Civilized states respected freedom of conscience even during world wars and decided to respect it in future, so never again such wars could happen.

Published May 8, 2025

Constitutional Court of Ukraine will hear conscientious objector’s case

The Constitutional Court of Ukraine found admissible a complaint of conscientious objector to military service, Vitalii Alekseienko, and will check alleged unconstitutionality of jailing for three to five years for draft evasion during mobilization those citizens whose religion or beliefs are incompatible with the performance of military duty (conscientious objectors), and will check also alleged unconstitutionality of requirements for believers to prove in court their innocence in evading the draft, the absence of an alternative non-military service during the war and its inaccessibility to persons who do not belong to privileged religious organizations.

FREE CIVILIANS report. Herald of peace and conscientious objection

On 6 May 2025, the Third Panel of Judges of the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine opened constitutional proceedings in the case based on the constitutional complaint of Alekseienko Vitalii Vasyliovych regarding the unconstitutionality of Article 1, a certain provision of Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Alternative (Non-Military) Service” No. 1975, a certain provision of Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. In the constitutional complaint, it is substantiated that as a result of the application of the disputed provisions of the Criminal Code of Ukraine and Law No. 1975, the constitutional rights of Vitalii Alekseienko were violated, namely, the rights: to have religious beliefs incompatible with the performance of military duty (conscientious objection to military service), including in conditions of martial law and mobilization (Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine); to protection, by alternative non-military service arrangements, of equality before the law, in contrast with other citizens who do not have such beliefs, in fulfilling the constitutional duty to protect the Fatherland under Article 65 of the Constitution of Ukraine; to equal protection by the state of the right to have religious beliefs regardless of belonging or not belonging to certain religious organizations (Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine); to be presumed innocent in the commission of a crime and not to be obliged to prove one’s innocence when declaring religious beliefs that conflict with the performance of military duty and asking for alternative non-military service (Article 62 of the Constitution of Ukraine); not to be subject to restrictions in rights (Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine).

Christian pacifist Vitalii Alekseienko evacuated to Ivano-Frankivsk from Sloviansk, escaping from brutal Russian aggression. He faithfully observes the commandment “thou shalt not kill” and the teaching of Jesus Christ to be peacemakers, but he does not belong to any earthly church or secular organization because of doubts about the observance of the will of God by all such churches and organizations which he met during his life. As it turned out, for a poor internal refugee who is used to caring more about the spiritual than about the material in life, it is almost impossible to find work and housing without mandatory military registration. In the territorial recruitment center where he was directed, Vitalii declared his conscientious objection to military service, asked for alternative non-military service, and presented evidence that in his youth he underwent alternative service in Uzbekistan. However, officers still tried to conscript him into the army, and when it turned out that it was impossible to do this due to Vitaliy’s firmness of faith, they reported to the police that he was allegedly “evading the draft.”

No one confirmed to Alekseienko that he really had the right to alternative service during the war; instead, he was told that he did not have such a right and, when he asked for alternative service instead of military service, he allegedly committed a crime. He was even promised a suspended sentence in case of guilty plea. In court, he said that he was guilty before the law of Ukraine and ready to suffer punishment, but he did not violate Commandments of God. The judge did not like it, and instead of the suspended sentence requested by the prosecutor, Alekseienko was sentenced to a year in prison. Moreover, the judge emphasized in the verdict that his religious beliefs were the reason for this punishment. Human rights defenders found out about such a blatantly unfair sentence, one of the first after the Russian invasion, while monitoring the observance of the right to conscientious objection by the courts, and began to help Vitalii defend his rights. Protection of the right to conscientious objection does not belong to the favorite categories of cases of the members of the monopoly of the bar in Ukraine, the advocates, who reluctantly and skeptically can undertake it only out of obligation and only when the client insists on it and instruct an advocate with proper legal arguments and documentation. Vitalii was lucky to have the necessary support of human rights defenders, and thanks to the state system of free legal aid, he was provided with an experienced and honest lawyer who adhered to the client’s legal position in accordance with the requirements of Article 21 of the Law of Ukraine “On the Professional Organization and Practice of Advocates”. The Italian lawyer Nicola Canestrini came to the hearing of the appeals court with a monitoring visit. Although no one wanted to consider seriously Vitalii’s appeals human rights, one of the judges added a dissenting opinion to the appeal court’s decision, saying that he should be granted a suspended sentence. However, by a majority of votes, the harsh sentence was left in force, and Vitalii became a prisoner of conscience in the Kolomyia correctional facility. He received there letters of support from all over the world, and was also visited by Alexia Tsouni, president of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection. Members of the European Parliament called for Alekseienko’s release. An amicus curiae brief was submitted to the Supreme Court in his support.

Three months later, the Supreme Court ruled partially in favor of Vitalii Alekseienko’s cassation complaint and released him from prison, but did not acquitted him, just ordered a retrial. Human rights defender Derek Brett came to the court with a monitoring mission. Alekseienko said at the time: “When I was released from prison, I wanted to shout “Hallelujah!” – after all, the Lord God is there and does not abandon his children.” He settled again in a dormitory for internally displaced persons and, although it was not easy after prison, he got a job. By the way, they tried to evict him from the dormitory, but this was prevented thanks to a complaint to the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, Dmytro Lubinets, that worked.

When his case was re-examined, the trial and appellate courts again found him guilty with a sentence of three years behind the bars, but released him from actual imprisonment and imposed probation instead. His religious beliefs were questioned because he did not belong to any church, and he argued: “I do not refuse to comply with the law, on the contrary, I demand to comply with the basic law of Ukraine: to send me to alternative service instead of military service, because my faith, my conscience, my dignity, my way of life are incompatible with military service. And when I say this, no one can deny the fact of my faith, because my faith is between the Almighty and me, no one can interfere in my inner world. I don’t need to be in church to believe. There is a decision of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine dated 27 December 2022 saying that the right to freedom of worldview and religion is an individual right, and it is a personal and absolutely inviolable right that applies to conscientious objection.”

In the Supreme Court, Alekseienko read out Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine and declared: “I am not guilty of the offense provided for in Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. I have never shirked my obligations under the law. This was never my intention, nor was it the purpose or motive of my actions. But I am a Christian. My faith and conscience do not allow me to take up arms and take human lives. There are army statutes, according to which you cannot be a soldier without a weapon. I will not be able to follow the commanders’ orders to kill the enemy, because Jesus Christ taught us to love our enemies and with this love to cleanse the world of sins, even as great as Russian aggression, because God always stops evil and God will also stop Putin’s invasion if we are faithful to His commandments.”

He also explained in a speech before the Supreme Court: “Due to omissions in legislation, the local administrations could not send me to an alternative service, but with God’s help I found a way to work faithfully and without violence in a Christian way to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression. I became a postman at the post office. This is strategically important work, because as long as the post office works, people have the opportunity to correspond, receive parcels and pensions, and no attacks and bombings will divide our society in Ukraine.” He provided the court his certificate of reservation of a postman from military mobilization to prove the critical importance of his work.

The prosecutor asked the Supreme Court to give Alekseienko a real three-year prison term due to alleged high danger to society from his behavior. Vitalii asked for acquittal. The Supreme Court rejected both the cassation complaints upholding the verdict, and Vitalii remained free, but branded a “criminal” and under the supervision of probation officers. At least, he was not deprived of the opportunity to defend Ukraine in a Christian way, without weapons, as a postman at the Ukrposhta.

“The fact that Alekseienko is now free and peacefully working for the resilience of Ukraine, and the fact that his constitutional complaint was taken into consideration, is a human rights success, though, I’ll be honest, very modest, but it’s something that could realistically be achieved with hard work despite all the obstacles, which are now increasing. We don’t know how harsh the pressure of the militarists will be, how strong remain institutions of the rule of law, and what the court will decide,” comments Yurii Sheliazhenko, a Quaker, Board member of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, Doctor of Philosophy in Law, – “So far we are taking only the first steps towards achieving the far-reaching goal of a world without wars, where everyone refuses to kill. We need major changes in society and the international community, successful mass non-violent resistance to wars and tyranny, ending Russian aggression peacefully through the efforts of civil society of civilians all over the planet. Progress in this direction is slow, that’s why also the slow progress in human rights protection. The fact that the Supreme Court in January refused to postpone the consideration of Alekseienko’s case to wait for the opinion of the Venice Commission and the judgment of the Constitutional Court after Dmytro Zelinsky’s complaint, does not add to optimism. And yet, the acceptance for consideration by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine of Vitaly Alekseyenko’s complaint encourages me both as a human rights defender who provides support in this strategic case, and as a brother in the Christian faith. Some may say that this is just a pause to avoid proceedings at the European Court of Human Rights or the UN Human Rights Committee, although, by and large, people in a worse position than Alekseienko, for example, conscientious objectors who, according to the UN report, were subjected to torture, will probably still turn to Strasbourg or Geneva and argue that national remedies are ineffective. We will not do this yet, because Alekseienko was treated relatively mercifully and the opening of proceedings gives hope for justice in the domestic legal system. It so coincided that the proceedings were opened on Tuesday, and two days before that, at the Quaker meeting for worship on Sunday, I recalled that due to the lack of a sufficient number of judges in the Constitutional Court of Ukraine, it cannot consider cases on their merits, and I prayed that new judges would be appointed and that the violated rights of prisoners of conscience would be restored based on the constitutional complaints of Dmytro Zelinsky and Vitalii Alekseienko. At the same meeting for worship, it was mentioned that the Supreme Court, unfortunately, deeply disappointed me with the unjust decision leaving behind the bars a prisoner of conscience, Jehovah’s Witness Serhii Ivanushchenko. Instead of observing the Constitution and international treaties of Ukraine, the Supreme Court succumbed to political pressure and replaced the rule of law with the dogma of a militaristic ideology that supposedly everyone should fight the war. At the same time, the court did not take into account that civilized states during all major catastrophic wars, including the first and second world wars, respected freedom of conscience and agreed to respect it in the future, when the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted to avoid new wars. I will not reveal all the details of Alekseienko’s thorough constitutional complaint, the satisfaction of which could solve the systemic shortcomings of the current legislation and stop and prevent flagrant violations of human rights, but one point, which has already been repeatedly communicated to the Supreme Court, is worth reminding today so that it is not forgotten and to stop the deceptions of the public with fairy tales about the need to force the entire people to serve in the army during a great war. It is a reliable and officially documented fact that even during the second world war, Winston Churchill, a Prime Minister of the UK, in his speech in the Parliament confirmed the right to conscientious objection to military service and emphasized that man-hunting and persecutions for conscientious objection is disgusting and unacceptable in a democratic society.”

The case of Vitalii Alekseienko is strategic for the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (Belgium), War Resisters’ International (UK) and the Connection e.V. (Germany). The international human rights community will closely monitor whether the legal system of Ukraine will be able to protect the basic human right to freedom of conscience, which has been known to humankind for millenia, was recognized by all civilized states even during world wars, and is rooted in modern international standards of constitutionalism and human rights. The state’s ability to respect individual freedom of conscience depends not only on whether international measures will have to be taken to protect Alekseienko’s human rights. The survival of Ukraine as a democratic state, where the principle of the rule of law is recognized and operates, depends on this. After all, legal nihilism and militaristic arbitrariness are unacceptable and destructive for a democratic society.

In connection with the opening of constitutional proceedings in the case of human rights violations by criminal punishment for conscientious objection to military service, an advocate Dmytro Fitsyk recorded a short video blog in which he voiced a question to judges and law enforcement officers: since the general principle of criminal law and process is to prove a person’s guilt in committing a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, how can today we talk about proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, when a person has the right to freedom of religion and belief and can legitimately declare a conscientious objection to military mobilization and demand the replacement of military duty with an alternative non-military service? “How can the courts today issue guilty verdicts, send people to prison, when it is not possible to prove their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?.. How can you sentence people whose guilt is not clearly proven?..” – the advocate voices rhetorical questions, emphasizing that now these questions regarding the unconstitutionality of criminal prosecution of Christian pacifists of various denominations will be raised at trials in the cases of conscientious objectors.