Herman Alyotkin
Editor’s note: The present article is translated from the Russian by Johan Maurer, Moscow Friends Meeting. For earlier articles on this subject see Lawrence Klippenstein, “Conscientious Objectors in Eastern Europe through 1989,” East-West Church & Ministry Report 11 (Summer 2003): 3-5; and Katy Morrow Stigers and Mark R. Elliott, “Conscientious Objection in Post-Soviet States,” East-West Church & Ministry Report 11 (Summer 2003): 6-10; www. eastwestreport.org. See also “On the Implementation of the Right to Conscientious Objection to Military Service in Russia in 2002-2012,” “Citizen, Army, Law” Human Rights Group; http://nis-army.org.
Provisions of International Conventions and the Russian Constitution
The wave of democratic reforms linked with Mikhail Gorbachev’s policy of perestroika permitted the issue of legal conscientious objection to military service to be given serious consideration at the state level. Among other factors, the requirements of international standards played a role. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, recognizes each person’s right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion (Art. 18), as well as freedom of opinion and expression and freedom to hold opinions without interference (Art. 19). The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is also included in the European Convention on Human Rights (Art. 9) and in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Art. 18).
In 1990, the Presidium of the U.S.S.R. Supreme Soviet established a special commission to draft legislation on “non-military service.” This decision was, in fact, the first official recognition of the question of “conscientious objectors” in the U.S.S.R. This major success began a public movement to protect objectors’ rights. A bill to this effect was prepared and submitted to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. on 5 May 1991, but the Soviet Union collapsed before legislative action on the bill could be taken. In 1993, the new Constitution of the Russian Federation confirmed the right of conscientious objection in Art. 59. However, despite a decline in prosecutions, the situation for objectors remained problematic.
Court Sentences for Refusal of Military Service
Unfortunately, data provided by the General Staff’s Mobilization Directorate showed that draft boards ignored every fourth application for conscientious objection, ending with young people being forcibly sent to the army. Criminal courts indicted one objector out of every 20.
- Lev Sobolev, a Jehovah’s Witness in Vologda, was sentenced twice under Article 80 of the Criminal Code — first a 1.5-year suspended sentence, then a year in prison. A month later he was released on appeal.
- Ivan Mamankov, a member of a True Orthodox Church congregation, Voronezh Region, was sentenced to two years in prison under Art. 80 of the Criminal Code.
- Vitali Nechaev, a Jehovah’s Witness from Moscow, was sentenced in June 1996 to two years’ imprisonment.
- Uvanchaa Dozur-ool Mongushevich, a soldier and a novice at the Buddhist monastery in Tuva, was arrested in May 1996 on charges of desertion after having been severely beaten. Both his legs were broken. Both before and after induction he repeatedly asserted his refusal of military service on religious grounds, as was acknowledged by the chief military prosecutor’s office. On 28 March 1996, the military prosecutor in St. Petersburg decided to drop the case on grounds of “changed circumstances.”
- Vadim Hesse, Noginsk, Moscow Region, told his draft board in December 1995 that he wished to perform alternative civilian service, but instead received a summons to appear for induction into a military unit. Not having complied, he was arrested on 25 January 1996, was held in prison for 40 days, and was released on 5 March of that year on bail following the intervention of Amnesty International, the Transnational Radical Party, and a press campaign. On 13 May 1996, he was acquitted by Noginsk City Court for lack of evidence.
- Alexander Seregin of Moscow, a follower of the Hare Krishna movement (ISKCON), informed his draft board of his claim of conscientious objection in the spring of 1996, requesting alternative service. When he refused to obey the induction notice, his case was referred to the criminal courts. On 24 October 1996, the Cheryomushki District Court sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment. On 24 December 1996, the Moscow City Court overturned the verdict on appeal and acquitted Seregin for lack of evidence of a crime.
Alternative Service Legislation
As the above cases suggest, for decades the lack of implementing legislation created serious difficulties for those trying to claim their constitutional rights. The State Duma worked on several versions of a law on conscientious objection, as human rights groups actively lobbied legislators. Finally, initiatives at the local level served as an impetus for the adoption of a law. In some places, experiments in introducing alternative service were nongovernmental, but in Nizhny Novgorod, under the influence of human rights defenders, the city mayor took the pioneering step of forming a draft board with minimal participation by the military. This draft board formally decided to refer several conscripts for alternative service. The national implementing legislation was finally passed in 2002 and came into force in 2004.
Alternative Service Cases
2004 was a peak year for alternative service cases, caused by the accumulation of alternative service applications awaiting resolution. After 2004 the annual number of alternative service referrals fell to 400 persons a year. However, their numbers have gradually been growing — at the present time about 700-800 people a year. Of course, this is a very small number compared to the annual call-up totals of 300,000. The slowness of this growth in alternative service applications can be attributed to the negative propaganda of government officials, attitudes in the media, lack of access to information, and general passivity within the larger population. When facing the question of national service, most choose the army under the influence of one-sided propaganda.
Alternative Service Demographics
Among those who choose alternative service, about 80 percent are motivated by religious reasons. Most prominent are Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventhday Adventists, Pentecostals, and Baptists, with some parishioners of the Russian Orthodox Church as well. Russia’s Supreme Court has taken the position that only the applicant’s own convictions and faith can be taken into consideration, not the religious tenets of the church to which he belongs. This allows Russian Orthodox parishioners to choose alternative service, even though the Church itself urges its members to choose military service. This Supreme Court position also accommodates members of various Protestant churches that leave the choice between military and alternative service up to its individual adherents. Encouragingly, the Constitution’s own text permits a broad interpretation of conscientious objection. For example, Muslims can refuse to perform military service not simply because they are pacifists, but because it is difficult to observe the full obligations of Islam in the army. The Ulema Council of Russia’s Dagestan Republic has recorded this interpretation in the form of a fatwa. In addition, about 15 percent of objectors refuse military service on ethical or philosophical grounds. Here we find a variety of pacifist movements — Tolstoyans, vegans, anarchists, and so on. About five percent are indigenous peoples. Their right to alternative service is not connected to issues of conscience, but rather on the condition of belonging to an indigenous people pursuing their customary crafts and trades.
It is difficult to assess how much freedom conscripts have to choose alternative service. Furthermore, the situation varies from region to region. The presence of human rights organizations, the collective strength of a particular church, the attitudes of local government officials and military representatives toward alternative service — all of these factors can influence the situation faced by conscripts in any given region. According to reports from the federal agency responsible for alternative service, the Federal Labor and Employment Service, very few applicants are rejected. However, these reports primarily use data from the Ministry of Defense, under whose authority the local draft boards operate. And serious discrepancies emerge when data from religious groups and human rights organizations are compared with official data. For example, according to official statistics, 85 percent of applications for alternative civilian service were granted in 2009. But according to data from human rights workers in St. Petersburg who tracked the autumn 2009 call-up, authorities approved only 18 percent of alternative service applications. The majority of refusals reportedly involved non-religious applicants or missed deadlines.
Statistical Discrepancies
However, belonging to a religious organization does not guarantee anything. From recent examples: during the autumn 2014 conscription in Saransk, a Jehovah’s Witness was refused alternative service by the draft board and at two levels of appeal in court. The court assessed the religious basis of his application as not genuine. The applicant was preserved from military service simply by the fact that his obligation expired during the time it took to complete the legal process. At the same time, it is not necessarily safe for a religious organization to disseminate information on alternative service. In 2009, the prosecutor’s office of the Rostov Region initiated a lawsuit to ban the activities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog. One reason cited in the lawsuit was Jehovah’s Witnesses’ “call to their members to refuse to fulfill their civic duty to vote in elections and serve in the army.”
The European Court of Human Rights
The problem consists not only of denying citizens the right to alternative service, but also passing them on directly to the army. In April 2016 Adventists Vladimir and Dmitry Salnikov filed a complaint with the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on the denial of alternative civilian service and subsequent conscription. The Salnikovs notified the draft board at Saransk about their religious beliefs and requested alternative civilian service, but they were refused, and instead received draft notices. They refused to take the oath and accept weapons, but were then denied the opportunity to participate in their Sabbath services. Given their Adventist dietary restrictions, they were inadequately fed. Alexander Peredruk of the human rights organization Soldiers’ Mothers of St. Petersburg defended their interests. According to Peredruk, the Salnikovs’ case is the first of its kind from Russia to the ECHR: the brothers stated their religious convictions but were ignored and instead forced into the army under threat of criminal prosecution. In this way, the brothers were forced to act against their religious views, as their lawyer stressed. Unfortunately, it is difficult to file an appeal to the ECHR; it is difficult even to file a lawsuit in the local system. The Code of Administrative Procedure adopted in 2015 stipulates that only a fully qualified jurist can represent a conscript’s interests in court, but human rights and religious organizations cannot always engage someone who meets this qualification. The conscripts themselves do not have the necessary skills for the courtroom. And then, in order to forward a case to the ECHR, it is necessary to go through several appellate levels in one’s own country before finding a lawyer who can prepare the ECHR appeal.
In September 2014, a conscript from Murmansk, Sergei Halkin, applied for alternative service, explaining that military actions in eastern Ukraine caused him to rethink his attitudes, adopt pacifism, and reject military service. After the draft board rejected his application because he missed the deadline, Halkin appeared in court, only to have his application rejected there as well. When the Murmansk Regional Court also rejected his appeal, he turned to the ECHR on the basis that he had exhausted all avenues of appeal within Russia. In March 2015, during the spring draft, he once again applied for alternative service, and once again was rejected due to failure to comply with deadlines. The trial court once again supported the draft board.
Difficult Appeal Procedures
The problem is that the law suspends the induction process only during the appeal to the courts of first and second instance. After that, refusal to enter the military can lead to criminal prosecution. In 2011, the Kirovsk and Apatity Draft Board (Murmansk Region) referred the case of Jehovah’s Witness conscript Nikita Konev to the Criminal Investigation Agency. Despite his alternative service claims, the court found him in violation of conscription requirements and ordered a fine of 130,000 rubles (about $3,700 at the time). The conscript paid the penalty, and again applied for alternative service. This time it was granted. It took Nikita four years to obtain his rights. The case of conscript Evgenii Plakhutina of Voronezh had a more positive outcome. Despite his application for alternative service, he was prosecuted for draft evasion. On 10 November 2014, the court found him not guilty. Again he applied for alternative service in place of military service.
In 2013, already at the age of 17, Roman Fedotov of Blorechensk applied for alternative service. When he reached 18, he appeared before the draft board, which ordered him to submit to an induction physical. He refused. The draft board forwarded his file to the Criminal Investigation Committee, which opened a criminal case against him. The court found him guilty of draft evasion, but immediately pardoned him. The conscript is continuing his fight for the right to perform alternative service.
A conscript from Tiumen Oblast was drafted on 10 October 2014, despite the fact that he had submitted a request for alternative service the previous December. His request lacked the required autobiography. On this basis, as well as the fact that he had submitted his request early, the draft board refused to consider the substance of his application. Their decision to draft him and their refusal to consider his alternative service application formed the basis of a court appeal. On 16 December 2014, the court found the induction order invalid and required the draft board to review the application for alternative service.
Problematic Alternative Service Assignments
In their report for the years 2013-2015, human rights activists who are monitoring the provision of alternative service recorded 20 violations. In the past, another problem existed in implementing alternative service, a problem that has almost disappeared, but could reappear in the future. This concerns the civilian character of alternative service that is actually performed in organizations subordinated to the military or involved in the implementation of military orders. After the adoption of the alternative service law, many alternative service workers were sent to the Federal Agency for Special Construction, a unit of the Ministry of Defense. Although at the time it was mainly engaged in ordinary civil engineering projects, it was a paramilitary agency, and its managers had military ranks.
Conscripts were also sent to Ministry of Defense farms and to factories filling defense orders. For example, a long-running conflict in Kazan between alternative service workers and their managers concerned their placement in an explosives factory. The alternative service workers demanded jobs not connected with producing military ordnance. The conflict was resolved only after like-minded people all over the world sent letters of support. These kinds of conflicts over failure of the system to reassign alternative service workers often resulted in their leaving their workplaces without permission, leading to criminal charges. Since the penalty for leaving these assignments does not involve imprisonment, no major public controversies have ensued. Even so, the system’s managers have tried to take religious affiliation into account when making assignments. Unfortunately, the religious education of bureaucrats is often rather weak, resulting in further conflicts, as for example when a Jehovah’s Witness is assigned to a blood transfusion unit.
Some other conflicts have been resolved in the normal course of events—special construction and military farms being removed from the list of alternative service options, for example. On the other hand, direct military institutions are starting to appear on the list. In 2016, the Naval Academy and the Army Orchestra appeared on the list of employers accepting alternative service workers. In general, alternative civilian service as an institution is continuing to develop without the support of the authorities, or rather, despite their indifference, or even their resistance.
Herman Alyotkin is chairman of “For Our Sons,” an organization of conscripts’ parents in Kazan, Tatarstan, Russian Federation, working to defend the human rights of draftees.