To the editor-in-chief of the "Izvestia"

Mr. Igor N. Golembiovskij

Moscow, July 31, 1995

Dear Editor:

On June 19, this year "Izvestia" has published a response to the question of Mr. Vinogradov, a reader from Khabarovsk: "My son, a deeply religious person, is being drafted to the army. Does he have right on alternative civilian service?" A response given by "Mihail Rosental, lawyer, Ph.D. of Law" deserves to be reproduced fully and literally:

"Religion itself is not an obstacle for army service: also there it is possible to trust in God. For example, Orthodoxy, Islam and Judaism encourage in every way weak forms of serving the Fatherland, including military service. For what concerns right on alternative civilian service, it is being granted to the adherents of those confessions (mainly, there are different Christian sects) which consider military service, as well as service in other state bodies, incompatible with their beliefs."

It's a small loss, that instead of a clear and legally proved answer Mr. Rosental starts to talk about "weak forms of serving the Fatherland" (it could be interesting by the way to know, what is it and what in this case Mr. Rosental means under its "strong forms"). However, this article not simply gives no answer - it gives a wrong answer, an answer which misinforms.

Actually, Article 59 part 3 of the Constitution of Russian Federation states: "A citizen of Russian Federation in case of his convictions or belief are not compatible with military service, as well as in other cases provided by Federal Law, has right to change it by alternative civilian service." Obviously, the constitutional right to refuse military service on reasons of conscientious is not limited by presence of religious beliefs, the more so by the belonging to a specific confession.

The Federal Law "On Alternative Civilian Service" prepared in the State Duma and last December passed in first reading, is not yet approved, that's true. Therefore, alternative civilian service cannot be granted to a citizen until the law about its granting and completing will be approved. However, the right itself which is guaranteed by Constitution, a document of direct implementation, is not derogated by this circumstance.

According to the above mentioned, a draftee whose convictions (it is not specified in the Constitution, which convictions concretely) does not allow him to serve in the army, has the full right to inform his military conscription commission about it and to demand alternative civilian service. If he will be refused by the commission, referring to the absence of the respective law (the most probable answer) and further attempts to draft him will be undertaken, this draftee should appeal to a court. If the case will be examined in the first level court with a negative result, he must appeal to the court of the next level until the Supreme Court of Russian Federation. For the whole period of court examinations, the actions of the recruitment commission against draftee must be suspended.

It is also unclear, what Mr. Rosental means, when he informs that "right ... on alternative civilian service" is still being granted in some cases. Neither A.R.A., nor Russian Committee of Soldiers' Mothers, as well as other anti-militarist and human rights organizations active in Russia, do not have any information about such facts. Whereas it is matter of a practice to draft Baptists and adepts of "different Christian sects" into construction battalions and other auxiliary army units - a practice which is fully out of any legal field - it does not have anything common with alternative civilian service, being in the best case a variation of the military noncombatant service.

It is necessary to notice that Mr. Rosental willy-nilly reproduces exactly the concept of "alternative civilian service" implanted by Russian defence ministry - a concept which has nothing common neither with Constitution, nor with the principles laid down in the Duma's draft law on alternative civilian service, nor - the more so - with the practice of democratic states. Anyway, it's a pity that probably the most informed and solid Russian newspaper has in fact misinformed their readers, who appealed for consultation.

I would ask you to publish this letter in order - first - not to mislead Mr. Vinogradov and other readers with similar problems, and - second - to remove a shadow put by Mr. Rosental onto authenticity of any other information published in this section of the paper.

Sincerely,

Nikolaj Khramov

(secretary of A.R.A.)