Jehovah’s Witnesses Member Sentenced to Three Years for Refusing Mobilization Based on Religious Beliefs

The court in Shepetivka, Cloudian district, has ruled against a Jehovah’s Witnesses member who refused mobilization due to his religious beliefs. The defendant, who had been declared fit for military service, was found guilty of evading mobilization and sentenced to three years in prison. The court determined that Ukrainian law does not provide for alternative non-military service during wartime, and that freedom of conscience does not exempt individuals from fulfilling their military obligations.

The accused, who had been a Jehovah’s Witnesses member since 2015, stated that his faith prohibits him from carrying arms, taking oaths, or obeying military commands. He claimed readiness to perform non-military duties but argued that such an option was not available to him. His legal representative cited Ukraine’s Constitution, particularly Article 35, which guarantees the right to alternative service, as a basis for appeal.

During the trial, military personnel testified that the defendant was aware of the consequences of his refusal. They noted that after mobilization, he could potentially serve in roles consistent with his beliefs, such as hospital service or other non-combat duties. The court acknowledged the constitutional protection of freedom of conscience but emphasized that it does not override legal obligations during wartime.

The court’s decision referenced a prior case, 688/1935/26, where it was noted that military personnel might be able to exercise their freedom of conscience by performing duties aligned with their beliefs, provided they do not involve carrying or using weapons. However, the court concluded that the defendant’s refusal to accept mobilization constituted a criminal offense.

The ruling highlights the tension between religious convictions and legal obligations in times of national crisis. It underscores the legal stance that during wartime, alternative service is not recognized as a substitute for military duty. The case reflects broader challenges faced by religious groups in navigating legal systems that prioritize national defense.

The court’s emphasis on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of conscience does not extend to absolving individuals of their legal responsibilities during mobilization. This decision reinforces the legal framework that prioritizes national security and the rule of law, even in the face of deeply held religious beliefs.

Source: Read the original report (translated from Ukrainian)