(Moscow, May 16, 1997) - On May 15 Mrs. V. P. Vasilevskaja, member of Supreme Court of Russian Federation, refused to satisfy the surveillance complaint to the court decision on the civil suite of Aleksej Antropov, member of ARA and conscientious objector, against military enlistment commission of Prokhladny city (Republic of Kabardino Balkaria).

The decision to draft Antropov to military service was taken on October 8, 1996 in spite of his request for alternative civilian service according to the Art. 59.3 of Russian Constitution. Being not agree with the enlistment commission, Antropov complained to the court and, receiving the negative decision, passed through all the levels till the Supreme Court of Russian Federation. The complaint to the Supreme Court has been submitted on May 14, 1997 and already the day after the negative decision on that complaint has been taken. The motivation of judge Vasilevskaja was very simple: "(...) To leave without satisfaction on the grounds expressed during personal meeting."

"Grounds expressed during the personal meeting" were as follows: the alternative civilian service is not yet passed, Antropov's convictions have been declared already after his registration in military enlistment office. Antropov's reference to the Art. 15 of the Constitution ("Constitution of Russian Federation has the highest legal force, direct implementation and acts on the whole territory of Russian Federation") was parried by Mrs. Vasilevskaja: "Yes, that is true... But there are lots of guys like you, and somebody nevertheless must serve in the army."

In this context Nikolaj Khramov, secretary of ARA, made following declaration:

<

Of course, position of a member of the highest body of Russia's judicial power only displays the total legal ignorance ruling in Russia - an ignorance which is only highlighted by the conscientious professionalism of judges like Elena Raskevich from Noginsk.

Nevertheless, this all-Russian defect cannot excuse judge Vasilevskaja by no way. She not only neglected by demonstrative way the motion of Supreme Court Plenary Session of October 31, 1995 which prescribes the judges to use directly regulations of the Constitution in case when another law contradicts to the Constitution or simply is absent. In fact, she violated Article 120 of the Constitution ("Judges are independent and obey only to the Constitution of Russian Federation and to federal laws").

Such a behavior should compel to doubt seriously in Mrs. Vasilevskaja's professional suitability. Of course, a profession consisting in satisfaction of militaries could brag of much more ancient history than the profession of a judge. But unfortunately this profession has nothing common with service for Law and Right.>>