Unjust Verdicts

Report: Supreme Court Hears Appeal Banning Jehovah's Witnesses Religion

July 17, 2017

On July 17, 2017, the Supreme Court of Russia began hearings on the appeal the decision of April 20, 2017 to liquidate the Religious Organization "Administrative Center of Witnesses" Jehovah in Russia". There is a text report from the courtroom.

July 17, 2017
09:30	Dark clouds are falling over Moscow's Arbat district, where Russia's Supreme Court is located. At the entrance to the A large group of citizens has gathered in the courthouse, their number is approaching 150. Those who stand in At the beginning of the queue, we came to the entrance at 4 am. Journalists armed with filming equipment are noticeable. The Moscow police ensure public order.
10:00	The largest meeting room has been made available for hearings again. On the faces of the court employees there is a solemn expression, everyone tries to perform their duties flawlessly. A subdued hum can be heard in the hall.
10:05	Foreign speech is heard in the courtroom: there are quite a few foreign observers, most represent Jehovah's Witnesses organizations in different countries. There are also observers, who drove up to the courthouse in cars with diplomatic plates.
10:40	The position of the administrative plaintiff is still empty. On the part of the administrative defendant — representative of the religious organization Vasily Mikhailovich Kalin, lawyers Viktor Zhenkov and Anton Omelchenko, lawyer Maksym Novakov.
10:50	In the courtroom, leaning over their tablets, journalists from the Russian media are working. The place of the administrative plaintiff is taken by Svetlana Konstantinovna Borisova, who represented The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation in the court of first instance.
11:10	Silence fell in the courtroom, the parties and observers awaited the appearance of the judges.
11:11	The judges who will hear the case enter the courtroom. By announcing the case, they establish who represents Side. In addition to Kalin, Zhenkov, Omelchenko and Novakov, the side of the administrative defendant represents lawyer Yuriy Toporov. The composition of the Judicial Collegium is Judge Manokhina Galina Vladimirovna (Chairman), Vladimir Yurievich Zaitsev and Vladimir Valentinovich Popov. Neither side has It turns out that there are reasons to challenge one of the judges.
11:17	After the introductory remarks, Omelchenko's lawyer filed a motion to postpone the consideration of this until a decision is reached on the numerous private complaints that have been accepted for proceedings by the Appellate Chamber of the Supreme Court. The lawyer explains that the court's decision of 20 Numerous complaints were filed by persons who substantiated in detail that the decision was Their rights and interests were affected, which means that they should have been involved in the case. The fact that they don't had the opportunity to participate in the case, in itself indicates that the decision should be Automatically canceled. However, all these complaints were returned without any analysis of the cited Arguments. The court only stated that "the appealed judicial act did not resolve the issue of their rights and responsibilities." In response, citizens filed private complaints, but contrary to all logic, the court intends to file them after the final decision on the case has been made. That's why the lawyer Requests that this hearing be adjourned pending the determination of the full number of participants in the proceedings on the appeal against the decision.
11:22	Omelchenko's lawyer files a motion to interrogate rehabilitated citizens from the number of Jehovah's Witnesses. The court of first instance refused to question them. Contrary to its promise, the court did not investigated to a proper extent the circumstances of political repression against Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, for example, did not pay attention to the question of what actions of state authorities have already recognized as political repression, and did not check whether these actions continue to be committed in the Jehovah's Witnesses at the present time.
11:28	Omelchenko's lawyer continues to petition for the interrogation of witnesses Pavel Bezhenar and Anatoliy Yasinsky. They are recognized victims of political repression as Jehovah's Witnesses. Them It is a well-known fact that the ban on religious organizations causes severe and unjustified persecution of believers of this religion. Thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses lost their lives in April 1951 of their property and were deported in freight cars from the western regions of the USSR for eternal settlement Subsequently, they were subjected to searches, confiscation of religious literature, and discrimination and imprisonment only because they lived according to the commandments of the Bible. Bejenar, for example, is aware that in 1951 he and members of his family were deported from Moldova to the Tomsk region. Subsequently, he was convicted twice and spent 8 years in prisons imprisonment because he followed Christ's commandment: "Return thy sword to its place; for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." As a result of discrimination, he had to change his religion six times residence. In 1982, he faced a search and seizure of religious literature. Recognizing these people as victims of political repression, the state condemned "years of terror, unleashed by the Bolshevik Party-Soviet regime against the clergy and believers of all denominations", and also undertook to "seek real guarantees of rule of law and human rights". In fact, the state promised to make sure that the what they're up against.
11:31	Novakov's representative files a motion to interrogate witnesses to the planting of extremist literature and other falsifications that were organized or used by law enforcement agencies, cases on which the Ministry of Justice relies in its lawsuit. Witnesses came to the courtroom and are ready to testify.
11:40	Novakov says that four witnesses came to the courtroom. The Court, without making a ruling on the asked if there were any other motions. Novakov petitions to be summoned to the hall another 53 witnesses of falsifications.
11:45	Omelchenko's lawyer files an extensive motion to demand evidence from the courts, to which refers to the Ministry of Justice, trying to prove "extremism" among Jehovah's Witnesses. A similar request was made It was filed in the court of first instance, but the court dismissed it. Therefore, the defendant requests The Court of Appeal should nevertheless request from the courts those materials of Jehovah's Witnesses that were recognized as "extremist". After all, court decisions in themselves do not have a prejudicial significance for of this case, as recognized by the court of first instance, due to the fact that the Administrative Center was not involved in the pending.
11:50	Omelchenko's lawyer reminds that the law obliges the court to directly investigate everything Evidence. For example, given the seriousness of the case to religious freedom throughout the world, territory of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Court must directly investigate the grounds for recognizing the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses as extremist, and whether these grounds are sufficient to meet the requirements of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. The court could be convinced that in the literature of the Witnesses There are no signs of incitement to hatred or enmity in the form determined by the Plenum of the Supreme Court in its judgment of 28 June 2011. Not a single court has found otherwise! (Under incitement to hatred and enmity, according to the Plenum, means statements justifying the need for genocide, repression, deportations, the use of violence against representatives of any nation, race or religion. As the Plenum emphasized, even criticism of religious beliefs or religious practices should not be seen as extremism.)
11:55	Continuing to speak about the need to demand evidence, counsel recalls that in the under a new clause in the law on combating extremist activity The Bible and Quotes from it cannot be recognized as extremist materials. Upon requesting evidence, the court may to make sure that the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses is always based on the Bible, encourages people to love of God and love of neighbor and strengthens faith in the Bible. This all means that literature Jehovah's Witnesses was recognized as "extremist" by misunderstanding, and in any case cannot serve grounds for banning an entire religion that has hundreds of thousands of adherents in Russia.
11:59	Having failed to resolve the previous motions, the court invited the lawyer Zhenkov to read out his petitions.
12:00	Zhenkov petitions for the interrogation of experts (religious scholars, linguists). In the court of first instance, the court unreasonably refused to do so. In the meantime, the explanations of specialists are necessary for the adoption of a legal and informed decision. For example, a specialist in religious studies could clarify the specific concepts that are used in the charter of a religious organization, as well as how the stated goals and objectives of Jehovah's Witnesses are put into practice. Importantly, he is a religious scholar could clarify whether belief in the truth of one's religion is unique 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 brought against the To Jehovah's Witnesses, they are not taken from real life or established offenses, but only from of their liturgical texts. It is linguists who are engaged in the analysis of texts.
12:04	Zhenkov filed another motion to admit new evidence. It's about events acts of vandalism and other offences that have taken place since the April 20 decision; provoked by the decision. These events are captured on video, and Zhenkov is petitioning to see them in the courtroom.
12:07	Since there are no more petitions, the court invites a representative of the Ministry of Justice to express his opinion. The representative of the Ministry of Justice objects to the postponement of the hearing, to the video recording, to the interrogation Witnesses are citizens of victims of political repression. In addition, the Ministry of Justice is against the interrogation of witnesses falsifications, 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 have entered into force, which, in his opinion, Invalid. The representative of the Ministry of Justice considers the video with the facts of violation of the rights of citizens to be irrelevant Proof.
12:15	The court shall adjourn for deliberation on the motions.
12:25	Upon returning from the deliberation room, the court refuses to satisfy all the petitions.
12:30	Judge Manokhina begins her presentation of the essence of the case.
12:45	Having stated the arguments of the statement of claim, the position of the defendant, the court retells the essence of the decision, issued on April 20, 2017.
12:51	The court proceeds to retell the appeal filed on behalf of the religious organization.
12:58	At the end of the report, the court invites the defendant to give its explanations. The lawyer is the first to speak Zhenkov. Zhenkov's first thesis is that the court did not indicate evidence in its decision extremist activities of the Administrative Center. Zhenkov cites an excerpt from the court transcript of the first instance. The Court: "How does it confirm that the organization carried out extremist activities? activity?" Ministry of Justice: "The religious organization has not taken any effective measures aimed at suppression of these activities..." The court also inquired from the administrative plaintiff whether the Inadequate measures, or even inaction to be a sign of extremism? The Ministry of Justice, with reference to the law, was I have to admit that no, only deliberate actions can be extremism.
13:04	Zhenkov: "If the Administrative Center did not commit extremist actions, then we are at the representative of the The Ministry of Justice was investigated in court whether each of the 395 local religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses in the Has Russia committed extremist acts? The response of the Ministry of Justice was that only in relation to 10 Of these, there are court decisions, but there are no such data for the rest. A natural question is: if in the the court did not find that the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and at least 385 local religious organizations committed any extremist actions, why did the court recognize them? extremist and liquidated?"
13:08	It follows from the record of the hearing that the court of first instance gave the plaintiff clear legal issues that are important for the correct resolution of the case. The Court received replies that extremism is the specific actions listed in the law, and that the Administrative Center and more 300 local religious organizations did not commit such actions. But the court decision at the same time For some reason, the court ruled the exact opposite: to recognize all 396 organizations as extremist and eliminate them. "How so, dear court? "Shouldn't you, as a panel of judges, have that raise questions? If there are no extremist actions, then what is there to recognize? extremist?!"
13:10	Zhenkov gives an example. He says that during the court hearing we found out that there are Witnesses in Crimea For decades, Jehovah has been peacefully carrying out his religious activities. Once on the territory and in compliance with Russian law, Jehovah's Witnesses in Crimea asked the Russian Ministry of Justice register 22 of their local religious organizations. And the Ministry of Justice, recognizing the legitimacy of their the existence and legitimacy of their creed, in 2015 registered them. In this way, the state recognized that it is possible to believe in Jehovah God on the Crimean peninsula, and therefore a religion called Jehovah's Witnesses have the right to legally exist and act. So what's next? Less than two years later, without establishing signs of extremism in their actions, only on the instructions of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, the same Ministry of Justice that registered them appealed To the court with a demand to recognize them as extremist organizations and to take away all their property. And the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, even without the participation of these legal entities, declared them extremist and liquidated, and also allowed all their property to be taken away. "This raises questions that are both legal and universal," says Zhenkov, Why are believers in Crimea being punished in such a way? For what specific actions? Answers to these questions There are no questions in the court's decision. But can such a decision be legitimate?"
13:15	Zhenkov's second thesis is that the conclusions of the court of first instance do not correspond to circumstances of the administrative case. For example, the court's decision states: "As follows from the over the past seven years, annually in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law the facts of extremist activities of the Organization are being established..." However, the court established explicitly reverse. Lawyer Zhenkov: "The administrative plaintiff admitted in court that in his actions The facts of extremist activity have not been established directly by the Administrative Center, and the court writes "Established."
13:20	Zhenkov's third thesis: the court of first instance incorrectly determined the circumstances that are important for an administrative case. Zhenkov lists a number of examples.
13:30	Zhenkov cites an excerpt from the document of the Ministry of Justice: "Recognition of information materials denominational Jehovah's Witnesses are extremist... Confirms... The fact that there is a in a manner that is impermissibly offensive from the point of view of the legislation of the Russian Federation expressing conviction in the truth of their religious beliefs, and in this case not even in the truth of beliefs, but in the interpretation of the ordinances contained in the Bible." Such a characterization does not correspond to reality. Zhenkov draws attention to the fact that the overwhelming majority of Jehovah's Witnesses' publications were recognized as "extremist" eight years ago. At that time, there was no Resolution No. 11 of the Plenum of the Supreme Court, in which clarification of what the courts should understand by incitement to hatred or enmity. Prior to 2011, some courts erroneously held that if the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is named in literature, the only true one, is a sign of incitement to hatred, since it is an insult for other religions. And if the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses says that the Trinity is not biblical teaching, such an interpretation of the Bible is all the more so, in the opinion of some judges, incited hatred. But that wasn't until 2011, when the Supreme Court clarified that the criticism religious associations, religious beliefs, religious customs shall not be considered as an action aimed at inciting hatred or enmity. It took years for all They finally understood that to consider only their religion to be true is not extremism, but the norm for Believer.
13:45	Zhenkov draws attention to the fact that the Administrative Center was denied participation in the court cases on the recognition of printed materials as extremist. In some cases, believers They don't even know why this or that book was recognized as extremist, since the court considered that Jehovah's Witnesses had nothing to do with it. The same position has been consistently taken by the Supreme Court of Russia, as a result, the Administrative Center had no right either to participate in the process or to lead to the court, their arguments, nor to appeal against the court's decisions. And now, for some reason, the court of first instance took the exact opposite approach. The court now considers that on the basis of these decisions The administrative 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, because it is a model for all courts in Russia."
13:50	Zhenkov's fourth thesis is the disproportionality of the court's decision. Zhenkov cites an excerpt from the court's decision: "Contrary to the Organization's objections, such interference is proportionate and necessary ... so how to ensure the elimination of violations of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of an indefinite number of persons, a real threat of harm to the person, the health of citizens, public order, public security, society and the state."
13:52	"But, dear Court, let's look at the facts and see who is threatening whom and who is hurting whom "In the court of first instance, it was established that for 26 years of official the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia have not been harmed either by the state or by morality in the Society. There are no acts of vandalism on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses, no violence. There is no violence, even acts of protest! It turns out that the threat that the court writes about in its decision is imaginary, far-fetched. If it were real, it would have been in the 26 years of its official existence in Russia and in the 100 years unofficial, it would have come true. But the court's decision does not contain facts of harm from their Activities. What kind of threat to society and the state can we talk about if just recently, on May 31, In 2017, the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin presented the Order of Parental Glory in the Kremlin the family of Jehovah's Witnesses?"
13:55	On the other hand, because of the court decision, the believers themselves are subjected to a significant violation of their rights. Zhenkov cites various facts confirming this. For example, the facts of refusing believers to replace military service as an alternative civilian service on the basis of a court decision. Completing his Zhenkov attaches copies of draft commission protocols and summonses from the military registration and enlistment office to the case.
13:56	It is the turn of Representative Toporov to give explanations. The first point of his speech focuses on Article 310 of the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, according to which "decisions of the court of first instance are subject to unconditional cancellation in the event of a court decision on the rights and obligations of persons not involved in the participation in an administrative case."
14:00	By a court decision, the religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" and local religious organizations that are part of its structure. All these local religious Organizations are clearly listed in the decision of the court of first instance, and this transfer takes up half of the the text of the entire decision. However, these 395 organizations were not involved in the trial.
14:20	The conclusions of the court of first instance contradict all the long-standing established judicial practice cases against local religious organisations, Toporov said. Qua evidence he cites the ruling that the Russian Supreme Court indicated in its judgment of 8 December 2009: "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and Local religious organization Jehovah's Witnesses "Taganrog" are independent organizations, which is also confirmed by the evidence accepted by the court of cassation, including a scheme for the structure of religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses "Taganrog". The question of rights and obligations of the Administrative Center by the Rostov Regional Court the above-mentioned statement of the prosecutor of the Rostov region was not resolved by the decision of Rostovsky On September 11, 2009, the regional court recognized as extremist and liquidated the local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Taganrog". At the same time, this ruling of the court is of prejudicial importance for the present case, since it was issued by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in respect of the administrative defendant. It sets that the fact that the liquidation of a local religious association that was part of the structure of the Administrative Center, does not affect the rights and obligations of the latter, since this local The religious association and the Administrative Center are independent organizations. Court of the first instance ignored this evidence, which led to his misapplication of the the rules of substantive law when making the Decision.
14:24	The above argument supports Toporov's second thesis: the court's decision is subject to cancellation due to improper application of substantive law. Trying to justify the recognition of LROs as structural subdivisions of the administrative defendant, for the actions of which he should be responsible, the court allowed misapplication of substantive law by applying laws that are not applicable, and namely the laws "On Political Parties" and "On Public Associations". The Court Gave Wrong interpretation of the law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations", "On Counteraction to the Religious Association" extremist activity", the Administrative Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, including without taking into account the legal positions contained in the decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation courts of the Russian Federation.
14:32	The third thesis of Toporov's speech is that the court's decision is subject to cancellation in connection with the failure to prove the circumstances established by the court of first instance.
14:35	As an example of the failure to prove the circumstances specified in the court decision, Toporov cites an excerpt from the decision that the Administrative Center participated in the financing of LROs that are recognized as Extremist. This fact is cited in order to prove its extremist nature activities of the Administrative Center. However, the Ministry of Justice did not submit to the court (according to Toporov, deliberately!) relevant donation agreements and donation decisions of the Administrative Centre, from which it follows that the donation of funds to these organizations was carried out, firstly, several years before they were recognized as extremist and, secondly, for clearly defined purposes: construction of worship buildings, assistance to victims of natural disasters, payment of utility bills payments and fulfillment of other obligations to the state. All these contracts and decisions have been transferred By the Administrative Center to the Ministry of Justice in the course of the inspection that preceded the appeal of the Ministry of Justice to the court.
14:45	Explanations to the court are given by the representative Novakov. And his first thought is that the circumstances referred to by the court related to the commission of administrative offences, have no prejudicial effect in this case.
14:54	Novakov shows the court a sequence of CCTV footage clearly showing that extremist publications were planted on Jehovah's Witnesses. He cites other egregious facts testifying to the falsification of evidence against Jehovah's Witnesses in the regions of Russia. All of these falsified cases are at the heart 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 the Federation on June 15, 2010. The Plenum clarified that "new facts" (i.e., facts revealed by Within 12 months of the issuance of the warning) may not be recognized those violations that are were identified after the warning was issued, but were admitted in materials distributed earlier Warning. Novakov draws attention to the fact that the court of first instance did not give any assessment of this the fact that, although these warnings were issued after March 2, 2016, they were announced in the events that "took place" prior to the issuance of the warning by the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation Federations in Voronezh, Snezhnogorsk, Stavropol.
15:24	Omelchenko's lawyer begins to give his explanations. In response to the court's request not to repeat the explanation of his colleagues, Omelchenko loud and clear declares his intention to focus on the violation international law.
15:25	Omelchenko draws attention to the fact that there is a violation of the right to a fair trial, guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention.
15:29	Omelchenko convincingly argues that the court also violated the ban politically motivated prosecution under Article 18 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Articles 9 and 6 Convention. The European Court of Human Rights in its judgment in the case of Merabishvili v. Georgia" points to the clearest signs of political repression: when state authorities unequivocally resist the repeated appeals of the complainant, the public and even some high-ranking civil servants about an objective and thorough investigation, to argue that the measures applied to the applicant are not a means of a legitimate response to his behavior, but by means of political persecution. This is exactly what is happening to 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. Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the Convention. For example, he pays attention to the requirement international law that State intervention must be provided for by law. In In particular, the law must be definite and its application predictable. Omelchenko based on materials of this case proves that the application of anti-extremist legislation to Jehovah's Witnesses is uncertain and unpredictable.
15:40	International law requires that state intervention pursue a legitimate purpose and was also necessary in a democratic society. Omelchenko draws attention to the fact that In its 100-year history, no extremist manifestations on the part of the Witnesses have been recorded Jehovah. But after this decision, a huge number of believers were subjected to groundless violation of their rights.
15:45	The representative of the Administrative Center Kalin supported the appeal and the explanations of the lawyers. The right to present her explanations was transferred to the representative of the Ministry of Justice Borisova.
15:50	The Ministry of Justice believes that the court decision to ban Jehovah's Witnesses organizations was lawful and fair. Borisova says that every religion has the right to spread its own beliefs and views, but the wording should not offend adherents of other religions.
16:00	Borisova cites the facts of interaction between the Administrative Center and local religious organizations. Along In the opinion of the Ministry of Justice, this should indicate a single structure, integrity and identity religious organizations.
16:19	Concluding his speech, the representative of the Ministry of Justice asks to leave the court's decision unchanged, and the appeal was dismissed.
16:20	The court has no questions to the representative of the Ministry of Justice. The court proceeds to examine the materials of the case. Representatives of the defendants ask to make public a number of materials of the case, but Judge Manokhina is resolute He said: "We didn't receive the case yesterday. We have been preparing it for a long time. And with all these documents are well known."
16:29	A 20-minute break is announced.
16:50	After the break, the court asks a representative of the Ministry of Justice to express his opinion on the disclosure of the materials cases requested by the defendant. The Ministry of Justice objects. The Court decides to make public some of the stated case materials.
16:54	The court announces the conclusions of the legal expert opinion, which analyses the norms anti-extremist legislation, namely, the concept of "structural subdivision" as applied to the religious organizations. The conclusions reached by the experts are that from the point of view of rights, local religious organizations cannot be attributed to a structural unit centralized organizations.
17:00	A public statement of the Administrative Center is announced, distributed in February 2017. A religious expert report on the Witnesses is being read out Jehovah.
17:20	Representative Novakov selectively draws the court's attention to the case materials in the 38th and 39th volumes of the case. The documents reveal false accusations of "extremism" against Jehovah's Witnesses. To For example, the case contains a number of documents in which people who acted as "witnesses" against believers, report that they gave their testimony against the believers under pressure from employees law enforcement agencies, without warning of liability for knowingly false denunciation.
17:27	The Court will now proceed to its debate. Zhenkov is the first to speak.
17:30	Lawyer Zhenkov: There are a lot of people outside the walls of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation and millions of citizens everywhere The entire system of justice in modern Russia will be judged by today's decision. its fairness, its impartiality, and its independence from any influential persons and government agencies. Why? Because today it is the organizations that belong to the religion that are being judged, known all over the world. 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. Under no circumstances do they take up arms, do not interfere in the politicians, do not set the goal of overthrowing state power, try to show love to everyone people, regardless of their religion, nationality, social status. Everything is alien to them, which is called extremism in the Law "On Countering Extremist Activity".
17:31	Lawyer Zhenkov: All civilized countries of the world are fighting extremism because it is good understand the essence of this phenomenon and its dangers. But there are no Jehovah's Witnesses in any country in the world equated with extremists. And Jehovah's Witnesses around the world profess the same Bible-based creeds. In every country in the world, these Christians worship Jehovah God, In every country of the world, Jesus Christ is an example to follow for them, who did only good. For Jehovah's Witnesses in every country in the world, the source of wisdom is the same Bible. Therefore, if extremism was manifested in their behavior, words and deeds, it would be would be visible on a global scale. But Jehovah's Witnesses do not have a reputation for extremism around the world. And in our country, they do not have such a reputation.
17:33	Lawyer Zhenkov: Yes, in our country people have different impressions of Jehovah's Witnesses, however as well as representatives of other religions. God Himself gave people the freedom to choose. And according to us, By law, we are obliged to respect the choice of another person. Some may not understand why Jehovah's Witnesses adhere so strictly to the Bible's moral standards. Someone may not be able to I like their active preaching. Some may disagree with how Jehovah's Witnesses understand Bible. But none of the citizens associate Jehovah's Witnesses with extremists. History Jehovah's Witnesses proved that extremism and the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses are completely incompatible concepts.
17:35	Lawyer Zhenkov: Why then did the court of first instance make such a decision on April 20, 2017? An unprecedented decision for modern Russia - it banned the existence of all legal entities at once Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, and there were 396 of them? There is only one reason: the incorrect use of anti-extremist Legislation. Even a respected representative of the ministry incorrectly quoted the law today: "the superiority of one religion over another." In fact, there is no such thing in the law. There is propaganda the superiority of man over man on the basis of religion.
17:38	Lawyer Zhenkov: I have already said in the court of first instance, and I want to repeat here that this is the case happened only once in the history of our state, soon after the October Revolution. In 1918 On the basis of a decree of the Council of People's Commissars, all religious organizations were deprived of their rights All Orthodox churches and all the property of religious organizations were confiscated. The state recognized these actions as a mistake. But for some reason, now, 100 years later, the court of the first He repeats this mistake, but this time against Jehovah's Witnesses.
17:39	Lawyer Zhenkov: The fact of rehabilitation of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses in our country as victims political repression shows that miscarriages of justice have cost millions dearly in the past. than innocent citizens of our country. Dear court, you have both the opportunity and the authority today to correct the miscarriage of justice by reversing the decision of the court of first instance.
17:40	Lawyer Zhenkov: Can a court decision that liquidates 395 local residents be legal? religious organizations without their participation, without even giving them the opportunity to be heard and Defend yourself in court? Can the decision to recognize those legal entities as extremist be legitimate? persons in whose actions no signs of extremism have been established? Can there be a legitimate decision The consequences of which result in acts of violence, vandalism, hatred towards people who were not so long ago They were tolerant, but now they are hated only because they have been declared by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Outlawed?
17:42	Summing up the speech in the debate, lawyer Zhenkov: "Of course, each of us has the right to have your point of view in relation to any religious denomination and religion in general. But no one has the right use the law to persecute dissidents. This persecution for faith can now be either stop by reversing the decision of the court of first instance, or ignite it if upheld. And let your Your conscience, dear judges, will tell you what is the right thing to do."
17:42	The representative of Toporov begins to speak in the debate. Representative Toporov: Is it possible to liquidate a legal entity in court in Russia without it? Participation? That is, without involving this person as a defendant? Is this fair? Lawfully? Court The court of first instance argues that it turns out that it is possible. That it's fair and perfectly legal. Not one, and 395 at once in one fell swoop. And what does the law say? And what does common sense say? And what does it say? Do you have a conscience? The law says that the liquidation of a legal entity in court is possible only if such a A person is brought to court as a defendant, since 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 shall be subject to unconditional cancellation. Why? It violates a fundamental right to a fair trial, to judicial protection.
17:43	Representative Toporov: And what does common sense tell us? It's clear that if you're on trial, then you have the right to at least participate in this court, to defend yourself by all legal means. And otherwise it turns out like in the Russian folk proverb: "Without me, I was married." Finally, what says Do you have a conscience? And conscience says that any court without the involvement of the one who is being judged and wanted liquidation, this is an unfair trial. Jesus Christ was judged and condemned by the Jewish Sanhedrin supreme court. It was an unfair trial. Illegal. But even he did not dare to judge Jesus without his involvement. And the court of first instance decided to do so.
17:45	Representative Toporov: We have before us the decision of the court of first instance on the liquidation of the Administrative and 395 other legal entities – local religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses. But none of them of the local religious organizations was not involved in the case, did not speak in the case of any the defendant or the interested party. Are you familiar with such court decisions? I'm in my practice I haven't. Even associations that are not legal entities, in the event of a court decision on prohibiting their activities, the law obliges them to search for them at different addresses and to publish information about their activities. on the official websites of courts and government agencies. Why? To ensure such an association of citizens has the right to judicial protection. And we have 395 registered by the state Moreover, all of them filed official applications to the court to join the case. However all their statements, and then their appeals, in order to enter the case and defend themselves, to defend themselves their good name, to protect their right to exist, were rejected by the court of first instance with one "Your rights are not affected"! What is the meaning of this? Their rights are "not affected" but They have been liquidated by the court, recognized as extremist, their activities are prohibited, but "the rights are not are affected." Where is the justice here? Legality? Conscience? Such a decision of the court is impossible to understand, not to accept. But this monstrous mistake can still be corrected. And you, dear court, can do it do today.
17:47	Representative of Toporov: Extremism of Jehovah's Witnesses continues to be extremism in the world paper drawn by extremism, virtual, contrived. At the same time, natural questions arise: Is there 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? Court of the first instance believes that it can. Russian legislation and common sense suggest the opposite.
17:48	Representative Toporov: You, dear court, are you, here and today, who can eliminate this injustice and dishonesty towards hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens, reinstate them good name, strengthen the credibility of the Anti-Extremism Law by clearly showing the distinction between real extremists and extremists drawn on paper. We hope that the court will have enough the courage to do so and to make a fair and impartial decision, guided by the law and a gift from God, a human conscience.
17:50	Statement of Novakov's representative in the court debate. The representative focuses on the analysis the so-called "new facts" of extremist activity that allegedly took place during the year after a warning has been issued. These "facts" were clearly falsified.
17:54	The courts proceeded from the presumption of guilt of local religious organisations, Novakov said. For example, if There was a banned book in the houses of worship, and the courts ruled solely on the basis of assumptions that the book belongs to an organization.
17:58	In his speech, Novakov raises the question of whether the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses contains signs listed in the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" extremism and calls for extremist actions? Does the Managerial Its goal is to carry out extremist activities? What is the purpose of the creed? Jehovah's Witnesses? Novakov shows that in the present case there is not only a subjective side extremist activity of the Administrative Center (intent, purpose), but not even objective parties (statements, motives, appeals, specific actions).
18:03	Novakov: The plaintiff calls peace-loving citizens extremists. Hitler once swore to destroy Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to show extremism, and the Ministry of Justice today asks to hang Jehovah's Witnesses are labeled extremists. At the same time, the accusations humiliate Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as how they are accused of lying. We have no reason not to trust members of local religious organizations organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses brought to administrative responsibility, which allege, that they did not disseminate extremist materials, but became victims of falsification. We Believe in the Witnesses Jehovah not only because they presented 100% proof of fraud, but also because they because they are highly moral people who live in accordance with the biblical commandment: "In all things we want to behave honestly." Accusations of lying degrade the human dignity of Witnesses. The following events were carried out: psychophysiological research on Jehovah's Witnesses. Studies have established: Witnesses Jehovah speaks the truth, which is perfectly natural to them.
18:07	Novakov: From the arguments of the plaintiff, it follows that anyone, and this happens en masse, can come to places where Jehovah's Witnesses worship services are held in Russia, ask for or take literature from FSEM. But the surprising thing is that with such information, neither the FSB officers nor the CPE officers For some reason, they cannot provide documented evidence of such a transfer (at the audio and video media). There is no hidden audio and video footage that captures this, despite that the police were conducting an operational activity and could have made covert filming of the relevant facts if the They were. At the court hearing, it was found out that the administrative plaintiff had no evidence objective recording or other documented evidence of the transmission by the Witnesses Jehovah's literature from the FSEM, for example, on video.
18:09	Novakov: However, the Administrative Center is ready to provide a lot of documented and recorded evidence to the contrary. An Attack on Jehovah's Witnesses in the Form of Their Confession extremist religious associations are completely unfair. Therefore, we ask the court to make a decision A Fair Appellate Ruling in the Case: Preventing the "Judicial Killing" of the Right to Liberty conscience and religion for hundreds of thousands of believing citizens of Russia.
18:11	Omelchenko's lawyer makes the closing speech in the debate. Lawyer Omelchenko: Dear court! Dear participants of the process! In speaking on this case, I He has repeatedly referred to authoritative sources of law. In support of my position, I pointed out that the requirements of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation violate the Basic Law of the Russian Federation and the provisions of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations Rights.
18:13	Lawyer Omelchenko: But I also want to draw attention to the existence of a law that is higher than this. In 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 William Blackstone's postulate: "This the law of nature, which is the same age as mankind and is dictated by God Himself, is unquestionable, surpasses all others in terms of obligation. It is obligatory everywhere on earth, in all countries and at all times: if human laws contradict it, they lose their force." In addition to the law There is also the "law of revelation" recorded in the Bible, the Law of God: "On the These two pillars, the law of nature and the law of revelation, are the foundation of all human laws; that There is no way to let human laws contradict them."
18:14	Lawyer Omelchenko: On the need to obey the natural law, as history shows, can be forgotten by those in power in totalitarian states. For example, in the Nazi In Germany, many officials believed that they were simply following the law of their country. That's the kind of they took a position at the Nuremberg Trials. However, the tribunal proceeded from the common duty of each to obey the law of nature, the law of humanity, the law of conscience. This law is a fundamental source of international law. But because it was forgotten in Nazi Germany, he had to be reminded with the help of principles, the Nuremberg Principles. The first: "Every person Whoever commits an act recognized as a crime under international law shall be liable to responsibility for it and is subject to punishment." The second: "The fact that under domestic law there is no penalty for any act recognized under international law, does not relieve the perpetrator of the act from responsibility under international law. law." At the same time, principle VI refers to crimes against humanity as extermination and other inhumane acts committed against the civilian population or the persecution of the political or religious motives.
18:15	Lawyer Omelchenko: It is obvious that in the present process without recourse to natural law It is impossible to make a lawful and fair decision, because even the best laws need to be Apply correctly. First, as my colleagues have shown and with which the administrative plaintiff agrees, the persecution of religious associations of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia is due to the fact that they are as true The teachings disseminate God's laws recorded in the Bible among the people of Russia. Earlier I showed that Such behavior is a simple exercise of the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of associations guaranteed by the articles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the Convention and the International Covenant. But You will agree that from the standpoint of natural law it is unthinkable to justify the persecution of a person, propagandizing the need to live by the principle: "Love your neighbor as yourself," even if He claims that he strongly disagrees with all those who do not believe this to be true.
18:16	Omelchenko's lawyer: Secondly, it is necessary to admit that the task of this legal proceeding is is not the final solution to the question of Jehovah's Witnesses, but like any other Administrative proceedings – protection of violated or disputed rights, freedoms and legal interests of citizens, rights and legitimate interests of organizations. The need to ensure the implementation of the right to a fair trial. But doesn't justice itself say that you can't? To liquidate religious associations without providing them with an effective means of protection? Isn't it Those believers who have suddenly been deprived of their seats should be allowed to speak out in their defense worship of God and the right to establish new religious organizations, although they have not violated any law And did nothing but good to their fellow-men? I am convinced that the esteemed court cannot agree that 395 local religious organizations were not even heard in court and were liquidated without them Participation.
18:18	Omelchenko's lawyer: Thirdly, the organization I represent before the court calls on the Honourable Court for Protection from Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, Discrimination and political repression. As a lawyer, I argued that such an appeal is inadmissible from the position of Constitution of the Russian Federation, Convention. But now is the time to understand that the administrative plaintiff is calling for committing inhuman acts against the civilian population of Jehovah's Witnesses, their persecution for political and religious reasons. And the most ardent detractors sincerely hope that after the entry into force of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, there are more Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia That is, they think that the believers of this peace-loving denomination will be exterminated.
18:19	Omelchenko's lawyer: Who can prevent the commission of this crime against Humanity? You, dear court. In view of the foregoing, I ask the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 20 April 2017, to cancel in its entirety and to make a new decision in the case, which satisfied the the administrative claim of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation is to be dismissed.
18:20	In her concluding remarks, Kalin's representative thanks the court for its attention and asks for a fair decision.
18:21	The floor was given to Borisova, the plaintiff's representative, to speak in the debate.
18:22	Borisova: the offense "is of a dangerous, systematic, deliberate and gross nature."
18:24	Borisova quotes from the state strategy for countering extremism. Asks to refuse satisfaction of the appeal, and the decision of the first instance to leave unchanged.
18:27	The court retires to the deliberation room to make a final decision.
18:40	Journalists - representatives of central TV channels - begin to work in the hall. Mounted on tripods about 10 TV cameras.
19:10	On July 17, 2017, the Supreme Court of Russia missed the last chance to restore law and justice for 175,000 Russian citizens professing the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. Less than an hour of meeting it took a panel of three Supreme Court justices to uphold the decision, adopted earlier by Judge Yuriy Ivanenko, on the liquidation and prohibition of all registered organizations of this religion. Since there are no more effective domestic remedies, believers will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and other international organizations.