Source: www.forum18.org
Date: December 19, 2023
https://www.forum18.org/archiv
By Victoria Arnold, Forum 18
Military officials have denied four young Baptist men in Siberia and the
Far East the opportunity to carry out alternative civilian service, rather
than military service, despite their efforts to demonstrate their pacifist
religious convictions to the military authorities. All had applied for
alternative civilian service.
As of mid-December, only one – Timofey Reznichenko from Primorye Region
– has successfully challenged this refusal in court, thus gaining the
right to have his application re-examined (see below).
Brothers Daniil and German Strelkov, from Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region,
failed in their attempts to have their refusals ruled unlawful in court and
are now preparing to appeal. "Faith forbids him to take up arms, kill, or
take oaths," a witness in Daniil's case told the court. In German's case,
his father testified that he "is a deeply religious person and will not
take up arms or take an oath, as this is prohibited by [his] religion" (see
below).
Krasnoyarsk Region courts twice declined to uphold Zakhar Asmalovsky's
lawsuit against the military authorities, meaning he will now be subject to
conscription in the future (see below).
A higher-level Conscription Commission in Kemerovo Region granted a fifth
Baptist, Sergey Myalik, the right to undertake alternative service after
his initial application was rejected at the district level (see below).
Khanty-Mansiysk Military Commissariat and Khanty-Mansiysk District Court
did not answer Forum 18's questions as to why exactly Daniil and German had
been denied the opportunity to do alternative civilian service, and what
else they should have included in their applications. The Court said only
that anyone disagreeing with a court decision can appeal. Forum 18 received
no response from the Military Commissariat (see below).
The Conscription Commissions in Asmalovsky's and Myalik's cases similarly
failed to respond to Forum 18's questions as to why they had refused the
applications for alternative service (see below).
According to the Council of Churches Baptists, all five young men are
members of the church, which has a strong pacifist tradition. While the
church does not formally oppose the undertaking of military service, when
Baptist conscripts apply for alternative civilian service, church
communities tend to support them in collating documents for the
Conscription Commission and going to court if refused (see below).
All Russian men must carry out military service for 12 months between the
ages of 18 and 27, after which they are enrolled in the reserves (and
thereby become subject to mobilisation – as occurred in the autumn of
2022). It is possible to gain exemption on medical grounds, or deferrals
for medical or educational reasons and in certain family situations.
Conscripts also have the right, enshrined in the Russian Constitution, "to
replace [military service] with alternative civilian service", and instead
work in a state or municipal institution, or in a civilian role in the
armed forces, for a longer period (see below).
As yet, the explicit right to alternative civilian service exists only for
conscripts, with no equivalent provided for in law for mobilised men
(although some have been able to avoid mobilisation to fight in Ukraine by
applying for ACS anyway).
Despite the Constitution setting out the right to ACS, this is not
unconditional. Conscripts must demonstrate to Conscription Commissions that
they have well-founded and strongly held beliefs which preclude their
performing military service (see below). If a Conscription Commission does
not accept that a conscript genuinely holds such beliefs, then it can
refuse his application.
Russian and international human rights bodies have argued that such
procedures are often not carried out fairly or independently, with military
officials putting undue pressure on ACS applicants, and decisions being
largely taken by military commissars, despite Conscription Commissions
being ostensibly independent organs chaired by local civilian officials.
Alternative civilian service: The law
Article 59 Part 3 of the Constitution states: "A citizen of the Russian
Federation, if the performance of military service contradicts his beliefs
or religion, as well as in other cases established by federal law, has the
right to replace it with alternative civilian service".
Under Russian law, the Constitution takes priority over all other
legislation, but the right to alternative service is not absolute, despite
the absence of any conditions in Article 59.
The 2002 Law on Alternative Civilian Service sets out the procedures of
applying for, granting, and carrying out ACS. According to Article 2, a man
has the right to replace military service by conscription with alternative
civilian service if: "performing military service is contrary to his
beliefs or religion"; or "he belongs to the indigenous people of the
Russian Federation, leads a traditional way of life, carries out
traditional economic activities and is engaged in traditional crafts of the
indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation".
To exercise this right, however, an individual must submit an application
to be considered by the Conscription Commission (a nominally independent
body comprising representatives of the local civilian authorities and
Military Commissariat), which decides to accept or refuse it. If
successful, the applicant undergoes a medical examination and is then
assigned to work at a state or municipal institution (for 21 months) or in
a civilian role in the armed forces (for 18 months), usually (though not
always) outside his home region.
Possible ACS deployments in 2023 included both skilled and unskilled jobs
in - among others – Culture Ministry and Agriculture Ministry
organisations, hospitals and polyclinics, nursing homes, and educational
institutions. Members of indigenous groups may be assigned to organisations
employed in traditional economic activities.
Only small numbers of those called up each year undertake ACS. Lawyer
Sergey Chugunov noted on his Telegram channel on 3 May 2023 that as of 1
February 2022, 1,138 people were in the process of doing ACS, while the
total number of young men called up in the autumn conscription in 2021 was
127,500.
Both conscripts who do military service and those who do ACS are enrolled
in the reserves upon completion, rendering them liable to call-up in the
event of mobilisation. Several individuals who served in the army as
conscripts, but who did not want to fight in Ukraine on grounds of their
religious beliefs, have found themselves assigned to military units anyway,
given the lack of provision for ACS for reservists
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
challenge their mobilisation in court, with little success.
Only one person who refused call-up on religious grounds, Protestant Pavel
Mushumansky, is known to have had his mobilisation ruled unlawful
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
On 1 January 2024, an amendment to the Law on Military Service will come
into force which raises the upper age limit for conscription from 27 to 30,
thus creating a much larger pool of potential draftees. The lower limit
will remain at 18, despite earlier proposals to raise it to 21. Men who
turn 27 before the end of 2023 (and have not yet done military – or
alternative – service) will not be liable to be called up, the State Duma
noted on its website on 25 July.
Alternative civilian service: The procedure
Article 11 of the Law on ACS states that an individual must submit an
application to the Military Commissariat at which he is registered, before
1 April for that year's autumn call-up (October to December) or before 1
October for the following year's spring call-up (April to June).
The process of granting the replacement of military service with ACS takes
place in one call-up period (when a Conscription Commission considers an
application), while actually going to do ACS takes place in the next (when
the Military Commissariat issues orders for an individual to work at a
particular organisation).
ACS is not granted simply upon request. According to the law, "Citizens who
have expressed a desire to replace conscripted military service with
alternative civilian service must substantiate [their claim] that military
service is contrary to their beliefs or religion", and set out "the reasons
and circumstances [prichiny i obstoyatelstva] that prompted [them] to apply
for this".
In his application, an individual must include an autobiography and a
reference from his place of work or study. He also has the right to include
other documents which back up his request, and to give details of "persons
who agree to confirm the veracity of his arguments that military service
contradicts his beliefs or religion".
A Constitutional Court decree of 23 November 1999 states that the right to
ACS "is a directly valid, and specifically individual, right, i.e.
associated with freedom of religion in its individual rather than
collective aspect, and therefore must be ensured regardless of whether or
not a citizen is a member of any religious organisation".
A Conscription Commission – which consists of a mix of civilian officials
from the local administration and military staff from the Military
Commissariat – considers each application at a meeting to which the young
man himself is summoned to make his case for being allowed to do
alternative service. According to Article 12 of the Law on ACS, the
commission bases its decision on testimony given at the meeting by the
applicant himself and the people who have agreed to make supporting
statements, as well as the materials he has submitted.
A decision must be issued within one month of the application deadline and
a copy sent to the applicant within three days of its being taken.
Alternative civilian service: Refusals
The Conscription Commission may refuse an application on certain grounds:
a) if the deadline is missed or the procedure incorrectly followed; b) if
the submitted documents and other information "are not in accordance with
the citizen's arguments that military service is contrary to his beliefs or
religion"; c) if the submitted information is false; d) if the individual
has twice failed to appear at meetings of the Conscription Commission; e)
if an individual has previously been granted ACS and has failed to do it.
The Constitutional Court ruled on 17 October 2006, however, that a missed
deadline should not be grounds for outright refusal to consider a request
for ACS on its merits (see below).
A Conscription Commission's conclusion that an individual's submitted
information does not back up his professed beliefs is the second most
common reason for applications to be refused, according to the Movement of
Conscientious Objectors (https://stoparmy.org/) (after missed deadlines).
"The [Conscription Commission's] position is usually not that the citizen
has no beliefs at all that preclude the undertaking of military service ..
rather, [it] considers that everything stated by the conscript is not
beliefs, but delusions and so on", the Movement observes on its website.
"The lack of an independent civil decision-making body [is] a significant
concern", the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection
(https://ebco-beoc.org/) notes on its website. It points out that while
Conscription Commissions are chaired by the head or deputy head of a
municipality, the deputy chair is a military commissar, and "in practice",
the commission's work is largely done by the Military Commissariat and is
not under the control of the civilian chair.
Civilian officials on Conscription Commissions "are poorly oriented in the
legislation in the field of conscription and conscientious objection and
fully rely on the opinion of the military commissar and other employees of
the Military Commissariat", the Bureau observes. "In practice, the
[Conscription Commission] is dependent on the Military Commissariat and
cannot take impartial decisions. Military officials also "put pressure on
recruits, telling them that asking for civilian service is unlawful".
There is no clear official indication of what constitutes "reasons and
circumstances", or how to "give a basis for" [obosnovat] their beliefs,
Forum 18 notes. This leaves a grey area in which Conscription Commissions
may dismiss applications under pressure from military officials, or
applicants may not amass "enough" material to convince commission members
of their convictions.
The right to ACS is "becoming increasingly difficult to exercise", lawyer
Sergey Chugunov commented on his Telegram channel on 3 May
(https://t.me/chugunovsv/172).
"Alarming news is coming from different regions of the country that
citizens are being denied ACS for a variety of reasons," Chugunov noted.
"Some for missing the deadline for filing an application, which is not an
absolute basis for restricting the right. Others because of a lack of
evidence for beliefs, which does not correspond to either the law or common
sense. And I get the impression that these are far from ‘excesses on the
ground'."
"Refusals, in my opinion, in most cases are not justified," Chugunov added
to Forum 18 on 19 December. "[Conscription commissions] require proof of
belief, but this is the wrong approach. However, the courts are in no hurry
to correct the situation. The conscript must give a basis for [obosnovat]
the contradiction of military service with his beliefs, but not prove
[dokazyvat] their existence. This is impossible."
It is unclear from the court decisions in the five Baptist cases examined
by Forum 18 whether the Conscription Commissions expected the applicants to
"prove" their beliefs – the emphasis instead appears to be on the alleged
insufficiency of documentation – but this tendency among Conscription
Commissions has been causing concern among conscripts' rights organisations
and lawyers.
The Call to Conscience Telegram channel noted on 22 September 2023 that
"Candidates for ACS should give a basis for [obosnovat] [their claim] that
doing military service goes against their beliefs or religion, but are not
obliged to prove [dokazyvat] it or convince the commission [ubezhdat
komissiyu]".
When Conscription Commissions refuse applications on these grounds, "all
the citizen's statements are considered not as a statement of his beliefs
that are contrary to military service, but something else (fear of the
army, declaration of a political position, distorted idea of the army,
etc., etc.)", the Movement of Conscientious Objectors observes.
Alternative civilian service: Going to court
If an applicant is unsuccessful, he can either appeal to a higher-level
Conscription Commission or file an administrative lawsuit at a
district-level court, requesting that the Conscription Commission's
decision be ruled unlawful.
Going to court means that the implementation of the Conscription
Commission's decision is suspended until the court's decision enters into
legal force. If a lawsuit is initially unsuccessful, the plaintiff has one
month to appeal, and the decision does not enter legal force before the
appeal ruling. It is therefore likely that the call-up period will end
before the lawsuit is resolved, meaning that the individual is not liable
to be conscripted immediately even if his legal challenge fails. He can
then make a new application for alternative service in the next call-up
period.
Strelkov brothers: Applications for ACS refused
In separate hearings on 27 November 2023, Judge Rinat Akhmetov of
Khanty-Mansiysk District Court refused to uphold the administrative
lawsuits which Daniil Aleksandrovich Strelkov and his brother German
Aleksandrovich Strelkov had brought against the Conscription Commission and
Military Commissariat which had denied their applications for alternative
service.
According to the written decisions in both suits, the brothers grew up in a
religious family and are members of a Council of Churches Baptist
congregation. Both had requested ACS on the grounds that their beliefs –
held "since childhood", according to their father – mean that they "will
not take up arms or take an oath".
Khanty-Mansiysk City Conscription Commission, however, decided that the
documents and other information each of them had submitted "do not
correspond to [his] arguments that military service is contrary to his
beliefs".
Judge Akhmetov agreed with this position, noting – with reference to a
Constitutional Court ruling of 24 June 2014 - that the right to ACS "does
not mean that a citizen is given an unconditional right to choose between
military service and alternative civilian service, or that a citizen's
negative idea of military service and his reluctance to perform [it] gives
him the right to replace it with alternative civilian service".
The court did not, however, include in its consideration of the lawsuits
all the petitions and information the Strelkovs had submitted, the
Intercession Department of the Council of Churches Baptists' Siberian Union
noted on its Telegram channel on 4 December. "We plan to appeal against the
court decision to the Supreme Court," the Department stated, "pointing out
the legal actions and rights of our young brothers."
In his application, Daniil Strelkov stated that he is a Baptist Christian,
which "precludes doing military service". He said he has held these views
for a long time, that he attends a Baptist church, and that he "refuses to
bear arms or study military matters". He included an autobiography as
required, as well as an appeal [obrashchenie] from parishioners of his
church, a testimonial [svidetelstvo] from four fellow believers, and
petitions [khodataystva] from his mother and father.
In court, a witness (whose name is redacted in the published decision but
appears to be one of the brothers' parents) testified that Daniil "was
raised as a Christian", and that "Faith forbids him to take up arms, kill,
or take oaths".
German Strelkov made similar arguments in his ACS application and his
lawsuit. At his hearing, his father testified that German had been
baptised, has been a believer "since childhood", is a member of the church,
and "is a deeply religious person and will not take up arms or take an
oath, as this is prohibited by [his] religion".
In examining both suits, Judge Akhmetov decided that "it does not
objectively follow [from the information presented] and cannot be seen that
Strelkov in fact has strong beliefs, confirmed in his lifestyle and the
nature of his social behaviour over a significant period of time, which
preclude military service. The attached documents do not contain
information substantiating the formation of sincere and deep convictions in
the applicant which make it impossible for the [him] to perform military
service".
"A citizen who refuses to undergo conscripted military service, justifying
the need to exercise [the right to ACS] by the existence of a certain kind
of belief, must submit to the Conscription Commission for consideration
information confirming that his beliefs are indeed serious, persistent and
well-founded, established over a long period in the conscript's life", the
judge continued, concluding that neither Daniil nor German Strelkov had
done this.
Judge Akhmetov also noted in each decision that "before submitting to the
Military Commissariat his application to replace conscripted military
service with alternative civilian service", neither Daniil nor German
declared "that he had any beliefs that prevented him from performing
military service". It is unclear what exactly this means or how, when, and
to whom they were supposed to make such a declaration.
Forum 18 wrote to Khanty-Mansiysk Military Commissariat and Khanty-Mansiysk
District Court to ask why exactly Daniil and German had been denied the
opportunity to do alternative civilian service, and what else they should
have included in their applications.
Court chair Vladislav Gavrish responded on 18 December, stating that in
case of disagreement with the content or process of the judges' decisions,
interested parties can appeal to the Court of Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous
Region. He did not answer Forum 18's questions.
Forum 18 had received no response from the Military Commissariat by the end
of the working day of 19 December.
Asmalovsky: "Mere fact he is a believer no basis for ACS"
Conscription Commissions are known to have recently refused the ACS
applications of two more members of the Council of Churches Baptists.
Zakhar Igoryevich Asmalovsky failed to have this decision ruled unlawful
either in his initial lawsuit at Berezovka District Court on 7 September or
his appeal to Krasnoyarsk Regional Court on 23 November. The judge
concluded that neither Asmalovsky's autobiography nor the reference from
his place of study "indicates that [his] beliefs and religion preclude
conscripted military service" and "the mere fact that he is a believer and
attends church cannot serve as an unconditional basis for replacing his
military service with alternative civilian service".
Asmalovsky, who did not appear in court (it is unclear why not), will now
be liable for conscription again in the spring call-up of 2024, but has the
right to submit another application for ACS if necessary.
"Brother Zakhar continues to defend his convictions both at the
Conscription Commission and in the courts in order to gain the right to
undergo ACS. However, he has not yet been successful," the Intercession
Department of the Council of Churches Baptists' Siberian Union commented on
its Telegram channel on 4 December. "We plan to appeal the decision of the
Conscription Commission and the court decisions to the Supreme Court."
Forum 18 wrote to Berezovka District Conscription Commission to ask why it
had (initially) refused Asmalovsky's application. Forum 18 had received no
response by the end of the working day of 19 December. Berezovka District
Court has also not responded to Forum 18's questions.
Myalik: ACS granted on second attempt
Council of Churches Baptist Sergey Myalik, meanwhile, first appeared before
a Conscription Commission in Novokuznetsk (Kemerovo Region) on 27 November,
when his application for alternative service was also refused. The church
supported him in preparing "a new package of documents" and he successfully
applied to a higher-level commission on 4 December.
Forum 18 wrote to Novokuznetsk Conscription Commission to ask why it had
(initially) refused Myalik's application. Forum 18 had received no
responses by the end of the working day of 19 December.
Reznichenko: Application for ACS rejected without consideration
A Conscription Commission may also decline to grant an individual the right
to alternative civilian service if he misses the deadline (1 April for the
autumn call-up, 1 October for the spring call-up). Despite the fact that,
according to a Constitutional Court ruling of 17 October 2006, a missed
deadline should not be grounds for refusal to consider a request for ACS on
its merits, this remains the most common reason for unsuccessful
applications, the Movement of Conscientious Objectors has found.
On 28 November 2023, Khasan District Court ruled that Khasan Municipal
District Conscription Commission and Primorye Region Military
Commissariat's rejection of Timofey Reznichenko's apparently late ACS
application was unlawful, and obliged them to convene a meeting of the
Conscription Commission to consider his request. It is unknown when this
will take place.
Timofey Yuryevich Reznichenko was brought up in a large Baptist family in
the Primorye Region village of Zarubino. His older brother, Vyacheslav,
refused on grounds of his religious beliefs to be deployed to fight in
Ukraine when he was mobilised as a reservist in September 2022. Vyacheslav
is now serving a sentence of two years and six months
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
colony-settlement, having been convicted of refusing to participate in
military operations (Criminal Code Article 332, Part 2.1).
Vyacheslav Reznichenko is one of four men known to be jailed
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
on religious grounds to go to fight in Ukraine.
According to the written decision, seen by Forum 18, Timofey Reznichenko
explained in court that he is a believer, and had initially applied for
alternative civilian service on 29 September 2022 on grounds of his
religious beliefs.
In response, Khasan District Military Commissariat informed Reznichenko in
a letter of 5 October 2022 that he was registered as "partially fit for
military service", and was therefore subject to Article 3, Paragraph 2 of
the Law on Alternative Civilian Service. This states that citizens not
subject to conscription [for medical reasons] are not sent to do ACS
either.
During the spring call-up of 2023, the letter continued, Reznichenko would
be given a medical examination and "a decision would be made on assignment
to alternative civilian service or exemption from conscription for military
service in accordance with the current legislation of the Russian
Federation".
Reznichenko received no summons to a Conscription Commission meeting or
medical examination during the spring call-up, and so submitted another
application on 4 October 2023, noting his previous attempt and reiterating
his request for ACS. The Conscription Commission turned this down on 9
November.
The Conscription Commission stated to the court that Reznichenko's first
application had not been considered in spring 2023 "due to his failure to
provide the [apparently non-existent] conclusion of the medical board".
After the spring call-up ended, they considered this application invalid.
His second application was not considered because he had missed the autumn
deadline by three days.
The judge, however, concluded that, by law, the Conscription Commission in
fact should have considered Reznichenko's September 2022 request in the
spring 2023 call-up, and having failed to do this, should have considered
it in the autumn. The 2006 Constitutional Court ruling also indicated that
missing the autumn deadline was no grounds for outright refusal.
The actions of the Conscription Commission and Military Commissariat were
therefore "unfounded in law, violating the rights, freedoms, and legitimate
interests of the administrative plaintiff". (END)
More reports on freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Russia
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
For background information, see Forum 18's survey of the general state of
freedom of religion and belief in Russia
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
18's survey of the dramatic decline in this freedom related to Russia's
Extremism Law (https://www.forum18.org/archi
A personal commentary by the then Director of the SOVA Center for
Information and Analysis (https://www.sova-center.ru), Alexander
Verkhovsky, about the systemic problems of Russian "anti-extremism" laws
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Forum 18's compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in
Europe (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments
(https://www.forum18.org/archi
Follow us on Twitter @Forum_18 (https://twitter.com/forum_18)
Follow us on Facebook @Forum18NewsService
(https://www.facebook.com/Foru
Follow us on Telegram @Forum18NewsService
(https://t.me/s/forum18newsser
All Forum 18 material may be referred to, quoted from, or republished in
full, if Forum 18 is credited as the source.
All photographs that are not Forum 18's copyright are attributed to the
copyright owner. If you reuse any photographs from Forum 18's website, you
must seek permission for any reuse from the copyright owner or abide by the
copyright terms the copyright owner has chosen.
© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855.