MINISTERS’ DEPUTIES

Notes on the Agenda

CM/Notes/1419/H46-31

2 December 2021

1419th meeting, 30 November – 2 December 2021 (DH) Human rights   H46-31 Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others (Application No. 302/02) and Krupko and Others (Application No. 26587/07) v. Russian Federation Supervision of the execution of the European Court’s judgments Reference document CM/Del/Dec(2020)1383/H46-17

 

Application	Case	Judgment of	Final on	Indicator for the classification
302/02	JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES OF MOSCOW AND OTHERS	10/06/2010	22/11/2010	Complex problem
26587/07	KRUPKO AND OTHERS	26/06/2014	17/11/2014

Case description

The case of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others concerns the dissolution of the applicant community in Moscow in 2004 and a blanket ban on its activities, divesting the individual applicants of their right to manifest their religion (violation of Article 9 in the light of Article 11). The Court highlighted that a blanket ban on the activities of a religious community belonging to a known Christian denomination was an extraordinary occurrence (§ 155) and concluded that the sanction in the form of blanket ban was disproportionate to any legitimate aim that might be pursued (§ 160). The case also concerns the unreasoned refusal to allow the re-registration of the applicant community (Article 11 in the light of Article 9). The case finally concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to a fair trial on account of the excessive length of the dissolution proceedings (violation of Article 6).

The case of Krupko and Others concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to freedom of religion on account of the unjustified dispersal of a peaceful religious ceremony, in which Jehovah’s Witnesses belonging to various congregations participated in Moscow in 2006 (violation of Article 9). The case also concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to liberty on account of their three-hour deprivation of liberty at a police station subsequent to the dispersal, with no legitimate purpose (violation of Article 5).

Status of execution

The Committee transferred these cases to its enhanced supervision procedure in December 2017 and last examined them in September 2020 (see CM/Notes/1383/H46-17). At the time of drafting these notes, no new information has been provided by the authorities. Previous information from the authorities can be summarised as follows:

A)  Status of execution before the 2017 overall ban

Individual measures

With regard to the execution before the 2017 ban, the Committee noted in its earlier decisions that a new community of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow was successfully registered in 2015, and that also no additional individual measures were deemed required in the Krupkoand Others case.[1]

General measures

The Committee noted the progress achieved earlier, in 2004-2015, in respect of general measures.[2] Furthermore, the problem of excessive length of proceedings (raised among other problems in the Krupko case) has been resolved, and the Committee closed the relevant group of cases (see Final Resolution CM/ResDH(2017)168).

The authorities also previously insisted that both cases should be closed with regard to both individual and general measures.

B) Status of execution after the 2017 overall ban

On 20 April 2017, the Supreme Court dissolved the central body and regional branches of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation, banned their activities and confiscated their property.

The authorities insist that the Committee has no competence to assess this ban, because it is a new issue currently under consideration by the Court in the context of a fresh application (Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Russia and Kalin v. Russia, No. 10188/17). In particular, the grounds of the 2017 ban (allegations of extremist activity in the form of inciting religious discord) differ from those of the 2014 ban (a number specific allegations: for instance, that the Jehovah’s Witnesses forced families to break up, incited its followers to commit suicide and to refuse medical care, etc.). In addition, the authorities consider that the 2017 ban is a new issue because it does not concern the religious organisation “Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow”, which was the applicant in the earlier Court judgment, but another applicant - the all-Russian religious organisation “Administrative Centre of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia”.

The authorities accordingly reported that all necessary information concerning the 2017 ban had already been transmitted to the Court in the framework of the proceedings pending before it in the case of Administrative Centre of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Russia and Kalin v. Russia (No. 10188/17), communicated on 1 December 2017. The authorities also pointed out that the Committee’s request for the relevant information and its assessment violate the rights of the Russian Federation as a party within the adversarial proceedings. They have therefore declined to provide information to the Committee concerning the 2017 ban.

Recent development

On 28 October 2021 the Plenary of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation issued a Guiding Ruling clarifying that participation in religious events is not subject to criminal punishment even if the religious organisation is declared extremist and banned. In particular, the Supreme Court clarified as follows:

“If there is a court decision in force to dissolve or ban the activities of a public or religious association or other organisation in connection with extremist activities, subsequent actions by persons not connected with the continuation or resumption of the extremist organisation concerned and consisting solely in the exercise of their right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, including through individual or joint religious practice, the performance of religious services or other religious rites and ceremonies, do not in themselves constitute criminal offences if they do not contain extremist elements”.[3]

Rule 9 submissions

On 30 December 2020, the European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses submitted a communication
(DH-DD(2021)59) highlighting the consequences of the 2017 ban, including some 420 criminal prosecutions of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, based on the anti-extremism legislation; over 1 230 police raids; 42 individuals were in prison and 31 others under house arrest.

It gave several examples of some recent violent raids, including of the house of Mr Chaykovskiy (the second applicant in the case of the Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, under consideration of the Committee) on 24 November 2020. The Association again suggested that the Committee should initiate infringement proceedings. 

On 30 December 2020, Mr John M. Burns, a representative of the applicants in the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow v. Russia, submitted a communication (DH-DD(2021)15) with more details about the above-mentioned examples of persecution of specific believers, including of Mr Chaykovskiy, against whom a criminal case was opened after the raid of 24 November 2020, he was arrested for three days and then transferred to the house arrest.

Analysis by the Secretariat

A.    Previous examinations by the Committee

Competence of the Committee

It is recalled that the Committee has repeatedly underlined that it is competent to examine the situation after the 2017 ban. The Committee’s position has been explained in detail in the previous Notes (see CM/Notes/1383/H46-17).

It is thus highly regrettable that the authorities decline to enter into a genuine dialogue in these cases.

The 2017 ban

The 2017 ban has effectively nullified the progress noted earlier by the Committee and, while it remains in place, makes the adoption of any further measures, either individual or general, practically impossible. It is recalled that the execution measures that should be taken by the respondent States must be compatible with the conclusions and spirit of the judgment^[4]. The 2017 ban appears to be contrary to the conclusions and sprit of the Court’s judgment in which the Court noted that a blanket ban on the activities of a religious community belonging to a known Christian denomination is an extraordinary occurrence[5] negatively affecting the rights of thousands of Moscow Jehovah's Witnesses who were, as a consequence, denied the possibility of joining with fellow believers in prayer and observance[6].

B.         Measures required

Individual measures

The applicant community (Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow) is again dissolved and banned, and its individual members again cannot fully enjoy their right to manifest their religion, with their peaceful religious ceremonies being subject to immediate dispersals as running against the ban (cf Krupko and Others).

General measures

The situation is the same for all believers of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and their communities in the Russian Federation to whom the ban applies indiscriminately.[7] In particular, the 2017 blanket ban on activities of the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Russian Federation established a firm legal basis for the repetition of similar violations in the future. It thus has grave consequences criminalising any participation in the activities of this religious group.

This has now been confirmed by concrete negative examples from practice of its application evidenced by various sources.[8] Thus, from the NGO Rule 9 communication (see above) it follows that at the time of its submission there were some 420 criminal prosecutions of individual Jehovah’s Witnesses, over 1,230 police raids, 42 imprisoned believers and 31 other believers put under the house arrest.[9]

It is therefore indispensable that the authorities urgently take all required measures to provide full redress to the applicants and to prevent similar violations. This can be done, in particular, by immediately lifting the blanket ban, and discontinuing the criminal cases initiated against Jehovah’s Witnesses for having participated in religious activities.

Also, it is necessary to review the current anti-extremism legislation which had served as a ground for the 2017 ban and for subsequent criminal prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

As to the latest development from the Supreme Court, clarifying that participation in religious events is not subject to criminal punishment even if the religious organisation is declared extremist and banned, it can be noted and the authorities can be invited to provide detailed information about it, including on its application in practice.

Financing assured: YES