| July 17, 2017,Minimize | |
|---|---|
| 09:30 |
Over the Moscow area Arbat, where the Supreme Court of Russia is located, dark clouds are walking. A large group of citizens gathered at the entrance to the court building, their number is approaching 150. Those at the beginning of the line came to the entrance at 4 am. Noticeable journalists, armed with shooting equipment. The Moscow police provides public order.
|
| 10am | For the hearing, the largest meeting room is again provided. On the faces of the workers of the court there is a solemn expression, everyone is trying to perform their duties impeccably. A low hum is heard in the hall. |
| 10:05 |
There is a foreign speech in the courtroom: there are quite a few foreign observers, most of them represent organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in different countries. Also there are observers who arrived at the courthouse on cars with diplomatic numbers.
|
| 10:40 |
The place of the administrative plaintiff is still empty. On the part of the administrative defendant – a representative of the religious organization Vasily Mikhailovich Kalin, lawyers Viktor Zhenkov and Anton Omelchenko, lawyer Maxim Novakov.
|
| 10:50 | Journalists of Russian mass media work in the courtroom, bending over tablets. The place of the administrative plaintiff is Svetlana Konstantinovna Borisova, who represented the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in the court of first instance. |
| 11:10 am |
Silence reigned in the hall, the parties and observers are waiting for the appearance of the judges. |
| 11:11 | The courtroom includes judges who will listen to the case. By announcing the case, they determine who represents the parties. In addition to Kalina, Zhenkov, Omelchenko and Novakov, the lawyer Yury Toporov represents the side of the administrative defendant. The members of the judiciary are Judges Manohina Galina Vladimirovna (Chairman), Zaitsev Vladimir Y. and Popov Vladimir Valentinovich. Neither of the parties has a reason to claim to one of the judges a challenge. |
| 11:17 | After the introductory words, the lawyer Omelchenko declares a petition to postpone the consideration of this case until a decision is made on numerous private complaints that are accepted for execution by the Appeals Chamber of the Supreme Court. The lawyer explains that the court’s decision of April 20 filed numerous complaints of individuals who in detail justified that their rights and interests had been affected by the decision, and therefore they had to be involved in the case. The fact that they did not have the opportunity to participate in the case, in itself, indicates that the decision should be automatically revoked. However, all these complaints were returned without any analysis of the arguments cited. The court only reported that “the disputed judicial act did not resolve the issue of their rights and obligations.” In response, citizens filed private complaints, but contrary to all logic, the court intends to consider them after the final decision on the case has been rendered. That is why the lawyer asks to postpone the hearing until the full composition of the participants in the proceedings has been determined on the appellate appeal of the decision. |
| 11:22 | Lawyer Omelchenko declares a petition for interrogation as witnesses of rehabilitated citizens from among Jehovah’s Witnesses. The trial court refused to question them. Contrary to its promise, the court did not properly investigate the circumstances of political repression against Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, for example, ignored the question of what actions of state authorities have already been recognized as political repressions, and did not check whether these actions continue to be committed against the Witnesses Jehovah is now. |
| 11:28 |
Lawyer Omelchenko continues to intercede for the interrogation of witnesses Pavel Bezhenar and Anatoly Yasinsky.They are recognized victims of political repression as Jehovah’s Witnesses. They know that the prohibition of religious organizations causes severe and unjustified persecution of believers of this religion. Thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses lost their property in April 1951 and were expelled in freight cars from the western regions of the USSR to an eternal settlement in Siberia, later they were searched, confiscated, discriminated against and imprisoned only because they lived according to the Bible’s commandments. Bezhenar, for example, is aware of the information that in 1951 he and members of his family were deported from Moldova to the Tomsk region. Later he was twice convicted and spent 8 years in prison because he followed the commandments of Christ: “Return your sword to his place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword”. Due to discrimination, he had to change his place six times. In 1982, he faced a search and confiscation of religious literature. Recognizing these people as victims of political repression, the state condemned “the long-standing terror unleashed by the Bolshevik party-Soviet regime against priests and believers of all faiths,” and also committed itself to “seek real guarantees of law and human rights.” In fact, the state promised to do so that it did not happen again what they faced. |
| 11:31 | Representative Novakov makes a petition for interrogation of eyewitnesses of throws of extremist literature and other falsifications that were organized or used by law enforcement agencies, for those cases on which the Ministry of Justice bases its claim. Witnesses appeared in the courtroom and are ready to give testimony. |
| 11:40 | Novakov said that four witnesses appeared in the courtroom. The court, without making any determinations on the applications submitted, asks if there are any more motions. Novakov petitioned to call in the courtroom 53 more witnesses of fraud. |
| 11:45 | Lawyer Omelchenko declares an extensive petition to reclaim evidence from the courts, referred to by the Ministry of Justice, trying to prove “extremism” among Jehovah’s Witnesses. A similar petition was filed in the court of first instance, but the court refused to grant it. Therefore, the defendant asks the court of appeal, after all, to obtain from the courts those materials of Jehovah’s Witnesses who were considered “extremist”. After all, judgments in themselves do not have a prejudicial significance for this case, as the court of first instance admitted, because the Management Center did not participate in the examination. |
| 11:50 am | Lawyer Omelchenko recalls that the law obliges the court to directly investigate all the evidence. For example, given the gravity of the case for freedom of religion throughout the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court must directly examine the reasons for the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses to be extremist and whether these grounds are sufficient to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Justice of Russia. The court could make sure that in the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses there are no signs of inciting hatred or enmity as defined by the Plenum of the Supreme Court in its decision of June 28, 2011. No court has established another! (According to the Plenum, hate speech and enmity means statements that justify the need for genocide, repression, deportations, violence against members of a nation, race or religion.) As the Plenum emphasized, even criticism of religious beliefs or religious customs should not be viewed as extremism.) |
| 11:55 | Continuing to talk about the need to claim evidence, the lawyer recalls that, in accordance with the new reservation in the law on counteracting extremist activities, the Bible and quotations from it can not be recognized as extremist materials. Demanding evidence, the court can make sure that the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses is always based on the Bible, encourages people to love God and love their neighbors and strengthens faith in the Bible. This all means that the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses is recognized as “extremist” by misunderstanding and, in any case, can not serve as a basis for banning an entire religion with hundreds of thousands of adherents in Russia. |
| 11:59 | Not allowing the previous petitions, the court invites lawyer Zhenkov to read his petitions. |
| 12:00 noon | Zhenkov intercedes for interrogation of experts (religious scholars, linguists). In court of first instance, the court unreasonably denied this. Meanwhile, explanations of experts are necessary for the adoption of a legitimate and informed decision. Thus, a specialist in the field of religious studies could clarify the concepts specific to Christianity, which are used in the charter of a religious organization, and also how the stated goals and tasks of Jehovah’s Witnesses are realized by them in practice. What is important, the religious scholar could clarify whether the belief in the truth of his religion is peculiar only to Jehovah’s Witnesses or whether it is a characteristic feature of any religion. |
| 12:03 | The participation of a linguistic specialist is necessary because all accusations of extremism against Jehovah’s Witnesses are not taken from real life or established offenses, but are only taken from their liturgical texts. The analysis of texts is done by linguists. |
| 12:04 | Females declare one more petition – the inclusion of new evidence. We are talking about the events that took place after the decision of April 20 – acts of vandalism and other offenses provoked by the decision. These events are imprinted on the video, and Zhenkov intercedes for their viewing in the courtroom. |
| 12:07 | As there are no more petitions, the court suggests the representative of the Ministry of Justice to express his opinion. The representative of the Ministry of Justice objects to the adjournment of the hearing, against videotaping, against questioning of witnesses – citizens of victims of political repression. In addition, the Ministry of Justice against the questioning of witnesses of fraud, against the demand for evidence from the courts. The representative of the Ministry of Justice believes that the petitions are aimed at reviewing the court decisions that came into force, which, in his opinion, is unacceptable. The representative of the Ministry of Justice considers video with facts of violation of the rights of citizens an indisputable proof. |
| 12:15 | The court declares a break for the meeting on the petitions submitted. |
| 12:25 PM | Returning from the advisory room, the court refuses to satisfy all the applications submitted. |
| 12:30 | Judge Manohin begins to present the essence of the matter. |
| 12:45 | Outlining the arguments of the statement of claim, the defendant’s party’s position, the court retells the essence of the decision made on April 20, 2017. |
| 12:51 | The court proceeds to retell an appellate petition filed on behalf of a religious organization. |
 | 12:58 | Having finished the report, the court suggests the defendant’s side to give his explanations. The first advocate advocates Zhenkov. The first thesis is that the court in the decision did not specify evidence of the extremist activities of the Administrative Center. Femin leads an excerpt from the protocol of the court of first instance. The court: “How is it confirmed that the organization carried out extremist activity?”. The Ministry of Justice: “The religious organization has not taken any effective measures aimed at suppressing this activity …”. The court also asked the administrative plaintiff whether the adoption of insufficient measures, or even inaction, could be a sign of extremism? The Ministry of Justice with reference to the law was forced to admit – no, only intentional actions can be extremism. |
|---|---|
| 13:04 | Zhenkov: “If the Administrative Center did not commit extremist actions, then we were asked by a representative of the Ministry of Justice in court: have each of the 395 local religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia committed extremist acts? The Ministry of Justice replied that only 10 of them have court decisions, and there are no other such data. The natural question: if it was not established in court that the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and at least 385 local religious organizations committed some extremist actions, why did the court recognize them as extremist and liquidate? “ |
| 13:08 |
From the record of the court session it follows that the court of first instance asked the plaintiff clear legal issues that are important for the proper resolution of the case. The court received replies that extremism is the concrete actions enumerated in the law, and that the Management Center and more than 300 local religious organizations did not do such actions. But the court decision in this case the court made somehow the exact opposite – to recognize all 396 organizations as extremist and liquidate them. “How come, dear court? Exclaims Zhenkov. “Do not you, like a college of judges, have to raise questions?” If there are no extremist actions, then why should they be considered extremist ?! “ |
| 13:10 |
Zhenkov gives an example. He says that in the court session we established that in the Crimea Jehovah’s Witnesses peacefully carried out their religious activities for dozens of years. Caught in Russia and carrying out Russian legislation, Jehovah’s Witnesses in Crimea were asked by the Ministry of Justice to register 22 of their local religious organizations. And the Ministry of Justice, recognizing the legality of their existence and the validity of their doctrine, in 2015 registered them. Thus, the state recognized that on the Crimean peninsula one can believe in God Jehovah, and therefore a religion called Jehovah’s Witnesses has the right to exist and act on a lawful basis. And what’s next? Less than two years later, without the establishment of signs of extremism in their actions, only on the instructions of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Russian Federation, the same Ministry of Justice, which registered them, appealed to the court demanding that they be recognized as extremist organizations and take all their property from them. And the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation even without the participation of these legal entities declared them extremist and liquidated, and also allowed them to take away all their property. “In this regard, questions arise simultaneously and legal, and universal,” says Zhenkov, “for what is the punishment for believers in the Crimea?” For what specific actions? The answers to these questions are not in the court’s decision. But can such a decision be legal? “ |
| 13:15 | The second thesis of Zhenkov is that the conclusions of the court of first instance do not correspond to the circumstances of the administrative case. For example, the court’s decision says: “According to the materials of the case, over the past seven years, facts of extremist activities of the Organization have been established annually in the manner prescribed by law …” However, the court has established the exact opposite. Lawyer Zhenkov: “The administrative plaintiff in court admitted that the actions of the Direction Center directly did not establish the facts of extremist activity, and the court wrote – established.” |
| 13:20 | The third thesis of Zhenkov: the court of first instance incorrectly determined the circumstances that are important for the administrative case. Zhenkov lists a number of examples. |
| 1:30 pm |
Zhenkov quotes an excerpt from the document of the Ministry of Justice: “Recognition of information materials of confessional identity of Jehovah’s Witnesses is extremist … confirms … the fact that there are in them impermissible ways, insulting from the point of view of the legislation of the Russian Federation, to express belief in the truth of their religious beliefs, and in this case not even in the truth of beliefs, But in interpreting the institutions contained in the Bible. “ This characteristic is not true. Zhenkov draws attention to the fact that the overwhelming majority of publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses were recognized as “extremist” 8 years ago. And at that time there was still no ruling No. 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, in which explanations were given that the courts should be understood as inciting hatred or enmity. Until 2011, some courts mistakenly believed that if the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses is named in literature as the only true one, then this is a sign of inciting hatred, since this is an insult to other religions. And if in the literature of Jehovah’s Witnesses it is said that the Trinity is not a biblical teaching, then such an interpretation of the Bible, especially in the opinion of some judges, aroused hatred. But this was until 2011, until the Supreme Court explained that criticism of religious associations, religious beliefs, religious customs should not be seen as an act aimed at inciting hatred or enmity. It took years for everyone to finally understand that to consider only their religion as true is not an extremism, but a norm for a believer. |
| 13:45 |
Zhenkov draws attention to the fact that the Management Center was denied participation in court cases on the recognition of printed materials as extremist. In some cases, believers do not even know, and for what reason this or that book is considered extremist, because the court considered that Jehovah’s Witnesses have nothing to do with it. The same position was consistently taken up by the Supreme Court of Russia, as a result of which the Administrative Center had no right to participate in the trial, nor to bring its arguments to the court, nor to appeal against the court’s decisions. And now, for some reason, the court of first instance applied the opposite approach.Now the court considers that on the basis of these decisions the Management Center can be liquidated. “Dear court,” says Zhenkov, “you have the opportunity to correct this injustice. It is important for the Supreme Court to be consistent, it is a model for all Russian courts. “ |
| 13:50 | The fourth thesis of Zhenkov is the disproportion of the court decision. Females cite an excerpt from the court’s decision: “Contrary to the arguments of the Organization’s objection, such interference is proportionate and necessary … since it ensures the elimination of violations of rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of an indefinite group of persons, a real threat of harm to the individual, public health, public order, public security, society And the state. “ |
| 13:52 | “But, dear Court, let’s turn to the facts and see who threatens and who harms whom,” says Zhenkov. “The court of first instance established that in 26 years of official activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, no damage was done either to the state , Nor morality in society. There are no acts of vandalism on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses, there is no violence. Yes there is violence, there are not even acts of protest! It turns out that the threat, which the court writes in its decision, is imaginary, far-fetched. If it was real, then for 26 years of official existence in Russia and for 100 years of unofficial, it would have come true. But the court’s decision does not contain any facts of harm from their activities. What kind of threat to society and the state can there be, if not so long ago, on May 31, 2017, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin in the Kremlin handed the Order of “Parental Glory” to the family of Jehovah’s Witnesses? “ |
| 13:55 | On the other hand, due to the decision of the court, the believers themselves are subject to a significant violation of their rights. Zhenkov gives various facts confirming this. For example, the facts of refusing to believers to replace military service with an alternative civilian service on the basis of a court decision. Concluding his speech, Zhenkov attached to the case copies of the protocols of draft commissions and summonses from the military commissariat. |
| 13:56 | The queue gives explanations to the representative Toporov. The first thesis of his speech is focused on Article 310 of the CAS RF, according to which “the decisions of the court of first instance are subject to unconditional cancellation if the court decides on the rights and obligations of persons not involved in administrative matters.” |
| 14:00 | The court decision eliminated the religious organization “Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia” and its local religious organizations. All these local religious organizations are clearly listed in the decision of the court of first instance, and this transfer takes half the text of the entire decision. However, 395 organizations were not involved in the trial. |
| 14:20 |
The conclusions of the court of first instance contradict all the long-standing judicial practice of considering cases against local religious organizations, Toporov said. As evidence, he cites the definition that the Supreme Court of Russia indicated in its decision of December 8, 2009: “The management center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and the local religious organization” Taganrog “Jehovah’s Witnesses are independent organizations, which is also confirmed by evidence accepted by the court of cassation, including the scheme on the structure of religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses” Taganrog “. The question of the rights and responsibilities of the Administrative Center of the Rostov Regional Court in the consideration of the above statement of the prosecutor of the Rostov region was not allowed, the decision of the Rostov Regional Court of September 11, 2009 was recognized as extremist and the local religious organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses “Taganrog” was liquidated. “ At the same time, this ruling of the court has a prejudicial significance for the present case, since it was rendered by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation with respect to the administrative respondent. It establishes the fact that the liquidation of a local religious association that was part of the structure of the Management Center does not affect the rights and obligations of the latter, since this local religious association and the Management Center are independent organizations. The Court of First Instance ignored this evidence, which led to its incorrect application of substantive law in making the decision. |
| 14:24 | The above argument supports the second thesis of Toporov: the court decision is subject to cancellation in connection with the incorrect application of substantive law. In trying to justify the recognition of the MRO by the structural subdivisions of the administrative defendant for whose actions he must answer, the court allowed the incorrect application of substantive law by applying laws that are not applicable, namely the laws “On political parties”, “On public associations”. The court gave an incorrect interpretation of the law “On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations”, “On Countering Extremist Activity”, CAS RF, including without taking into account the legal positions contained in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. |
| 14:32 | The third thesis of Toporov’s speech is that the court’s decision is subject to cancellation due to the lack of evidence of the circumstances established by the court of first instance. |
| 14:35 | As an example of the lack of evidence of the circumstances specified in the court’s decision, Toporov quotes an extract from the decision that the Management Center participated in financing MROs that are recognized as extremist. This fact is given in order to prove the extremist nature of the activities of the Management Center.However, the Ministry of Justice did not submit to the court (according to Toporov, intentionally!) The corresponding donation agreements and the decisions of the Management Center on donations, from which it follows that the donation of money to these organizations was carried out, first, several years before their recognition as extremist and, in the first place Second, for clearly defined purposes: construction of liturgical buildings, assistance to victims of natural disasters, payment of utility payments and fulfillment of other obligations to the state. All these contracts and decisions were transferred by the Management Center to the Ministry of Justice in the course of the audit that preceded the Ministry’s appeal to the court. |
| 14:45 | The explanations to the court are given by Novakov. And his first thought is that the circumstances referred to by the court related to the commission of administrative offenses do not have a prejudicial effect on the case. |
| 14:54 | Novakov shows the court a sequence of video surveillance personnel, clearly showing that extremist publications have been planted by Jehovah’s Witnesses. He brings to the court and other glaring facts, which testify to the falsification of evidence against Jehovah’s Witnesses in the regions of Russia. All these falsified cases are the basis of this case. |
| 15:10 | Novakov draws attention to paragraph 34 of Resolution No. 16 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 15, 2010. The Plenum explained that “the new facts” (that is, the facts discovered within 12 months after the warning was issued) can not recognize those violations that were detected after the warning was issued, but were admitted in materials distributed earlier than this warning. Novakov points out that the court of first instance did not give any assessment to the fact that, although these warnings were issued after March 2, 2016, but were announced in connection with the events “taking place” before the warning issued by the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Russian Federation in Voronezh, Snezhnogorsk, in Stavropol. |
| 15:24 | His explanation begins to give a lawyer Omelchenko. In response to the court’s request not to repeat the explanations of his colleagues, Omelchenko loudly and clearly declares her intention to focus on the violation of international law. |
| 15:25 | Omelchenko draws attention to the fact that there is a violation of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Art. 6 of the European Convention. |
| 15:29 | Omelchenko convincingly proves that the court also committed a violation of the prohibition of politically motivated prosecution, stemming from Art. 18 of the Convention, taken in conjunction with Art. Art. 9 and 6 of the Convention.The European Court of Human Rights in its ruling in the Merabishvili v. Georgia case points to the most obvious signs of political repression: when the state authorities unequivocally resist the repeated appeals of the applicant, the public and even some high-ranking government officials on an objective and thorough investigation, it can be argued that the To the applicant measures are not a means of lawful response to his behavior, but a means of political persecution. This is what happens with Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. |
| 15:35 | Omelchenko points out that there was a violation of the right to freedom of religion, speech and association guaranteed by art. Art. 9, 10, 11 of the Convention. For example, he drew attention to the requirement of international law that state intervention should be provided by law. In particular, the law must be specific, and its application is predictable. Omelchenko, according to the materials of this case, proves that the application of anti-extremist legislation to Jehovah’s Witnesses is vague and unpredictable. |
| 15:40 | International law requires that state intervention should pursue a legitimate aim, and also be necessary in a democratic society. Omelchenko draws attention to the fact that over 100 years of history there have not been any extremist manifestations on the part of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But after this decision a huge number of believers were subjected to groundless violation of their rights. |
| 15:45 | The representative of the Management Center Kalin supported the appeal and the explanations of lawyers. The representative of the Ministry of Justice Borisova has the right to present her explanations. |
| 15:50 | The Justice Ministry believes that the court decision to ban Jehovah’s Witnesses organizations was legal and fair.Borisova says that every religion has the right to spread their beliefs and views, but the language should not offend the followers of other religions. |
| 4pm | Borisova cites the facts of interaction between the Administrative Center and local religious organizations. According to the Ministry of Justice, this should indicate a unified structure, the integrity and identity of religious organizations. |
| 16:19 | Concluding his speech, the representative of the Ministry of Justice asks the court to leave the decision unchanged, and the appeal is not satisfied. |
| 16:20 | The court does not have any questions to the representative of the Ministry of Justice. The court proceeds to study the case materials. Representatives of the defendants asked to disclose a number of case materials, however Judge Manohin strongly objects: “We did not receive this case yesterday. We have been preparing it for a long time. And they are well acquainted with all these documents. “ |
| 16:29 |
A 20-minute break is announced. |
| 16:50 | After the break, the court asks the representative of the Ministry of Justice to express his opinion on the disclosure of the materials of the case, which the defendant requests. Ministry of Justice objects. The court decides to announce some of the materials of the case. |
| 16:54 | The court reads out the conclusions of the legal expert opinion, which analyzes the norms of anti-extremist legislation, namely, the notion of a “structural subdivision” applied to religious organizations. The conclusions to which the experts come are that from the legal point of view, local religious organizations can not be attributed to the structural subdivision of centralized organizations. |
| 5pm | A public announcement of the Management Center was circulated in February 2017. A religious expert report on Jehovah’s Witnesses is published. |
| 17:20 | Representative Novakov selectively draws the attention of the court to the case materials in the 38th and 39th volumes of the case. The documents testify to false accusations of “extremism” against Jehovah’s Witnesses. For example, there are a number of documents in the case in which people who “witnessed” against believers report that they gave their testimony against believers under the pressure of law enforcement officers, without warning of responsibility for deliberately false denunciation. |
| 17:27 | The court passes to the debate. The first is Zhenkov. |
| 5:30 pm |
Lawyer Zhenkov: A lot of people outside the walls of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and millions of citizens around the world are judged today on the entire justice system in modern Russia – about its justice, its impartiality, and its independence from any influential persons and state bodies . Why? Because today organizations belonging to a religion known throughout the world judge today. This religion is known for the fact that its followers strive to live according to the commandments of Jesus Christ, set forth in the Bible. They under no circumstances take up arms, interfere in politics, do not set the goal of overthrowing state power, try to show love to all people, regardless of their religion, nationality, or social status.They are alien to everything that in the Law on Countering Extremist Activity is called extremism. |
| 17:31 |
Attorney Zhenkov: All civilized countries of the world are struggling with extremism, because they understand the essence of this phenomenon and its danger. But in no other country in the world Jehovah’s Witnesses are equated with extremists. And Jehovah’s Witnesses all over the world practice the same creed based on the Bible. In any country of the world, these Christians worship God Jehovah, in any country of the world, Jesus Christ, who did only good, is an example for imitation. For Jehovah’s Witnesses in any country in the world, the source of wisdom is the same Bible. Therefore, if extremism were manifested in their behavior, words and deeds, then this would be seen on a global scale. But Jehovah’s Witnesses around the world have no reputation for extremism. And in our country they do not have such a reputation. |
| 17:33 | Attorney Zhenkov: Yes, in our country people have different impressions about Jehovah’s Witnesses, however, as well as representatives of other religions. God Himself gave people freedom of choice. And according to our legislation we are obliged to respect the choice of another person. Someone may not understand why Jehovah’s Witnesses adhere to the biblical norms of morality so strictly. Someone may not like their active preaching. Some may disagree with how Jehovah’s Witnesses understand the Bible. But none of the citizens of Jehovah’s Witnesses are associated with extremists. The history of Jehovah’s Witnesses has proved that the extremism and convictions of Jehovah’s Witnesses are completely incompatible concepts. |
| 17:35 | Lawyer Zhenkov: Why then did the court of first instance on April 20, 2017 adopt such an unprecedented decision for modern Russia – forbade the existence of all legal entities of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia at once, and there were 396 of them? One reason is the incorrect application of anti-extremist legislation. Even a respected representative of the Ministry today incorrectly quoted the law: “the superiority of one religion over another.” In fact, the law does not. There is propaganda of man’s superiority over man on the basis of religion. |
| 17:38 | Attorney Zhenkov: I already spoke in the court of first instance, and I want to repeat here that this happened only once in the history of our state – soon after the October Revolution. In 1918, on the basis of the decree of the Council of People’s Commissars, all religious organizations were deprived of the rights of legal entities, all Orthodox churches and all property of religious organizations were confiscated. The state acknowledged these actions as its mistake. But for some reason now, in 100 years, the court of first instance repeats this mistake, but now it’s against Jehovah’s Witnesses. |
| 17:39 | Lawyer Zhenkov: The fact of rehabilitation of thousands of Jehovah’s Witnesses in our country as victims of political repression shows that judicial mistakes in the past have been very expensive for millions of innocent citizens of our country. You, the esteemed court, have both the opportunity and the authority to correct the judicial error today by canceling the decision of the court of first instance. |
| 17:40 | Attorney Zhenkov: How can a court decision that eliminates 395 local religious organizations without their participation be legal, even without giving them the opportunity to be heard and defend themselves in court? Could it be legal to recognize as extremist those legal entities in whose actions there are no signs of extremism? Is it possible to be a legal solution, the consequences of which result in acts of violence, vandalism, hatred towards people who have been tolerant to but recently hateful only because they are outlawed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation? |
| 17:42 | Summarizing the speech in the debate, the lawyer Zhenkov: “Of course, each of us has the right to have his point of view with respect to any religious faith and religion in general. But no one has the right to use the law to prosecute dissenters. This persecution for the faith can now either be stopped by repealing the judgment of the first instance court, or it can be ignited if left in force. And let your conscience, dear judges, tell you how to act properly. “ |
| 17:42 |
Speeches in the debate begins representative Toporov. Representative of Axes: Is it possible in Russia to liquidate a legal entity in court without his participation? That is, without involving this person as a defendant? Is this fair? Is it legal? The court of first instance asserts that it turns out to be possible. That this is fair and quite legal. Yes, not one, but immediately 395 in one fell swoop. And what does the law say? And what does common sense say? And what does your conscience tell you? The law says that liquidation of a legal entity in court is possible only if such person is brought to court as a defendant, since the question of the very existence of this person is being decided. The law says: if the court has resolved this issue without involving the liquidated legal entity in the case, such a decision is subject to unconditional cancellation.Why? It violates the fundamental right to a fair trial, to judicial protection. |
| 17:43 |
Representative of Axes: What does common sense tell us? It is clear that if you are tried, then you have the right to at least participate in this court, to defend yourself by all legal means. And otherwise it turns out as in the Russian folk proverb: “Without me they married me.” Finally, what does your conscience tell you? And the conscience says that any court without involving someone judged and wanting to liquidate is an unfair trial. Jesus Christ judged and condemned the Sanhedrin – the Jewish supreme court. It was an unfair trial. Illegal. But even he did not dare to judge Jesus without his participation. And the court of first instance decided to do so. |
| 17:45 | Representative of the Axes: Before us is the decision of the first instance court to liquidate the Administrative Center and 395 other legal entities – local religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses. But none of the local religious organizations was involved in the case, did not act in the case either as a defendant or as an interested person. Are you familiar with these decisions of the courts? I have never met in my practice. Even associations that are not legal entities, in the event that the issue is resolved in court to prohibit their activities, the law obliges to search for different addresses, publish information about the court case on official websites of courts and state bodies. For what? To ensure such a union of citizens the right to judicial protection. And we have 395 state-registered legal entities. Moreover, they all filed official applications to the court to join the case. However, all their applications, and then appeals to enter the case and defend themselves, defend their good name, defend their right to exist, were rejected by the court of first instance with one duty wording: “your rights are not affected”! How can this be understood? Their rights are “unaffected”, but they are liquidated by the court, recognized as extremist, their activities are prohibited, but “the rights are not affected.” Where is justice? Legality? Conscience? Such a decision of the court can neither be understood nor accepted. But this monstrous mistake can still be corrected. And you, dear court, can do it today. |
| 17:47 | Representative of Axes: The extremism of Jehovah’s Witnesses continues to be extremism on paper, drawn by extremism, virtual, far-fetched. This raises legitimate questions: is extremism without consequences? Could it be that someone is carrying out extremist activities, and there are no victims, no consequences? Can there be extremism in the form of inaction? The court of first instance believes that it can. Legislation of Russia and common sense suggest the opposite. |
| 17:48 | The representative of the Axes: You, the respected court, you, here and today, can eliminate this injustice and dishonesty towards hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens, restore their good name, strengthen confidence in the law on countering extremism, clearly showing the difference between real extremists and extremists, Drawn on paper. We hope that the court will have the courage to do this and make a fair and impartial decision, guided by the law and the gift from God – a human conscience. |
| 17:50 | Speech in the court debate representative Novakov. The representative concentrates on the analysis of the so-called “new facts” of extremist activity, which allegedly took place within a year after the warning was issued. These “facts” were clearly falsified. |
| 17:54 | The courts proceeded from the presumption of guilt of local religious organizations, Novakov notes. So, if there was a forbidden book in the liturgical buildings, the courts passed decisions solely on the assumption that the book belongs to the organization. |
| 17:58 |
Novakov in his speech raises the question of whether the creed of Jehovah’s Witnesses contains signs of extremism listed in the Federal Law “On Counteracting Extremist Activity,” and calls for the implementation of extremist actions? Does the Management Center have as its goal the implementation of extremist activities? What is the purpose of the doctrine of Jehovah’s Witnesses? Novakov shows that in this case there is not only the subjective aspect of the extremist activity of the Management Center (intent, purpose), but there is not even an objective side (sayings, motives, appeals, concrete actions). |
| 18:03 | Novakov: The plaintiff calls the extremists of peace-loving citizens. At one time, Hitler vowed to destroy Jehovah’s Witnesses for refusing to show extremism, and the Justice Ministry today asks for a label of extremists on Jehovah’s Witnesses. At the same time, the charges are humiliating Jehovah’s Witnesses, because they accuse them of lying.We do not and can not have grounds to distrust members of local religious organizations of Jehovah’s Witnesses who are brought to administrative responsibility who claim that they did not distribute extremist materials, but were victims of falsification. We believe Jehovah’s Witnesses not only because they presented one hundred percent evidence of falsification, but also because they are moral people living in harmony with the biblical commandment: “In everything we want to behave honestly.” Accusations of lying are degrading the human dignity of the Witnesses.Psychophysiological studies were conducted in relation to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Studies have established: Jehovah’s Witnesses speak the truth, which is quite natural for them. |
| 18:07 | Novakov: It follows from the arguments of the plaintiff that anyone who wishes, and this happens in large numbers, can come to the places where the services of Jehovah’s Witnesses are held in Russia, ask for or take literature from the FEMC. But it’s surprising that having such information, neither the FSB officers nor the CPE staff for some reason can provide documented evidence of such a transfer (on audio and video carriers). There are no hidden audio and video recordings that captured this, despite the fact that the police conducted the ORM and could have made a secret survey of the relevant facts, if they had been. In the court session, it was clarified that the administrative plaintiff had no evidence of objective fixation or other documented evidence of the transfer of literature from the FEMC by Jehovah’s Witnesses, for example, on video carriers. |
| 18:09 | Novakov: However, the Management Center is ready to provide a lot of documented and documented evidence to the contrary. The attack on Jehovah’s Witnesses in the form of recognition of their religious associations as extremist is completely unfair. Therefore, we ask the court to make a fair appellate ruling in the case: to prevent the “judicial murder” of the right to freedom of conscience and religion for hundreds of thousands of believing Russian citizens. |
| 18:11 |
The final speech in the debate advocates Omelchenko. Lawyer Omelchenko: Dear court! Dear participants of the process! Speaking on this case, I repeatedly turned to authoritative sources of law. Supporting my position, I pointed out that the requirements of the Ministry of Justice of Russia violate the Basic Law of the Russian Federation, the provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. |
| 18:13 | Lawyer Omelchenko: But I also want to draw attention to the existence of a law that is higher than this. In democratic countries, this law is given a special place. So part of the modern legal doctrine of Anglo-American law for almost three hundred years is the postulate of William Blackstone: “This law of nature, which is a peer of mankind and dictated by God himself, certainly surpasses all others in compulsory execution. It is indispensable everywhere on earth, in all countries and at all times: if human laws contradict it, they lose power. “ In addition to the law of nature – the unwritten law of God, there is also the “law of revelation” God’s law recorded in the Bible: “On these two pillars, on the law of nature and the law of revelation, all human laws are based; That is, we must not allow human laws to contradict them. “ |
| 18:14 | Lawyer Omelchenko: The need to obey the natural law, history shows, can be forgotten by persons with power in totalitarian states. For example, in Nazi Germany, many officials believed that they simply carried out the law of their country. This is the position they took at the Nuremberg Trials. However, the tribunal proceeded from the general duty of each person to obey the natural law, the law of humanity, the law of conscience. This law is a fundamental source of international law. But since it was forgotten in Nazi Germany, it had to be reminded with the help of principles – the Nuremberg principles. The first: “Any person who committed an act recognized as a crime under international law is liable for him and is liable to punishment.” The second: “The fact that under domestic law there is no punishment for an act recognized by international law as a crime does not absolve the person who committed this action from responsibility under international law”. At the same time, principle VI refers to crimes against humanity the extermination and other inhuman acts committed against the civilian population, or persecution for political or religious reasons. |
| 18:15 | Lawyer Omelchenko: Obviously, in the current process without resorting to natural law, it is impossible to make a legal and fair decision, because even the best laws need to be correctly applied. First, as my colleagues have shown and with what the administrative plaintiff agrees, the persecution of religious associations of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia is due to the fact that they, as true teachings, distribute the laws of God recorded in the Bible among the inhabitants of Russia. Earlier I showed that such behavior is a simple realization of the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of association guaranteed by articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Convention and the International Covenant. But you will agree that from the standpoint of the right of the natural it is inconceivable to justify the persecution of a person propagating the necessity to live by the principle: “Love your neighbor as yourself”, even if he claims that he categorically disagrees with all who do not consider this to be true. |
| 18:16 | Lawyer Omelchenko: Secondly, it is necessary to recognize that the task of this legal proceeding is not the final decision of the issue of Jehovah’s Witnesses, but as well as any other administrative proceedings – protection of violated or contested rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of citizens, rights and legitimate interests of organizations. The need to ensure the realization of the right to a fair trial. But does not justice itself mean that religious associations can not be liquidated without giving them effective protection? Should not they be allowed to express themselves in their defense to those believers who suddenly were deprived of places of worship and rights to establish new religious organizations, although they did not violate any law and did only good to their neighbors?I am convinced that a respected court can not agree that 395 local religious organizations are not even heard in court and were liquidated without their participation. |
| 18:18 | Lawyer Omelchenko: Thirdly, the organization I represent before the court appeals to the respected court for protection against inhuman and degrading treatment, discrimination and political repression. As a lawyer, I argued that such an appeal is inadmissible from the position of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Convention.But now is the time to understand that the administrative plaintiff calls for committing inhuman acts against the civilian population – Jehovah’s Witnesses, their persecution for political and religious reasons. And the most ardent detractors sincerely hope that after the Supreme Court decision comes into force, Jehovah’s Witnesses will no longer be in Russia, that is, they think that the faithful of this peaceful confession will be exterminated. |
| 18:19 | Attorney Omelchenko: Who can prevent the commission of this crime against humanity? You, dear court.Considering the foregoing, I ask the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 20, 2017 to repeal completely and to adopt a new decision on the case, in which the administration’s claim to the Ministry of Justice of Russia is refused. |
| 18:20 | In the closing speech, the representative Kalin thanks the court for attention and asks for a fair decision. |
| 18:21 | The floor for the debate was given to Borisova, the representative of the plaintiff. |
| 18:22 | Borisova: the offense “carries a dangerous, systematic, willful and rude character.” |
| 18:24 | Borisova quotes from the state strategy of countering extremism. He asks to refuse to satisfy the appellate complaint, and leave the decision of the first instance unchanged. |
| 18:27 | The court is removed to the advisory room for a final decision. |
| 18:40 | In the hall are beginning to work, journalists – representatives of the central TV channels. On the tripods there are about 10 cameras installed. |
| 19:10 |
On July 17, 2017, the Supreme Court of Russia missed the last chance to restore law and justice to 175,000 Russian citizens who profess the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Less than an hour of the meeting, it took a panel of three Supreme Court justices to leave unchanged the decision taken earlier by Judge Yuriy Ivanenko to eliminate and ban all registered organizations of this religion without exception. Since there are no effective domestic remedies, believers will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and other international organizations. |
