Beliefs were protected from mobilization – Newspaper Kommersant No. 223 (7424) of 01.12.2022
[ad_1]
On Wednesday, the Gatchina city court ruled illegal the mobilization of Pavel Mushumansky, an evangelical Christian who refuses to take up arms on principle. A few years ago, the man passed the alternative civilian service (AGS), but during the recent mobilization, he was actually equated with the served “conscripts”. Now the court has canceled the conscription of a believer, but his lawyers believe that the Constitutional Court should deal with the issue of the admissibility of ACS during mobilization.
As “Kommersant” saidPavel Mushumansky, 23, is an evangelical Christian. In 2019, he was drafted into the army, but due to his religious beliefs, he asked for an alternative civilian service. The draft board agreed with this argument, and in 2019-2021, Mr. Mushumansky worked in a psycho-neurological boarding school. Nevertheless, according to the law, he was considered to have served and in the fall of 2022 he was called up as part of partial mobilization. At the military registration and enlistment office, he recalled his religious beliefs and asked to re-pass the ACS. However, the request was ignored, the father of the young man told Kommersant: “He was recommended to report this to the military unit. And in part they said that the issue had to be resolved in the military registration and enlistment office.
In part, Pavel Mushumansky refused to take up arms and wear a uniform. “We were told to give the current account number in order to transfer the payment (due to the mobilized.— “b”). But we refuse, we don’t need this money, ”Mushumansky’s father told Kommersant. In early October, the young man went to court, asking to cancel the decision on mobilization and replace it with the ACS. The right to alternative service is guaranteed by the Constitution, his lawyer Oleksandr Peredruk pointed out.
The Law on Mobilization also allows ACS – with the proviso that it must be carried out in accordance with a separate law, which still does not exist. However, this is a problem of legislators, not mobilized ones, the plaintiff stated.
At the first meeting, on October 12, the court suspended the decision to mobilize the young man, but he was left in the unit. Meanwhile, Alexander Peredruk and lawyer Arseniy Levinson asked the Gatchina court to apply to the Constitutional Court (CC) for clarification of the situation with the right of those mobilized to the ACS. They explained that Mr. Mushumansky himself could not yet apply to the Constitutional Court – for this, you must first go through all the instances up to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
At a meeting on November 30, the Gatchina City Court refused to request the Constitutional Court. After that, the parties proceeded to discuss the merits of the claim. Oleksandr Peredruk insisted that the state had already recognized the young man’s religious beliefs and, consequently, the right to alternative service. This right is constitutional, and the state cannot change its mind just like that, even if mobilization is carried out, the lawyer insisted.
The representative of the military registration and enlistment office recalled the claim of Kirill Berezin from St. Petersburg – the Nevsky District Court just the day before refused to grant him the right to ACS. However, Mr. Peredruk objected: Kirill Berezin did not pass the ACS, but served an “urgent” in an ordinary military unit. It should be noted that a few hours later a representative of the military registration and enlistment office asked to close the court session from the media, explaining that he could refer to documents classified as “official secret”. The court granted the request.
As a result, the Gatchina court overturned the decision of the draft commission to mobilize Pavel Mushumansky. He will remain in the unit until the decision comes into force. “This is a good precedent. True, the case is unique; ACS passes a very small number of citizens. But, in our opinion, the court acted absolutely correctly, this is a real act of justice, ”Mr. Peredruk told Kommersant.
“Of course, the decision of the Gatchina City Court is an important precedent. But it did not eliminate the systemic gap in the legislation,” lawyer Arseniy Levinson told Kommersant. “It is necessary to ensure the possibility of exercising the right to the ACS during the period of mobilization by all citizens who have beliefs or religion that are incompatible with military service. Such a right should be granted to those who have previously completed the ACS, who have not previously completed any service, who have previously completed military service, but after being enrolled in the reserve, changed their beliefs. Otherwise, citizens are placed in an unequal position, and this is contrary to the Constitution.”
[ad_2]
Source link
