In a landmark June 7 ruling, the judges denounced the Russian concept of “extremism” as a tool used to violate religious freedom.

by Massimo Introvigné

On June 7, 2022, the European Court of Human Rights in the case “Taganrog LRO and others v. Russia” issued a historic decision declaring the Russian liquidation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the suppression of this religious organization in Russia illegal. The decision concerned twenty different cases concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia, which were consolidated. “Taganrog LRO” refers to the local branch of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Taganrog, Rostov Oblast, which was ordered liquidated in 2009.

In 2017, the National Administrative Center of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia was also “liquidated” in accordance with a Supreme Court decision, as had already happened for other local branches. Individual witnesses have been arrested and prosecuted, publications have been banned, and access to the international Jehovah’s Witnesses website JW.org has been blocked in Russia.

In a detailed decision, the ECHR notes that all these measures are part of “a policy of intolerance by the Russian authorities towards the religious practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses aimed at inducing Jehovah’s Witnesses to abandon their faith and to prevent others to join it”. The Court reaffirmed its long-standing principle that “respect for religious diversity undoubtedly represents one of the most important challenges facing us today; for this reason, the authorities must perceive religious diversity not as a threat but as a source of enrichment.

In Russia, the authorities did the exact opposite. “The use of excessively broad language in extremism legislation to dissolve communities of Jehovah’s Witnesses throughout Russia, the dissolution of their religious meetings, the confiscation of their religious publications, the searches of their homes and in places of worship, surveillance by security services and other forms of interference in their religious practices reinforce this finding,” the court said.

The decision is nearly two hundred pages long and examines several topics. However, its focus is the notion of “extremism”. Russian law prohibits as “religious extremists” organizations and publications that do not advocate violence but simply present their beliefs and practices as “superior” to others. In practice, Russian courts interpret “religious extremism” as the assertion that a religious path is superior to that offered by the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). Indeed, the decision notes the important role that ROC priests and “experts” played in the process leading to the “liquidation” of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Russia.

The Court, confirming its previous case law, noted procedural problems in identifying “extremism” in Russia. First the [Russian] the courts simply endorsed the conclusions drawn up by experts chosen by the prosecutors and the police and made no attempt to conduct their own legal analysis. Second, “Russian law did not allow affected parties to participate in proceedings under the Suppression of Extremism Law, which meant that their arguments could not be heard.”

On the merits, the ECHR observed that “the banning of publications by Jehovah’s Witnesses, even if they contained no statement advocating violence, hatred or intimidation, was only possible because the definition of “Extremism” in Russian law was too broad and could apply to entirely peaceful forms of expression. The Court said that “peaceful and non-violent attempts to persuade others of the virtues of one’s own religion and the faults of others and to urge them to abandon ‘false religions’ and join the ‘true'” are “a form legitimate freedom of religion and expression”.

“Even accepting that the texts [used to prove that they were “extremists”] promoted the idea that the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses was superior to others or that it was better to be a Jehovah’s Witness than to be a member of another Christian denomination, it is significant that the texts do not insult, ridicule or slander non-Witnesses; nor did they use abusive terms about them or about matters considered sacred by them.

The Court agrees “with the Venice Commission that there is nothing extremist in criticizing, “even harshly and unreasonably, belief systems, opinions and institutions, as long as it does not amount to advocating hatred against an individual or groups”. Peacefully seeking to convince others of the superiority of one’s own religion and urging them to abandon “false religions” and join the “true” is a legitimate form of exercising the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression which enjoys protection under Articles 9 and 10 of the [European] Agreement [on Human Rights].”

Of course, promoting one’s own religion through violence or incitement to violence is not permitted. However, the ECHR “did not identify evidence of the use of inappropriate methods to persuade others to prefer the religion of Jehovah’s Witnesses. None of the banned publications contained calls or incitements to violence or insulting, defamatory or discriminatory remarks against members of other faiths.

In summary, “the interference with the applicants’ fundamental rights was made possible by the excessively broad definition of ‘extremism’ in Russian law. In fact, “the extremely broad definition of ‘extremist activities’ in section 1 of the CEA, which does not require any element of violence or hatred, opens up the possibility of prosecuting individuals and organizations for extremism for entirely peaceful forms of expression or worship.The Russian definition of “extremism” “not only could and did lead to arbitrary prosecution, but also prevented individuals or organizations from being able to anticipate that their conduct, however peaceful and devoid of hatred or animosity, could be labeled as “extremist” and censured with restrictive measures.

The ECHR concluded that “the definitions of ‘extremism’ and ‘extremist activities’ in section 1 of the Suppression of Extremism Act, as formulated and applied in practice by the authorities Russians, did not satisfy the requirement of legality. »

While these findings and the implication that all actions taken against Jehovah’s Witnesses should be rescinded and their property should be returned to them were adopted by the ECHR by six votes to one — only a Russian judge was not in favor. agreement — the additional conclusion that Russia should take all necessary measures to end the ongoing criminal proceedings against Jehovah’s Witnesses and to release those incarcerated, was obtained by four votes to three. This shows the reluctance of some judges to apply Article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights to interfere in ongoing criminal proceedings. However, in the end, even this conclusion was adopted.

Russia was also ordered to pay the claimants a total of 59,617,458 EUR (63,684,978 USD) for pecuniary damage (mainly seized property) and 3,447,250 EUR (3,682,445 USD) for non-pecuniary damage.

Some may object that the decision has only symbolic significance, since Russia is no longer a member of the Council of Europe (CoE) and had announced even before that it would not consider itself bound by the decisions of the ECHR. However, the facts examined by the ECHR occurred while Russia was still part of the Council of Europe and, legally, Russia is still bound by the decision. It is unlikely to do so, but we can hope that one day Russia will resume its place at the common table of European countries and respect the decisions of the ECHR.

Meanwhile, other member states of the Council of Europe will benefit from this decision. From there, they can clearly see that Jehovah’s Witnesses have been defined as a peaceful and legitimate “Christian denomination” that poses no threat to the community. Their evangelistic work, the court said, is fully legitimate, and believers’ behavior and religious practices are the result of independent and free decisions. The ECHR has also confirmed that the choices of witnesses in the medical field are also legitimate and must be respected. He also pointed out that while friction may result from religious beliefs, the ensuing estrangement cannot be interpreted to mean that religion caused the family to break down.

States were also reminded that even if they disagree with some of the beliefs and practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they should always respect their freedom of religion.