HRWF International Secretariat (26.11.1999) -- On November 5, 1999, the District Court of Uchaly of the Republic of Bashkortostan came to [a] decision on the order of the application of the Federal law of Russia "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious communities" and of the law of the Republic of Bashkortorstan "On Freedom of Conscience and Religion." The apprehensions of the keepers of the law have been confirmed when with [the] antisect campaign being waged throughout Russia the legal agencies started misusing the new law on freedom of conscience, imposing restrictions on the activity of the minority religious groups.

Overview

The Republic of Bashkortostan:

The Republic of Bashkortostan is a subject of the Russian Federation located in the South Ural, on the border between Europe and Asia. The capital is the city of Ufa.

The town of Uchaly:

The town of Uchaly is the center of the District of Uchaly of the Republic of Bashkortorstan. The town is 450 kilometers southeast of Ufa.

Religion:

There are three organizations registered in the town of Uchaly. These are Islam, the Orthodox Church and [the] Jehovah's Witnesses.

Circumstances of the case

On March 31, 1999, A. F. Aksanov, the interregional Prosecutor of Uchaly of the Republic of Bashkortostan, demanded the heads of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses to abate the violation of human rights, which included the bringing up of the[ir] children in accordance with their beliefs.

The heads of the religious organization at various times applied to A. F. Aksanov, in writing as well as verbally, for the annulment of his claims. Nonetheless, their request was dismissed. On one occasion they were even expelled from the Prosecutor's office. Subsequently, the religious organization appealed to the Court.

The first hearing was set on August 16, 1999. Although the Prosecutor repeatedly stated that his claims were caused by numerous applications of the citizens, his unfitness for the trial was evident as he failed to adduce the proofs. Thus, the unreasonableness of the Prosecutor's claims was confirmed once again. The hearing was postponed till November 2, 1999.

Evidence supplied by the Prosecutor's Office

From August 16 on the Prosecutor started searching for the evidence to be able to prove the rightness of his claims in the course of the following proceedings. He applied to the different state agencies of the town of Uchaly, mainly to the educational institutions, with [the] request of providing him with . . . information on . . . cases of offences against the law committed by the citizens of Uchaly of the Republic of Bashkortostan who professed the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Consequently, the representative of the Prosecutor's Office succeeded in supplying the Court with . . . documents that constituted gross violation of the current International laws and also the laws of Russia. For instance, there were . . . reports of the directors and the teachers of schools on the conducted anti-sect campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses as well as . . . lists of the children of Jehovah's Witnesses and . . . letters of characterization of them. In addition, in these documents the children of Jehovah's Witnesses are referred to with a humiliating term as "children of the sectarians." By [a] letter of 15.09.99 the Superintendent of the schools of Uchaly, Mr. Mustafin G. A., informed the Prosecutor that the directors and the staff of the schools had been recommended to lead the purposeful anti-sect campaign against Jehovah's Witnesses.

Applying these documents [the] Prosecutor's Office violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 18 of the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, [and] Article 3 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of conscience," and this can be regarded as arbitrariness and discrimination. The aforementioned actions are aimed at . . . interference in the activities of the religious organization and in individuals' private life in violation of Article 4, 3 of the law "On Freedom of Conscience in the Republic of Bashkortorstan," and these are also . . . illegal gathering and disclosure of the information about [the] private life of citizens in violation of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, [and] Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and [they] infringe [on the] equality of citizens on the ground of their membership in [a] religious organization in violation of Article[s] 14 and 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation [and] Article 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Thus, the Prosecutor's Office provoked further oppression of Jehovah's Witnesses and their children. Amongst all the documents supplied by the Prosecutor's Office there is only one dated before 31.09.99, which proves that F. A. Aksanov lacks the grounds for his claims.

The representatives of the religious organization requested to lodge a complaint against the officials who had violated human rights, having drafted the documents applied by the Prosecutor on the ground of the violation of the following provisions of the laws: Article 136 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (violation of equality of citizens), Article 137 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (violation of private liberty) and Article 282 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (instigation of religious animosity).

Doubting the safety of the documents supplied by the Prosecutor's Office, the representatives of the religious organization requested to file them [with] the documents of the case, but exclude them [from] further consideration.

Requesting . . . adjournment of the proceedings the Prosecutor F. A. Aksanov claimed that he would be able to bring many witnesses. However, there were only four of them who appeared in the court. Among the latter:

1. The first witness N. A. Gumenjuk, stated that she did not like the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, although she was not aware of their teachings. She strongly disagreed with her daughter-in-law [who] was bringing up [her] children in accordance with her beliefs as a Jehovah's Witness. However, she testified that the children were healthy and wealthy [and] that their mother, a Jehovah's Witness, took care of them and provided for her three children and the husband (the son of N. A. Gumenjuk, who has not worked for more than 2 years and abused alcohol). N. A. Gumenjuk admitted that she had threatened to assault her son if he [became] a Jehovah's Witness.

2. The second witness, Ziganshin, the head of the maternity hospital in Uchaly, has no objections to Jehovah's Witnesses.

3. The third witness, G. Sh. Garipova, is the Supervisor of the Children's Safety Department in Uchaly. In the course of the proceedings she claimed that she knew neither about the law on freedom of conscience, nor the Constitution of the Russian Federation, both of which safeguard freedom of religion, and she is as well unaware of the Convention on Rights of Children, which provides parents belonging to minority religious groups with the right to bring up the children according to their beliefs. G. Sh. Garipova stated that she did not like the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. In her opinion, the latter should be prohibited [from sharing] their beliefs with others because, for instance, this was unpleasing to her, and, in addition, the parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses should be forced to observe . . . New Year's Day and [birthdays].

4. The fourth witness, D. G. Pozdniakova, was discontent[ed] with her husband and hoped for the Court to make him treat her in a better way. She claimed that she knew nothing about the family life of other Jehovah's Witnesses except one of her nonbeliever acquaintance whose husband was a Jehovah's Witness and whose family was harmonious and united. D. G. Pozdniakova took offence at the head of the religious organization for not exerting positive influence on her husband so that he would demonstrate love toward her.

[Presenting] his claims the Prosecutor of Uchaly virtually did not make any reference to the laws. All the charges deal with the doctrinal, theological dispute[s], demonstrating the personal opinion of F. A. Aksanov, the Prosecutor of Uchaly. In some instances . . . juggling [of] the facts took place. Even the Court of Uchaly, which did not succeed in supplying an unbiased legal appraisal, had to dismiss some of the charges as being clearly untrue.

Attitude of the Court

The Court presided [over] by Mrs. A. M. Gabitova considered the case [with interest]. For example, in the course of the proceedings on November 2,1999, the Court upheld the appellant's claim to exclude the issues linked to religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses [from] the case at law and to consider the claims of the Prosecutor F. A. Aksanov exceptionally as to their conformity to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, [the] Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, [the] Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Pact on Civil and Political rights and other provisions of . . . International Laws and the Laws of Russia. The claim was sustained because the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Uchaly was registered by the local administration, although officially the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses functions on the territory of the Russian Federation and was reregistered by the Department of Justice of the Russian Federation on April 29, 1999 (Certificate). It follows thence that the religious activity of the citizens living in Uchaly and professing the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses is not the issue to be considered, on account of the fact that their religion is recognized in the Russian Federation.

In spite of all the foregoing, in the course of the proceedings the Court repeatedly turned to examine the essentials of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Judge and the Prosecutor not once questioned the witnesses on the side of the religious organization and the children of Jehovah's Witnesses about the holidays they did not observe and the reasons for this, as well as the reasons for not taking part in all kind[s] of . . . entertainment and so on. The Court disallowed the questions of the representatives of the religious organization to the Prosecutor about [the[ conformity of the claims of the Prosecutor F. A. Aksanov to the current legislation.

Consequently, due to such a partial approach to the proceedings the Court upheld the claims of the Prosecutor's Office and announced some shameful decisions:

1. Not observing traditional holidays, including New Year's Day, [birthdays] and other celebrations, Jehovah's Witnesses and their children violate the law.

Note: The laws of [the] Russian Federation do not oblige . . . citizens to observe any . . . celebrations or other occasions.

2. The parents who are Jehovah's Witnesses have no right to bring up their children in accordance with their religious beliefs. In the opinion of the Court, such an up-bringing can be regarded as drawing . . . youth into the activities of the religious organization and thus violates Article 35 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Communities" and the Family Code of the Russian Federation.

Note: The fundamental right of children, fixed in Article 14 p.1, 2 and Article 30 of the Convention on Rights of Children, Article 2 of the Protocol E284961 of the Convention on Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 38 p.2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 5 p.2 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Communities," Article 63, 64 and 65 p.2 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation, [and] Article 28 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation is to be brought up by their parents and this also includes spiritual up-bringing, which is inextricably linked to religious instructions. The decision of the Court violates Article[s] 14 and 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that provide for equality of citizens regardless of their religion because the Prosecutor F. A. Aksanov do[es] not hinder the citizens of Uchaly who are Orthodox [from] baptiz[ing] the[ir] infants, [nor does he have anything] against the Muslims living in the town . . . circumcis[ing] their children.

3. The Court found S. V. Marchishin, the head of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Uchaly, guilty on the ground of the behavior of the Jehovah's Witness parents who in 1996 on their mutual agreement decided to ask O. Veretennikova to teach their children the Bible. The Prosecutor was aware of this even in 1996, but he raised no claims then.

Note: In accordance with Article 17 of the Pact on Civil and Political rights, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms, [and] Article 23 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, private life is indefeasible and nobody has the right to interfere in it. Therefore the heads of the religious organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses do not attempt to interfere in the private life of their cobelievers.

4. The Court approved the interference of the Prosecutor's Office in the private life of Jehovah's Witnesses and upheld the opinion of the Prosecutor's Office that Jehovah's Witnesses have no priority right to [bring up] their children.

Note: In accordance with Article 17 of the Pact on Civil and Political rights, Article 8 of the European Convention on Human rights and Fundamental Freedoms, [and] Article[s] 23 and 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, interference in private life violates the law. Article 63 p.1 of the Family Code reads, 'Parents have priority rights to [the bringing up] of their children over any other person.'

5.. The Court supported the Prosecutor's Office and accused all the members of the local religious organization of the Jehovah's Witnesses of . . . misbehavior in their family life.

Note: The ground for such [an] accusation was the individual case of D. G. Pozdniakova. She principally complained that the head of the religious organization had not used his influence with her husband, which he actually had had no right to do and therefore had not done, so that he would demonstrate love toward her. On this account she could not be tolerant [of] any [member] of [the] Jehovah's Witnesses. And the Court did not take into consideration the fact that she had suffered from mental derangement and that she had under[gone a] long course of treatment at the neuropsychic dispensary.

6.. The judge announced the preaching activity and the dissemination of the beliefs of the Jehovah's Witnesses in the town of Uchaly to be illegal and infringing [on] the freedoms and the rights of other citizens.

Note: The Judge did not specify what kind of rights had been violated. The Court ignored Article 18 of the Pact on Civil and Political rights, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, [and] Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation that guarantee freedom of dissemination of religious convictions. In [section?] 31 of the decision on the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece held on May 25, 1993, the European Court of Humans Rights noted, ' In accordance with Article 9 freedom of religion E280A6 in principle implies the right to attempt to persuade [one's] neighbor, for instance, by means of "education"; otherwise "freedom of changing one's religion" would have exist[ed] only on paper." The representatives of the religious organization attached the aforementioned decision to the documents of the case so that the Court would be able to investigate it. The Charter of the appellant ( 2.2.1.) provides for religious ministry by means of dissemination of one's convictions visiting people at their homes. Therefore the Court should not have doubted the legality of the activity of Jehovah's Witnesses aimed at the spreading their beliefs.

Announcing the decision the Court referred to some issues of the local newspaper "Hammer and Sickle" that were published in violation of Article 4 of the Law of . . . Russia on the Mass Media because there they incited religious intolerance and dissent. The authors of the articles named Jehovah's Witnesses with such humiliating terms as "jackals," "pigs" and so on.

Attitude of the representatives of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in the town of Uchaly

The grounds for such a wrongful decision held by the Court of Uchaly were the testimonies of the four witnesses on the side of the Prosecutor's Office, three of [whom] have a particular dislike for Jehovah's Witnesses, and the articles in the issues of the local newspaper "Hammer and Sickle" inciting religious intolerance and dissent. This proves the fact that the representatives of the court system of Russia are ready to exploit any kind of evidentiary materials for an attack against minority religious groups.

As follows from the aforesaid the Prosecutor's Office failed to provide . . . evidence to prove the rightness of his claims. And it was only the self-interests of the Court of Uchaly that allowed the Prosecutor's Office not to disgrace itself. The Court demonstrated its utter indifference to numerous violations of Human Rights committed by the appellant, as in the process of drafting the documents of the discovery at the Prosecutor's Office, so as during the proceedings, and it refused to lodge a complaint against the officials who had violated Human Rights. Moreover, the Court did not take any actions regarding . . . interference in private life, . . . infringement on [the] equality of citizens on the basis of their religion, restrictions of the rights of the parents to [bring up] the[ir] children in accordance with their religious convictions, dividing individuals into "sectarians" and "non-sectarians" and etc. Such an attitude of the Court is very harmful, because it constitutes the basis for launching [a] persecution campaign against the minority religious groups in the Republic of Bashkotarstan.

On November 15, 1999, the representatives of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Uchaly appealed to the Supreme Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan.

The representatives of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Uchaly.

Attorney N. Palotash - Lawyer S. Svetkin

November 16, 1999

- received from Human Rights Without Frontiers

Website: http://www.hrwf.net

E-mail: info@hrwf.net

NOTE FROM RAY PRIGODICH: In the original document, Bashkortostan is spelled in an unorthodox way as Baskotarstan. I have also slightly the edited the document for English style. The Centers for Apologetics Research Post Office Box 1196 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693 USA tel. (949) 364-2435 / fax (949) 364-7266