Moscow, May 23, 1995

Ladies and gentlemen,

On this week the State Duma shall debate in second reading the draft of the Federal Law "On Alternative Civilian Service".

In Russian Federation still there is no legislative mechanism to implement the conscientious objection right, guaranteed by Article 59 Part 3 of Russian Federation Constitution. From this point of view, the draft law "On Alternative Civilian Service", which was prepared by two parliamentarian committees - committee on defence and committee on public associations and religious organizations - without any doubt could represent an important progressive step, if it would not contain a number of positions being in contradiction with a concept of conscientious objection right as universal inalienable civil right. In particular:

1. The draft law in its Article 4 determines by a detailed way the convictions, which can allow to perform alternative civilian service, therefore narrowing very much their sphere, while the resolution A3-0411/93 of European Parliament determines "that 'conscientious objector' should be taken to mean someone who, faced with an obligation to perform military service, refuses to do so on religious, ethical or philosophical grounds or for reasons of conscience and calls on all Member States to adopt this definition", and Article 59 Part 3 of Russian Constitution speaks about the right for alternative civilian service "in case, if performance of the military service contradicts to his conscience or religion".

2. Article 12 of the draft law gives for the recruitment commissions the right to refuse allowing alternative civilian service, in case of unsatisfactory motivation of conscientious objection. It contradicts, in particularly, to the Article 29 Part 3 of Russian Constitution ("no one can be forced to express his views and convictions or to refuse them"). No state authority or commission can determine the sincerity of someone's convictions. Therefore we insist on the notifying, but not permitting character of granting alternative civilian service.

3. The draft law (Article 6) provides the duration of alternative civilian service, exceeding up to one and half times against the military one. This position contradicts both to the draft itself, whose Article 3 fixes that "alternative civilian service is not considered as a punishment", and to the above mentioned EP resolution A3-0411/93 which calls "to ensure that compulsory military service and civilian service performed at institutions which do not come under the supervision of the Defence Ministry are of the same length".

4. The draft law unjustly complicates the procedure of submitting the application of conscientious objection, determining that a draftee can submit it only "within six months before the beginning that half year, when he must be drafted" (Article 9). This condition, as well as the previous one, contradicts to the concept of equality of two variants of community service - the military one and civilian one.

5. Alternative civilian service must be really a service for peace. However the draft law did not provide possibility to perform alternative civilian service out of Russian Federation territory (on the voluntary base) - for instance, in the framework of international humanitarian operations under UN supervision, or of European civilian service open to both conscientious objectors and volunteers from different countries.

6. The draft law establishes, that citizens performing alternative civilian service without their agreement can be used "according to the decision of Russian Federation Government for liquidation of consequences of the disasters, catastrophes and other emergency situations" (Article 7). Government should not have right to use those performing alternative civilian service on the works dangerous for their life and/or health without their will.

We consider the future law about conscientious objection right not simply as a compromise between the demands of conservative military circles and international human rights obligations of Russia, but as a part of more wide problem of the military reform still not initiated, as a powerful factor able actually contribute to the demilitarization of the country and to the conversion of military structures into civilian ones.

The draft of Federal Law "On Alternative Civilian Service" in its current variant does not respond to this demands. It will not be able to become a lever, thanks to which the government will finally be pressed to begin the military reform. Moreover, its adoption may essentially deteriorate the state of those refusing now military service, standing them before the choice: either to serve in a little renewed variant of "construction battalions" or to be imprisoned in labor camp. Article 59 of the Constitution, which is a norm of direct action, gives to a draftee already now the fully legal right to refuse military service, and the judicial practice confirms it.

STARTING FROM ABOVE WRITTEN, WE CALL YOU TO VOTE AGAINST DRAFT OF FEDERAL LAW "ON ALTERNATIVE CIVILIAN SERVICE" AND SETTING OF THIS DRAFT FOR REVISION.