Some Ukrainians refuse to take up arms due to religious beliefs — interview

Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventists, and Ukrainian members of several other religious organizations refuse to take up arms even during the ongoing existential war. NV spoke to two such conscientious objectors to examine how they attempt reconcile the need to defend their country with pacifist religious beliefs.

Young U.S. citizen Desmond Doss went to the front along with thousands of his fellow citizens during WWII. But he was significantly different from other soldiers, namely he categorically refused to take up arms. Doss was a Seventh-day Adventist and could not commit violence due to his religious beliefs, which made him a target of ridicule from his brothers-in-arms. However, it was he who showed bravery during the fierce Battle for Okinawa, pulling wounded infantrymen from under enemy fire.

Based on his story, U.S. actor Mel Gibson directed a movie called Hacksaw Ridge a few years ago. Today, the laws of many democratic states consider the rights of citizens who, according to their beliefs, don’t take up arms, and they are given the opportunity to undergo alternative service instead of combat deployment.

Read also: No clarity from Zelenskyy on revised mobilization bill

Ukraine was among such countries until Feb. 24, 2022, as the right to alternative service is enshrined in the Ukrainian Constitution and regulated by law. Before the Russian invasion, citizens who could prove that their beliefs prohibited them from committing any kind of violence were sent to work at defense enterprises instead of doing mandatory military service.

The situation has changed with the onset of war. Although alternative service has not been abolished at the legislative level, those who refuse military summons over religious beliefs face criminal charges for evading mobilization.

Since February 2022, Ukrainian courts have handed down three prison sentences (two of them later overturned), at least nine suspended prison terms, and two acquittals (which prosecutors are challenging) in related cases. At least seven criminal trials continue, according to the Forum18 human rights organization.

NV spoke with two Ukrainians who refused to take up arms but failed to get assigned alternative service, and consulted with a legal expert to explain how the judicial system tends to handle conscientious objectors.

Mykhailo Yavorsky, 41 years old, Ivano-Frankivsk

I did my mandatory military service in 2001-2002. When I was in the army, I came to believe in God, but I was forced to complete my military service not to become a deserter. After demobilization, I started going to the Church of Jesus Christ [from 2002 to 2009], then I was a believer of the Church of the Living God [from 2010 to 2019]. But I wasn’t a member of any congregation at the time of the full-scale invasion.

The thing is that I was constantly studying the Bible and trying not to be involved [in organized religion], so I began to notice some inconsistencies between the texts and what was said in the meetings. Accordingly, I began to ask the pastors questions, and we had certain misunderstandings about faith. So, I left those meetings and now I’m in contact with meetings in the United States and one near Odesa. But as of now, I’m not yet a member of their congregation.

Read also: Zelenskyy in the Baltics, mobilization bill withdrawn, Ihnat on RU strike goals

I took part in the Orange Revolution in 2004, as well as in the Revolution of Dignity in 2013-2014, although I avoided clashes.

I voluntarily came to the military recruitment office in Ivano-Frankivsk a few days after the start of the full-scale war. I stood in line with other men and said I could help. They wanted to mobilize me right away, because I had previously served, but I explained that I could not take up arms and wanted to help in another way, such as digging trenches, logistics, or cooking food. However, I was told they didn’t need such people at that time.

I received a mobilization notice after about three months and decided not to hide but went to the military recruitment office the next day and went through the medical commission. I was put on hold for six months due to a surgery I had to undergo. Six months later, I voluntarily returned to the military recruitment office, underwent health checkup for the second time, and when I was supposed to be mobilized, I said that I could not fight. They let me go home, but the police came a month later, followed by interrogations and court hearings.

The court sentenced me to one year in prison [for evading mobilization]. It was followed by an appeal and a three-year suspended sentence.

Read also: Government withdraws controversial mobilization bill from parliament

The fact that I’m not currently a parishioner played against me. Of course, I could just take that certificate from a pastor, it’s very easy as I know many of them in the city. But I deliberately decided not to do this.

It’s important that the court recognized that I’m a religious person, despite the lack of supporting documents. And the appellate court took into account that I’m a family man, I have two young children, I work two jobs, and I really have contacts with local churches.

I’ve already filed a cassation appeal. If I lose, I will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.

My father-in-law has his own company that transports goods abroad. I could have ended up in Poland many times and flown from there to the United States where my older sister lives. But I won’t do that because I want to live here, why should I leave? My whole family, including wife, son, and daughter, supports Ukraine.

Should Ukrainians defend themselves? Yes, in this situation they should. My younger sister’s husband has been fighting for two years, now he’s [deployed] in Zaporizhzhya Oblast. And I personally help him: for example, with equipment, I also bought fuel and sent it in canisters. But I can’t take up arms and shoot someone.

In other words, there is a certain stratum of people in the country who aren’t ready to fight over their religious beliefs. But they can be organized to do something, e.g., clear the debris after shelling, rebuild cities, through something like “Ukraine’s unarmed forces.” Even those who aren’t ready to go to the front only because of fear could join, and then men would stop fleeing abroad.

Serhiy, 54 years old

Presbyter of the Seventh-day Adventist Church in Bucha, Kyiv Oblast

I did military service in the Soviet army. I was baptized in 1995 and became a presbyter in 2003.

I was summoned to the military recruitment office when the war began in 2014. I brought documents, showed that I was a believer, so they had no questions for me.

I work at the Ukrainian Humanitarian Institute in Bucha [a suburb of Kyiv]. The institution was required to provide information on all male employees after the full-scale war began [in 2022]. And we were given a certain deadline to come to the military recruitment office to update our personal data.

Read also: Ukrainian Armed Forces developing digital recruitment project for drone operators

I came voluntarily and was immediately sent to a military health checkup. They wanted to serve me with a mobilization notice in late December 2023. I refused to take it. I asked about the possibility of alternative service, but I was shown excerpts from the laws, which allegedly stipulate that such an option is possible only during conscription, but not during martial law.

They let me go, but now I expect that I may be summoned to the prosecutor’s office. I’m in a limbo right now.

Back at the military recruitment office, I wanted to write a statement that I refused to take a summons over religious beliefs, but they said they would not accept it. Therefore, I wrote it at home and sent it their way.

Currently, two employees at our institute, also Adventists, are already in similar legal proceedings, with one of them being at the final stage.

I’m a student chaplain at the Humanitarian Institute, I worked with internally displaced people. I wouldn’t mind being a [military] chaplain, I could help people that way. However, the military recruitment office didn’t offer me to become a chaplain, they just wanted to serve a notice.

At the same time, they said: “You don’t have to take up arms, you’ll peel potatoes or dig a trench.” But it doesn’t work that way—once you’re mobilized, you must obey the commanders. In addition, units at the front need fighters, not believers who would refuse to take up arms.

The military recruitment office told me that I was just trying to justify my [unwillingness to fight] with my faith. And I wanted to explain myself at first, but then I realized they don’t think in this context at all, because they don’t believe in God in principle, so it’s hard for them to understand.

Kateryna Kotelva

Judge of Lviv Halytskyi District Court, instructor at the National School of Judges

The right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion is a basic human right enshrined in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. And the alternative service concept was made precisely for the citizens to exercise this right.

Ukraine is currently seeing several dozens of court cases regarding evasion of military service during mobilization, when the refusal to mobilize is related to someone’s religious beliefs. About five of them have ended in acquittals, while the rest have guilty verdicts.

The judicial practice is different now. Some verdicts (both acquittals and convictions) are based on the recognition of someone’s right to practice his religion and to undergo alternative service instead of military service if his religion doesn’t allow taking up arms. But there is another approach. For example, one of the acquittals was overturned by the appeals court on the grounds that replacing military service during wartime mobilization with an alternative one is not provided for by current legislation.

Read also: European Parliamentarian invokes Article 7 of EU Treaty in bid to suspend Hungary’s voting rights

The extent to which human rights guarantees can be applied amid an existential threat to the state is currently being widely discussed.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not yet put an end to legal debates on this issue.

There are legitimate fears that citizens will begin to abuse this right to evade their constitutional duty to defend the country in wartime. Therefore, it’s important for the court to establish the sincerity of someone’s beliefs, the existence of an insurmountable internal conflict which prevents them from fighting. However, I would like to note that it’s not so easy to mislead the court. One thing is when you’ve been attending spiritual gatherings for 10 years, while another one is when someone became a member of a certain religious organization, for example, in May 2022, having received a mobilization notice a week prior.

The judge must understand that the defendant may really have an irreconcilable internal conflict that prevents them from ever using a weapon. Everything is taken into account at court hearings, in particular how often and for how long a believer goes to church, how active they is in services, or whether they takes part in religious ceremonies.

We’re bringing the voice of Ukraine to the world. Support us with a one-time donation, or become a Patron!

Read the original article on The New Voice of Ukraine