OSCE, Warsaw, Poland

Warsaw Human Dimension Conference

Monday 7 October - Plenary Session VII: Fundamental Freedoms II:

Mensenrechten Zonder Grenzen Nederland is deeply concerned about the decision of the Lithuanian Parliament on 6 June 2024 rejecting the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ request for the enhanced status of a State-recognized religion on two grounds. One of them is conscientious objection to military service. We recommend that Lithuania recognizes without delay

· the full right to conscientious objection on the grounds of their religious beliefs and

· the right to perform an alternative civilian service that is not under the authority of the army.

Statement about the facts

The Republic of Lithuania asserts that military service is a constitutional duty of every citizen of the country and that membership of a Jehovah’s Witnesses community does not exempt one from this duty, and does not justify non-compliance with laws.

However, on 7 June 2022, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously ruled that in the case Teliatnikov v. Lithuania dealing with the conscientious objection of a Jehovah’s Witness minister there had been a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention guaranteeing freedom of religion or belief.

The Court ultimately held that that the failure to respect the applicant’s conscientious objection had not been “necessary in a democratic society”.

Moreover, nearly all Council of Europe Member States have recognised the principle of conscientious objection as part of freedom of religion or belief.

We therefore recommend that Lithuania

· comply with the UN Covenant it has signed and ratified, the standards of the Council of Europe and the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights;

· remove the conscientious objection argument as one of the two reasons for not granting Jehovah’s Witnesses the enhanced status of a State-recognized religion.

Background information

Lithuania and Jehovah’s Witnesses: What is the matter?

by Massimo Introvigne

Bitter Winter (05.07.2024) - Last month, on June 6, 2024, the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) rejected the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ request for the enhanced status of a State-recognized religion.

Shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, Jehovah’s Witnesses had already obtained the basic status as a State registered religion. In Lithuania, there are three tiers of official recognition granted to religions.

In the case of “Ancient Baltic Association Romuva v. Lithuania,” no. 48329/19, June 8, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights explained that “Lithuanian law distinguishes between three types of religious associations: traditional religious associations, non-traditional religious associations recognized by the State, and other religious associations.”

It explained that “any religious association may be registered and obtain legal personality, provided it meets certain minimum criteria.” State “registration” gives the religious organization the “right to conduct religious services and engage in educational and charitable activities.” In contrast, State “recognition” gives the religion “certain additional privileges, such as the right to provide religious education in schools, the right to perform religious marriages that have the effect of civil marriages and the right to be granted airtime by the national broadcaster for the purpose of broadcasting their religious services.” Other additional rights afforded to State recognized religions include access to state funds for health insurance and pension of the ministers.

In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they applied for State recognition on 15 December 2017. Their request was not considered by the Seimas until more than six years later, on 6 June 2024.

After a discussion where different positions emerged, the majority in the Seimas decided to accept the recommendation not to grant the enhanced state recognition of the Ministry of Justice, which had found two beliefs and practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to be contrary to the Lithuanian Constitution.

Interestingly, the Seimas discussion showed that many MPs agreed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are “decent, good citizens” and even “excellent people.” Some MPs also warned that a decision against the Jehovah’s Witnesses may be regarded as discriminatory and expose Lithuania to the risk of being censored again by the European Court of Human Rights, as it already happened after its refusal to grant a higher level of recognition to the “neo-pagan” religious organization Romuva.

Additionally, one of the two reasons on which the decision was based may soon become moot. The Ministry of Justice regarded the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ principle of conscientious objection, i.e., their refusal based on their interpretation of Biblical principles both of armed military service and non-armed alternative service managed by the military authorities, as contrary to the Constitutional obligation to defend the country in case of foreign armed attack. Not surprisingly, some Lithuanian politicians feel even more strongly about this obligation after Russia’s attack against Ukraine.

However, how Lithuania interprets the provision has been declared a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in its decision of June 7, 2022, “Teliatnikov v. Lithuania ((application no. 51914/19).” The decision concerned a Jehovah’s Witness minister, Stanislav Teliatnikov, who refused non-armed “alternative national defense service” by claiming that it was still a form of military service. The ECHR found in favor of Teliatnikov, noting that the Lithuanian “alternative national defense service” is “directly under the supervision and control of the military.”

The ECHR ruled in the “Teliatnikov” case that,

“1) persons performing alternative national defense service are referred to as ‘military conscripts’ and/or ‘military draftees’ throughout the Law on Conscription and the Regulations;

2) the type of work to be performed is assigned by the military…;

3) if no civilian work assignment is available, ‘the military conscript will be assigned to perform alternative service in the national defence system institutions’…;

4) the ‘military conscript’ is taken to his assigned place of work by the military and is given the same ‘provisions (except for living quarters and clothing)’ as ‘military service soldiers’…;

5) the manager of the institution where the ‘military conscript’ performs his work immediately notifies the military in writing about ‘the [military conscript’s] appointment, specific tasks, conditions and work time,’ and provides the military with a monthly ‘time roster’ for the ‘military conscript’…;

6) a ‘military conscript’ performing alternative national defence service ‘cannot be dismissed’ for disciplinary violations by the manager of the institution where he is working, without the approval of the military… Besides, under Article 26 of the Law on Conscription, in the event of mobilization, the ‘military conscript’ performing ‘alternative national defence service’ may be ‘summoned to perform military service.’ These observations show that alternative national defence service is intrinsically linked to military service, and therefore cannot be seen as separate civilian service” (“Teliatnikov v. Lithuania,” n. 107).

Not to violate its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, Lithuania should offer as an alternative to military conscription a genuine civilian service independent from military supervision. The Jehovah’s Witnesses would have no objection in performing this kind of civilian service, as it happens in many other countries. Lithuania has vowed to comply with the obligations imposed by the ECHR and amend its legislation. In this case, the problem concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ conscientious objection will automatically disappear. (…)

MZG Footnote: It is noteworthy that on 27 September 1993 the UN Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment No 22 on the ICCPR about the right to conscientious objection stating that such a right could be derived from Article 18, inasmuch as the obligation to use lethal force might seriously conflict with the freedom of conscience and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief.