What the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation Banned and What it Did Not Ban on April 20, 2017, and How Legal Norms Related to the Activity of Jehovah’s Witnesses Are Being Distorted

The decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 20, 2017, № AKPI17-238, causes me woeful astonishment. How was it possible to liquidate the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and all 395 legally registered communities solely on the basis of declaring 95 publications of Jehovah’s Witnesses extremist and planting “extremist materials” in eight Kingdom Halls?

This decision is all the more surprising because it was made by a qualified and, I dare say, intelligent judge, Yuriy Grigoryevich Ivanenko.

Yu. G. Ivanenko (born in 1966 in the Omsk Region) graduated with honors from the Omsk State University with a degree in jurisprudence in 1992. In 1999, he defended his dissertation: “Current Issues in the Protection of the Honor, Dignity, and Business Reputation of Citizens and the Business Reputation of Legal Entities” (for the degree of PhD in Legal Sciences, specialty 12.00.03 “Civil Law, Business Law, Family Law, Private International Law”). Author of a book¹ and a number of articles on various legal issues; from 1992 to 2015, he worked as a judge in the Omsk and Leningrad Regions. Since March 2015, he has been a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, specializing in administrative cases. In October 2020, he was promoted and became the chairman of the third judicial composition of the Judicial Panel for Economic Disputes of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.²

As an educated and intelligent person, Yu. G. Ivanenko, I believe, understood the absurdity of the claim. At least, the course of the judicial process gave that impression. One must assume that the banning of the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and the local religious communities of Jehovah’s Witnesses was dictated “from above.”

One must assume that the ban… was dictated “from above”

Interestingly, to the credit of Yu. G. Ivanenko, he did not ban unregistered religious groups (congregations) of Jehovah’s Witnesses, indicating in the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on April 20, 2017, № AKPI17-238 that there were over 2,500 such organized congregations under the leadership of the administrative defendant (that is, the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia).³

The decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on the liquidation of the religious organization the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia and the local religious organizations that are part of its structure dated April 20, 2017, contains an exhaustive list of legal entities subject to liquidation. At the same time, the court’s decision does not contain conclusions regarding a ban of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. A similar conclusion is stated in the appellate ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 17, 2017, where it is noted that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not assess the legality of the religious beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses and of the ways they are expressed (p.43 of the ruling).

The court’s decision does not contain conclusions regarding a ban of the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses

This fact has been repeatedly confirmed in official responses by the Russian Government to international organizations concerned about the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia (including the UN Human Rights Committee and the European Court of Human Rights).

Thus, on May 25, 2017, the Government of the Russian Federation assured the UN Human Rights Committee that the abovementioned rulings do not limit the right of citizens to freedom of religion and that members of the liquidated organization are able to practice their beliefs independently, provided they do not distribute extremist literature or otherwise engage in illegal activity.

The Government of the Russian Federation, in its response of March 23, 2018 to the ECtHR on the admissibility of the application of the religious organization the Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, stated that the Russian authorities maintain the fact that the mentioned rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation do not assess the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and do not restrict or prohibit the individual practice of the above-mentioned teaching [Paragraph 91].⁴

The rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation do not assess the teachings of Jehovah’s Witnesses and do not restrict or prohibit the individual practice of the abovementioned teaching

Thus, the Government of the Russian Federation has repeatedly declared the need to respect the constitutional rights of persons practicing the faith of Jehovah’s Witnesses.⁵

If law enforcement agencies and courts had strictly followed the legal norms contained in the April 20, 2017 decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, there would have been no grounds for initiating criminal cases or convictions against believers who simply gathered for religious meetings in religious groups.

Unfortunately, law enforcement authorities prosecute Jehovah’s Witnesses simply for their religious affiliation, interpreting the participation of believers in collective meetings for worship in religious groups (congregations) as the continuation of the activity of an extremist organization.

Unfortunately, law enforcement authorities prosecute Jehovah’s Witnesses simply for their religious affiliation

Indeed, the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation contains Article 282.2, which stipulates punishment for “organizing the activity of a public or religious association or other organization, regarding which a court has adopted a final decision to liquidate or ban its activity in connection with extremist activity.” But this article does not directly relate to Jehovah’s Witnesses. After all, they hold meetings for worship as members of religious groups that were not banned by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on April 20, 2017, and accordingly were not declared extremist.

The congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses that are formed according to their canonical structure, which according to secular legislation are religious groups, act independently of any legal entity, and are not organizations. From the viewpoint of a religious studies scholar, it would be incorrect to identify them with the activity of the legal entities that were previously registered and subsequently liquidated by the state. The April 20, 2017 decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation does not abolish the constitutional right of an individual “to profess individually or jointly with others any religion.”⁶

The congregations of Jehovah’s Witnesses act independently of any legal entity and are not organizations

From 2018-2022, during the time that I appeared in the courts at the invitation of the defense as a religious studies scholar, I had the opportunity to observe various types of law enforcement officers, judges, and prosecutors involved in the prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In general, as experienced, and for the most part sensible people, they understood that Jehovah’s Witnesses are not criminals.

I wanted to understand what motives drive those who investigate, prosecute, and convict; why some are eager, while others act without enthusiasm and even at times help the accused in some way. Of course, it is very difficult to draw unequivocal and indisputable conclusions. As the Bible says, “man sees what appears to the eye, but Jehovah sees into the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

I will share my observations without claiming that they are indisputable.

The first type I have encountered is the committed fighter against “sects.” People of this type exhibit the greatest enthusiasm and ferocity, and judges with such convictions pass the harshest sentences. What are their motives? I have heard all kinds of often completely ridiculous arguments about the harmfulness of “sects,” including Jehovah’s Witnesses, in terms of their danger to society. “True, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t kill or rob anyone,” one prosecutor stated with a wise air in the court corridor, explaining why Jehovah’s Witnesses should be jailed, even if they do not break the law. “But we must remember the words of Jesus Christ, ‘do not become fearful of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather, fear him who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna.’⁷ Jehovah’s Witnesses destroy the souls of their followers; they will all go to hell. And they must be dealt with decisively and mercilessly.”

The second type is the careerists. They do not care whether or not the defendants are guilty. For them, it is important to achieve an excellent record in their work of combating crime. Criminal cases against Jehovah’s Witnesses are a very convenient resource for boosting the statistics on solved “extremist” crimes. It is one thing to risk one’s life to solve the crimes of real extremists and terrorists who can kill not only a law enforcement officer, but also his relatives. It is quite another to fabricate criminal cases against Jehovah’s Witnesses without risking anything, while getting bonuses and promotions. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not hide their religious affiliation, do not offer armed resistance, and do not retaliate against their persecutors.

The third type is people whose conscience is alive. They can be found in law enforcement agencies and among judges. If they can, they try, within the limits of their authority, to help in some way; for example, putting the person under investigation under house arrest rather than depriving him of his liberty by putting him in a detention center, or giving a suspended sentence or a fine instead of actual imprisonment in a penal colony.

As of the end of October 2021, judges who want to live by law and conscience even have the opportunity to acquit Jehovah’s Witnesses

As of the end of October 2021, judges who want to live by law and conscience even have the opportunity to acquit Jehovah’s Witnesses prosecuted under Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (RF CrC). They may rely upon the resolution of the Supreme Court Plenum of the Russian Federation of October 28, 2021, stating that “In the event that a court decides to liquidate or ban the activity of a public or religious association or other organization due to extremist activity, the subsequent actions of persons not connected with perpetuating or renewing the activity of the relevant extremist organization and consisting exclusively in the exercise of their right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, including through individual or joint profession of religion, performance of religious services or other religious rites and ceremonies, if such do not contain elements of extremism, do not on their own constitute the corpus delicti specified in Article 282.2(2).”⁸ This norm affects Jehovah’s Witnesses in the most direct way. Their activity consists solely of the exercise of their right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion, including through individual or joint practice of religion, the performance of worship or other religious rites and ceremonies, and does not contain elements of extremism.

The first acquittal of one of Jehovah’s Witnesses charged under Article 282.2 of the RF CrC was handed down in Vladivostok. On November 22, 2021, Judge Stanislav Aleksandrovich Salnikov of the Pervorechensky District Court of Vladivostok (Primorye Territory) found Dmitriy Viktorovich Barmakin not guilty of the charges under Article 282.2(1) of the RF CrC and acquitted him with the right to rehabilitation.

It is important to note that Dmitriy Barmakin spent over a year in pre-trial detention (447 days in detention center № 1 in Primorye Territory), and that during the court hearings the prosecutor asked that Dmitriy Barmakin be sentenced to 9 years in prison and 1 year restriction of freedom.

The verdict notes: “The court, having considered the present case, is convinced that both for every person in general and for every one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, attending joint worship services, providing premises for them, reading and discussing religious literature, spreading religious beliefs, observing religious rites and ceremonies, singing spiritual songs and offering prayers are forms of lawful conduct that are part of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. […] Conducting religious rites of Jehovah’s Witnesses in residential or commercial premises… does not violate the law but is the exercise of the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and religion, because such a right cannot be limited exclusively to the realm of private life; it can also be implemented in the external sphere, including in mass, collective forms.”⁹

Conducting religious rites… does not violate the law, but is the exercise of the rights of believers to freedom of conscience and religion

In addition, the verdict says that Dmitry Barmakin “is subject to acquittal due to the lack of corpus delicti in the defendant’s actions” because the believer was “exercising the right to freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution of Russia.” Judge S. A. Salnikov noted: “In criminal proceedings on crimes of an extremist nature, to which Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation refers, it is necessary to keep in mind that… the motives for committing the specified crimes must be proven… Such motives are not proven in this case. […] Rights related to freedom of religion must be ensured regardless of whether a person is a member of any religious organization or not, so the right to practice the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses must be ensured even after the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia of 20.04.2017.” Having examined the evidence presented by the investigation, the court concluded that “D. V. Barmakin never carried out extremist activities; he practiced the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses, including meeting and discussing his beliefs with his fellow believers.”

Rights related to freedom of religion must be ensured regardless of whether a person is a member of any religious organization or not

On April 8, 2022, the Primorskiy Territory court reversed the acquittal verdict and sent D. V. Barmakin’s case for a new trial to the court of first instance.¹⁰

It should be noted that after the resolution of the Supreme Court Plenum of the Russian Federation of October 28, 2021, some other acquittals were also handed down; for example, Konstantin and Snezhana Bazhenov and Vera Zolotova were acquitted.

On September 25, 2020, the Bazhenovs and V. Zolotova were given suspended sentences of two years and an additional punishment of restriction of freedom for six months each. The Yelizovsky District Court of Kamchatka Territory found them guilty of participating in the activity of an extremist organization (Article 282.2(2) of the RF CrC). In November 2020, the regional court considered the appeal against the verdict and left it unchanged.

The court of cassation noted in its determination that the court of appeal must take into account the resolution of the Supreme Court Plenum of the Russian Federation dated October 28, 2021, according to which the courts must establish exactly what socially dangerous actions the participants of extremist organizations have committed and not attribute actions that consist exclusively of exercising the right to freedom of conscience to participating in such organizations. On January 18, 2022, the Kamchatka Regional Court, considering the case of Konstantin and Snezhana Bazhenov and Vera Zolotova for the second time, found them not guilty of extremism. This was the second acquittal of Jehovah’s Witnesses charged under Article 282.2 of the RF CrC since the Plenum of the Supreme Court ruled on October 28, 2021. Most unfortunately, this acquittal was also reversed. On January 31, 2023, the Kamchatka regional court for the third time considered the case of the previously acquitted Bazhenov couple and pensioner Vera Zolotova and found them guilty of extremism, giving them a two-year suspended sentence. The believers still consider themselves innocent. Snezhana Bazhenova, recalling the years of court proceedings, noted: “In court it became clear that the charges against us were fabricated. For example, when the testimony of an elderly woman, a prosecution witness [who had discussed the Bible with Jehovah’s Witnesses], was read out loud, she couldn’t contain herself and kept shouting, ‘You’ve twisted everything! It’s a lie!’ And the judge saw and heard that the prosecution witness never actually said such things. And, when asked if she knew us, she said, ‘No, I don’t know them at all.’”¹¹

Unfortunately, the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 28, 2021 did not put an end to the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia. Even after October 28, 2021, searches of the homes of Jehovah’s Witnesses are being conducted, new criminal cases are being initiated, and wrongful convictions are being made.

But no matter how events unfold, Jehovah’s Witnesses will not abandon their faith and will continue to preach, believing that God has not given them “a spirit of cowardice, but one of power and of love and of soundness of mind” (2 Timothy 1:7).

Jehovah’s Witnesses will not abandon their faith and will continue to preach

1
Yu. G. Ivanenko, Protection of Honor, Dignity of Citizens, Business Reputation of Citizens, and Legal Entities (Methodological Guide for Practitioners), Omsk, “YUG,” 1998, p.80. ↩︎
2
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation consists of the following bodies: the Judicial Panel for Civil Cases, the Judicial Panel for Economic Disputes, the Judicial Panel for Administrative Cases, the Judicial Panel for Criminal Cases, and the Panel for Military Affairs. Judicial Panels of the Supreme Court of Russia consider, within their jurisdiction, cases as first and appellate instances, in cassation (on appeals and representations against judgements, resolutions and rulings of regional courts [military courts – district level]), and on newly discovered circumstances. Judicial Panels study and summarize judicial practice, analyze judicial statistics and exercise other powers granted them by law. ↩︎
3
Decision of the RF Supreme Court of April 20, 2017, № AKPI17-238, p.24. ↩︎
4
Council requests the Prosecutor General’s Office to check the legality and validity of the criminal prosecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses (http://www.president-sovet.ru/presscenter/news/covet_prosit_genprokuraturu_proverit_zakonnost_i_obosnovannost_ugolovnogo_presledovaniya_svideteley_/ [only in Russian]). ↩︎
5
Based on these facts, the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights of the Russian Federation appealed on June 20, 2018, to the Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation with a request to check the legality and validity of criminal prosecution of citizens practicing the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses and to take measures to protect their constitutional right to freedom of religion (http://www.president-sovet.ru/presscenter/news/covet_prosit_genprokuraturu_proverit_zakonnost_i_obosnovannost_ugolovnogo_presledovaniya_svideteley_/ [only in Russian]), but the appeal has not produced results, the persecution of Jehovah’s Witnesses continues. ↩︎
6
Article 28 of the Russian Constitution states that “everyone shall be guaranteed freedom of conscience and religion, including the right to profess individually or jointly with others any religion or not to profess any religion, and freely to choose, possess and disseminate religious and other convictions and act in accordance with them.” ↩︎
7
Matthew 10:28. ↩︎
8
Additions were made in clause 20 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the RF Supreme Court of June 28, 2011, № 11 on Judicial practice in cases of crimes with an extremist nature. ↩︎
9
The First Acquittal of One of Jehovah’s Witnesses Under Article 282.2 of the RF CrC in Vladivostok (https://jw-russia.org/en/news/2021/11/221624.html). ↩︎
10
Unfortunately, the retrial of Dmitry Barmakin’s case in the Pervorechensky District Court of Vladivostok concluded in a guilty verdict and a sentence of 8 years – this unjust decision was rendered on April 27, 2023, by Judge Larisa Smolenkova. ↩︎
11
A Suspended Sentence Instead of an Acquittal (https://jw-russia.org/en/news/2023/01/311602.html). ↩︎