The article is devoted to the problem of establishing legal positions in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights aimed at resolving the issue of the possibility of criminal prosecution of Ukrainian citizens who refused to fulfill their duty to defend the Fatherland, independence and territorial integrity due to religious beliefs. The case law of the European Court of Human Rights addresses the problem of a legal conflict between a person’s obligation to perform military service and his or her religious beliefs in case of refusal to perform military service. The main criterion used by the Court to establish that the state has violated Article 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) is the existence of a grave and insurmountable conflict between the obligation to perform military service and a person’s conscience or sincere and deeply held beliefs, whether religious or otherwise. Violation of Art. 9 of the Convention (freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and/or Art. 14 of the Convention (prohibition of discrimination) were found in the following cases: lack of possibility to perform alternative civilian service instead of military service (Bayatyan v. Armenia); conviction of the applicant for evasion of military service, his subsequent mobilization and demobilization with a documented diagnosis of adaptation disorders that arose during the military service (Feti Demirta§ v. Turkey) the absence of a real alternative civilian service, which, according to the legislation of the state, was actually part of the military structure (Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, Adyan and Others v. Armenia) the absence in the legal system of the state of an effective and accessible procedure that would allow pacifist applicants to find out whether they are entitled to use the status of a person who refused to perform military service (Savda v. Turkey, Tarhan v. Turkey); exemption from military service for clergymen of «recognized religious communities» rather than «registered» religious organizations, despite the similar nature of the functions performed by these organizations (Loffelmann v. Austria, Gutl v. Austria, Lang v. Austria).
Read full abstract