Supreme Court Rules Religious Beliefs Do Not Exempt Jehovah’s Witness From Mobilization Liability

The Supreme Court of Ukraine ruled that religious beliefs do not exempt an individual from liability for evading mobilization, though they may be considered in determining the appropriate punishment. The court addressed a case involving a Jehovah’s Witness who refused to serve in the military during mobilization, citing his faith as the reason.

The case, numbered 608/1088/23, was reviewed by the Third Judicial Chamber of the Cassation Criminal Court. The individual, who had been registered for military service and deemed fit for duty, refused to comply with a summons to appear for further dispatch to a military unit. His refusal was based on his religious beliefs, as he is a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses and has held the position of deacon within his congregation.

The convicted person claimed that his faith prohibits him from bearing arms, wearing a military uniform, or performing military duties. He requested alternative non-military service as a substitute for conscription. However, the courts determined that he had previously submitted applications for such an alternative, which were not accepted.

On November 8, 2024, the Chortkiv District Court of Ternopil region convicted the individual under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment. The Ternopil Court of Appeal upheld this decision on December 3, 2025.

In the cassation appeal, the defense argued that the individual’s religious beliefs should be taken into account, citing Part 4 of Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The defense sought to overturn the court decisions and close the criminal proceedings, emphasizing the individual’s right to conscientious objection.

The Supreme Court affirmed that while religious beliefs may be considered, they do not grant the right to avoid conscription during mobilization. The court emphasized that the individual remained liable for his actions, and the punishment was determined based on the circumstances of the case.

The ruling underscores the legal framework in Ukraine regarding military service and conscientious objection, highlighting the balance between individual rights and national obligations. It also reflects broader discussions on the role of religion in legal and civic duties.

Source: Read the original report