, to hold, and to disseminate religious and other beliefs. This principle of the Constitution contradicts the Law (Part 1, Article 6 and Part 3, Article 7), according to which religious associations (groups as well as organizations) have the right to promote religious education of their followers. De facto, it prohibits missionaries' activity, because the spreading of a certain religion is possible only within the group of its followers.

In comparison to these principal prohibitions, the prohibition for religious groups concerning inviting foreign citizens for missionary activities seems insignificant at first glance (such a right is in any case only provided to religious organizations); however, if we take into consideration the number of existing registered organizations which may be deprived of their status as legal entities, it becomes obvious that what is meant is not merely a considerable number of believers, but the majority of religions which are at present recognized by the government.

Meanwhile, even now, while there is no official prohibition of missionary activities, its de facto prohibition is already felt in the society. For example, T.Varzanova mentions in "Church and Public Herald" ("Tserkovno-Obshchestvenny Vestnik-"), No. 19 dated July 3, 1997 that, according to sociological surveys between 1993 and 1996, the percentage of readers of religious publications reached its maximum point in 1993-1994 (the number of persons involved in surveys who read religious publications amounted to 35%, while this number decreased to 30% in 1995), and she connects this phenomenon with possible "consequences of limiting evangelizing activities of foreign Christian missionaries".

The new Federal Law violates the rights of foreign citizens and those without citizenship. The Constitution of the Russian Federation actually differentiates the scope of rights and powers provided to citizens of Russia, foreign nationals, and those without citizenship. Such differences are reflected in specific norms of the basic Law. Where human rights and freedoms are concerned, the wording "each person has a right" is used in the text, meaning that these rights are guaranteed to everybody, not only to citizens of the Russian Federation. Among these are the freedom of conscience and religious freedom. Beside these rights, political rights (the right to elect and be elected, etc.) and responsibilities (defense of the Motherland) are described which are only vested in citizens of Russia (see Articles 32, 33, 59 of the Constitution). The language "each person" means citizens of the Russian Federation, irrespective of age, as well as foreign citizens and those without citizenship.

According to Article 62 of the Constitution, foreign citizens and those without citizenship have rights and bear responsibilities the same as citizens of the Russian Federation, with the exception of the cases stipulated by Federal law or an international convention participated in by the Russian Federation. As the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees the right of confession to each person, any limitations introduced by the Federal Law in respect of foreign citizens and those without citizenship are violating the Constitution. Article 2 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 443 of the Civil Procedure Code of the RSFSR are providing for a national treatment in respect of civil competence of foreign citizens and those without citizenship (this is not connected with the fact of residence in Russia). One example of infringement is in Part 1, Article 9 of the Law, in which only citizens of the Russian Federation are permitted to be founders of a religious organization, whereas Article 30 of the Constitution grants such right to any physical person. Part 1, Article 6 and Part 1, Article 8 grant the right to citizens of the Russian Federation, as well as to other persons permanently living and officially registered within the Russian Federation, to participate in any religious association. Thus, from this number it excludes the majority of the foreigners who came temporarily to the Russian Federation to study, work, etc.

There appeared a new term, "foreign religious organization," which means a religious organization founded outside the Russian Federation under some foreign state's jurisdiction. In accordance with Part 2 of Article 13 of the Law, it could be granted (or may not be) the right to set up its representatives within the territory of the Russian Federation. It is openly pointed out that representatives can't perform any activities, religious or otherwise, and it is not to be considered a religious association. The logic of the lawmakers is clear enough: to paralyze the representatives of the religious organization, which has no right to proceed with its religious activities.

Part 5, Article 3 of the Federal Law, prohibits the "involvement" of preteens in religious associations and their indoctrination in a religious belief against their will and without their parents' consent. The term "involvement" is used in the criminal law to define involvement in prostitution, drug addiction or criminal activity. To receive religious education, a child needs to get the consent of both its parents, a fact that can evoke considerable complications (a one-parent family, parents belong to different confessions, etc.)Parents' differences concerning education of the child are resolved under provisions of the Family Code, and such strict prohibitions shall certainly infringe upon those religions that are subordinate in a given locality (including Christianity in traditionally Islamic regions, etc.). Practically, it will lead to the demand for both parents' consent in order for children to participate in a religious service or to receive education in a Sunday school.

According to Article 14 of the Constitution and Article 4 of the new Federal Law itself, religious associations must be separate from the State, being equal before the law.

But this constitutional principle of formal legal equality is violated in practice. Apart from the preamble of the Federal Law, which states that the Federal Assembly recognizes "the special role of the Orthodoxy" and enumerates "Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Judaism and other religions composing an inalienable part of the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia" (it is obvious from the text above that new, legally existing, but not being a part of 'the historical heritage of the peoples of Russia' religions do not enjoy the recognition of the legislators). Article 6 of the Federal Law makes provisions for the establishment of religious associations in the form of religious groups not having the status of legal entities, and religious organizations. Religious organizations, in turn, are also subdivided under Article 8 into several categories according to territorial location: "local" and "centralized" (regional and All-Russian), and accorded unequal status.

A "local religious organization" is a religious organization consisting of ten or more members and followers who are of the minimum age of eighteen and are residents of the same locality.

"Centralized organizations" are subdivided into "regional" and "All-Russian" organizations. A "regional organization" consists of at least three local religious organizations. "All- Russian" status is granted to a centralized religious organization active in the Russian Federation for at least 50 years on the legal basis. (How could be taken into consideration the fact that a lot of organizations had no possibility to register and consequently exist on the legal basis in the years of Soviet regime?)

Establishment of a local religious organization may only be initiated by a religious group. Such establishment is conditioned by availability of a confirmation of its existence at the respective territory for at least 15 years issued by local authorities or a confirmation of the fact that such group is a part of a centralized religious organization issued by such centralized organization.

Meanwhile, public associations, and religious associations as such public associations may be established by individuals, in accordance with Russian legislation, without preliminary permission of governmental bodies or local authorities (the establishment of a religious group is in fact the establishment of such an association, which is later to be confirmed by local authorities).

The categories introduced by the new Federal Law cause discrimination not only against religious organizations new to Russia, but also against those registered earlier as All- Russian organizations. Similar problems may experience, for example, Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Buddhists, etc.

Besides, the territorial principle contradicts and almost overrides the norm of non-interference in activities of religious organization stipulated by the Federal Law. Part 5, Article 5 stipulates that a religious association is established and carries out its activities in accordance with its own hierarchy and institutional structure (far from being territorial in all cases, and in many religions there is no centralized canonical leadership, for example, many Protestants and Muslims).

A specific problem - establishment and registration of religious associations.

Article 11 stipulates that registration of religious associations be performed in accordance with the procedures and regulations established by civil legislation. But the new Federal Law contradicts such legislation, as it requires not only incorporation documents provided for by civil legislation but also the following documents, for example for registration of a local organization (and no centralized organization may be registered without local organizations being registered):

- confirmation of existence of the respective religious group at the respective territory for at least 15 years issued by local authorities or a confirmation of the fact that such group is a part of a centralized religious organization issued by its head center;

- information about the bases of the religious confession and its respective practice, including the history of emergence of the religion and its respective association, forms and methods of its activities, attitude to family and marriage, to education, attitude of the religion's followers to health, the members' and followers' limitations concerning civil rights and responsibilities. Registration may be rejected under Article 12, particularly in the following cases:

- objectives and activities of the organization are connected with violations of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and current legislation;

- the entity that is established is not recognized as a religious organization;

- by-laws and other documents filed do not comply with legislation, or the information supplied is not authentic.

Apart from the fact that such requirements provide a possibility for authorities to set forth any requirements (what information about the bases of the religious or the history of its emergence may be considered as sufficient or authentic and unbiased in the conditions where disputes often arise between followers of the same religion, etc.), the Federal Law itself contains a principal impossibility for registration of certain churches. So to register local religious organizations local authorities should provide a document confirming their existence within the respective territory for at least 15 years or their membership in a centralized organization. In order to be registered, a centralized organization should confirm availability of its local organizations. Taking into consideration the fact that an overwhelming majority of religious organizations were only registered after enactment of the RSFSR Law "On religious freedom" in 1990, and the new Federal Law is retroactive, meaning that organizations are subject to re-registration, the fact that the Law is directed against many confessions is obvious.

The norms regarding the liquidation of religious organizations and the prohibition of activities of a religious association are worded in such a manner that it becomes possible for authorities to close down any association. It is possible in cases of repeated or flagrant violations of the Constitution, Federal law or systematic activities on the part of religious organization contradicting to its objectives. While such wording is acceptable in principle, there is no specific interpretation as to what is meant by the words "repeated or flagrant violation of legal norms", so authorities shall inevitably interpret arbitrarily the provisions of the Federal Law. Besides, the fact that specific legislation is not mentioned and there is no interpretation of violation of law sufficient for prohibition of establishment and existence of an association makes it possible to manifest subjectivity in respect to certain religious organizations in the process of registration.

At the same time the new Federal Law does not contain any mechanism for responsibility on the part of bureaucrats for its violation, and they only have right to call religious organizations to account at their discretion on ambiguous bases. It is true that most of the prohibitions, if necessary, may be applied to any church, even to the Orthodox Church so esteemed by legislators (e.g., abstinence - "harmful to the health", monasticism - "denial of the family", etc.).

The new Federal Law is effective retroactively, covering, under Article 27, both existing and newly emerging religious associations. By-laws and other incorporation documents of the religious organizations established earlier should be brought to compliance with the present Federal Law. The by-laws and other incorporation documents of religious associations until their bringing into compliance with the Federal Law shall only be valid as not contradicting to it. The governmental re-registration should be performed not later than December 31, 1999, according to the requirements of the Federal Law. Upon the expiration of the said period the religious associations that have not undergone re-registration will be subject to liquidation by the courts as required by the body in charge of governmental re-registration of religious organizations.

Enforcement of this Federal Law shall inevitably cause a number of problems. For example, the Roman Catholic Church has been active within the territory of Russia since the 12th century. But during the Soviet era its activities diminished to a considerable degree for well-known reasons, and only in 1991 Rome established two Archdioceses in Russia. Under the Soviet regime only one Archdiocese existed in Belarus. Will this be enough to substantiate its existence upon Russian territory for over 15 years?

Protestants have been active in Russia for over four centuries. Yet, while on the one hand, the registered Catholic associations are all subordinated canonically to the Vatican subsumed under the single overall structure of the Church, on the other hand, Protestants refer to dozens of independent churches. As another example, the Anglican Church was only registered in Moscow in 1993. The Lutheran Church was first established in Moscow in the middle of 16th century, suffered persecution in the Soviet era, and was only registered in Russia in 1991 (the Evangelical Lutheran Church and United Evangelical Lutheran Church of Russia in 1991, and the Union of Evangelic Reformed Churches of Russia - 1992, etc.). The new Federal Law shall lead to a situation where a number of presently independent religious organization will be forced to enter any centralized structures.

During the Soviet era Moslem communities only existed in Baku, Tashkent, Makhachkala and Ufa. In order to preserve their status as legal entities, these communities, registered in Russia after 1991, will have to solve the problem of receiving confirmation from some centralized body of their existence for more than 15 years. Yet Islamic canonical structure does not provide for such centralization.

The first Krishna religious organization to be registered in Russia, the Moscow Society of Krishna Consciousness, was only registered in 1988, even though the Krishnas began their activities in Russia much earlier, and were persecuted for their religious beliefs under the Soviet regime. Their All-Russian association was registered in 1992.

The Unification Church was active unofficially in Russia since the seventies, and was registered in 1992. Yet can it be considered as an All-Russian organization according to the new Federal Law, can it own real estate or other property, conduct ministry, etc.? The answer is unequivocal: it will not be allowed to do so.

Even these brief information from the official reference publication "Religious associations of the Russian Federation" issued in 1996 by the analytical department of the Federation Council demonstrates the problems that may be encountered by almost all religious organizations. Independent Protestant churches will be forced to file confirmation from their centralized organizations as they will hardly be able to get confirmation from local authorities that they were active within their territory for at least 15 years. The same situation with Muslims. As concerns the Hare Krishnas, registration bodies may refuse to accept as a confirmation of activities of the religious organization their reference notes of conviction, suffering punishment in the form of imprisonment and further rehabilitation, etc.

A number of religious organizations presently registered as All-Russian entities shall lose such status (in case they are active for less than 50 years) or lose their status as legal entities altogether.

But the principal thing is the fact that the destiny of about 15 thousand registered religious organizations and several thousand not registered organizations also entitled previously to act without official registration will be solved by local authorities at their discretion.

Certainly, the principle of the religious organizations' equality before the law shall be violated in the process of their re-registration. As, under the Federal Law, the organizations existing within "this territory" for less than 15 years - and almost all the religious organizations are such as overwhelming majority of them were registered only after adoption of the Federal Law "On religious freedom" - have limited rights or even de-registered, the matter will be decided by authorities at their discretion. Obviously, the authorities will not venture to reject to re-register all the organizations, foreseeing the consequences of such actions. Nevertheless the activities of many of them will be substantially limited.

Many of religious organizations will actually encounter the problem of liquidation and deprival of their property. Irrespective of the fact what is provided for by the organization's by-laws in case of its liquidation (use of property for charity purposes, etc.), their property will not be returned to incorporators or distributed between them, and such property will not be returned to the persons that offered it or transferred to the organization in any other manner. So they will be deprived of their property in contempt of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 35.

The freedom of activities of public associations guaranteed by Article 30 of the Constitution, as well as a number of the constitutional freedoms and rights once more became a fig leaf of Russian "democracy". The new Federal Law has proven once more that such freedoms are merely a decoration, as the new Federal Law not only fails to realize them but actually prevents their implementation.

According to Article 2 of the new Federal Law, some clearly unconstitutional normative legal statutes adopted by the members of the Russian Federation, prohibiting missionary activities and establishing other barriers to the activities of religious associations, have become part of the legislation relating to freedom of conscience and religious associations.

The Deputies of the State Duma who almost unanimously supported the Federal Law were not troubled even by the Criminal Code adopted by them earlier providing for criminal prosecution under Article 136 for violations of the freedom of conscience and religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation. As concerns the Federation Council, which includes two representatives of each Member of the Federation, the esteemed Senators are well aware of their own anti-constitutional acts, and even the decision taken by the Constitutional Court on one such statute (an Udmurtia statute was found to be in non- compliance with the Constitution) has not prevented them from unanimously approving of the new Federal Law.

Article 15, Item 4 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation recognizing generally acknowledged principles and norms of international law and international conventions entered by the Russian Federation as a part of its legal system is merely a declaration for Russian legislators not deserving their attention.

The new Federal Law does not comply with norms of international law - Articles 18 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Articles 18, 19, 26, 27 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights ("Declaration on the liquidation of all forms of intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief") and other international documents signed and ratified, and thus binding in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. On the contrary, these provisions are enacted with a reverse effect. Article 7 of the "Declaration on the liquidation of all forms of intolerance and discrimination on the basis of religion or belief" requires that rights and freedoms be granted by the national legislative bodies in a manner making it possible for each person to practice such rights and freedoms. In the Russian practice, the freedoms of conscience and faith declared by the Constitution are presented by the new Federal Law in a manner making them almost inaccessible for many believers. This affects not only the confessions that are non-traditional for Russia. The General Commentary of the UN Human Rights Committee to Article 18 of the International Civil and Political Rights Convention dated September 27, 1993 interprets religious freedom as a term "not limited in its application only to traditional religions or to the religions and confessions having an institutional structure or practice similar to traditional religions". Adoption of the Federal Law will also adversely affect many other Orthodox and Muslim communities, even though they come under the category of "esteemed" confessions.

For a practicing lawyer it is obvious that the adoption of the Federal Law is motivated not only by uneasiness about the growth in influence in Russia of religious organizations other than the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate). The purpose of this new Federal Law is also to solve the problem of property ownership by religious organizations of other confessions, as well as by certain Orthodox communities which presently have the status of independent legal owners of their own property. Confiscating this property is the basic purpose of this Federal Law. This is not merely coincidental. As stated in Item 6 of the Declaration of the 4th International Congress for Religious Freedom of the International Association for Religious Freedom, "within the existing legislative systems, believers' right to have the respective forms of legal entity required for conducting their activities is an inalienable aspect of the religious freedom of each individual group." Legislators clearly expect that non-registered religious organizations, deprived of their property and forced to apply to authorities for permission 10 days before conducting worship or any other ceremony, will be unable to work in Russia. However, it is obvious that such expectations are unwarranted. A very long history of religious persecution exists in Russia, and beliefs do not die at the sentence of legislators.

Almost four months have elapsed since the law was passed. Right now, practically it doesn't work. There are two explanations for this. The first is political: It is most essential to demonstrate to the whole world that the law is not that discriminatory and that there is no reason to be worried about violations of human rights in Russia. (For example, when the Lutheran association was refused registration by the Ministry of Justice in Khakassia in October 1997, the acute reaction that echoed around the world compelled the Ministry to cancel its decision, although it warned the Lutherans, that it is only being postponed.) The second reason is practical. The law is so far from being legally perfect that in order to apply it, explanatory documents are needed. In the near future there will be worked out and approved Regulations on a schedule of the state religious commission of experts, Regulations "On procedure of opening in the Russian Federation representatives of foreign religious organizations" and Rules for state registration of religious organizations by organs of justice of the Russian Federation. Keeping the discriminatory tendency of the law intact, they render it concrete and easy to be put into practice. What comes next?

The Federal Law may be reviewed by the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation that should consider the issue of compliance of legislative acts with the Constitution or under certain circumstances transfer a specific legal case to the jurisdiction of the European Human Rights Court.

According to Article 125 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Constitutional Court considers issues of compliance of federal laws with the Constitution of the Russian Federation upon inquiry of the President, the Federation Council, the State Duma, one fifth of members of the Federation Council of Deputies to the State Duma, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, or the legislative and executive bodies of the Members of the Russian Federation. One more possibility exists in the event that none of the above legal persons files inquiry to the Constitutional Court. Part 4, Article 125 of the Constitution provides for the right to file a constitutional appeal. Upon the filing of an appeal of violation of constitutional rights and civil liberties, and upon inquiries of the courts, the Constitutional Court examines the constitutionality of a law as applied or subject to application in the respective case. However, in actuality, the procedures of such an appeal as provided by federal law are very complicated; nevertheless, the theoretical possibility exists for the filing of such an appeal by believers once they have been subjected to legal proceedings on the case (for example, refusal of registration).

In any case there will not be an easy fight for the freedom of conscience in Russia.