to Mr. Evgheny SEROV,

"Segodnya" editor-in-chief

Moscow, May 30, 1997.

Dear Mr. Editor,

On the 22 of May "Segodnya" (N 102) published an article by Valeriya Sycheva "It doesn't cost much to shun army in Greece". This article tells about recent changes in Greek legislation concerning the recognition of the right to conscientious objection.

In fact, up to now Greece has been the only country of the European Union and one of few European countries whose legislation did not recognize the right to conscientious objection. For decades many national and international political and human rights associations, including Radical Party whose constituent part is Anti-militarist Radical Association (ARA), struggled for the recognition of the right of young Greeks to conscientious objection, one of human rights recognized world-wide. However, it is not the situation in Greece that makes me write to You, Mr. Editor.

At the end of the article its author defines the decision of the Greek government to introduce the alternative civil service "a corner-stone in the history of the human rights in Greece": "As far as the similar "corner-stone" in the history of human rights in Russia is concerned, it is still "laid" only in the Constitution". Thus, it is a declaration, not a law. This paves the way for lawsuits."

Really, the suspect that our respected author does not have a clear view of the Constitution makes me feel uncomfortable. What else can explain the fact that Your newspaper reduces the Constitution (in other words, the Basic Law) to "a declaration, not a law"? Is it possible that Mrs. Sycheva did not read article 15 of the Basic Law according to which "The Constitution of the Russian Federation is of supreme juridical force and direct action and is valid in the whole territory of the Russian Federation".

Thus, the right of every citizen to conscientious objection and to substitution of the military service by the alternative civil service is not only consolidated in the Basic Law of our country. It is guaranteed and does not depend on the eventual adoption of the corresponding federal law establishing the alternative civil service procedure.

That is the real truth: lately the right to conscientious objection caused many prolonged "lawsuits". To blame are the employers of recruiting committees (i.e. of the Military registration and enlistment offices) pruned to a rather free interpretation of the Basic Law. In this way they defend narrow interests of their Ministry and make illegal decisions under the plea of the lack of the federal law, calling to the colors all those who struggle for the execution of their constitutional right and for the substitution of the military service by the alternative civil service. Hundreds of draftees appeal to the Court against these illegal actions. According to the information of the Moscow Military registration and enlistment office, in the capital 212 draftess declared that they chose the alternative civil service. Nearly half of them are ARA members or adherents. As a result none of them made either for barracks or for prison.

Voluntarily or not, Mrs. Sycheva repeats in "Segodnya" word for word argumentation of those who would like to reduce the Basic Law to a shallow meaningless declaration.

Certainly, lack of the Alternative Civil Service Law in Russia gives rise to serious problems. First of all, there is no legal mechanism for executing this Constitutional right: if there is no law, there is no alternative civil service. Therefore, the Constitution just guarantees the conscripts the right to stay at home waiting for the Alternative Civil Service Law to be adopted by the State Duma. That's what many of them do. However, few of our fellow citizens venture to begin lawsuits because of total lack of information about their rights and because of misinformation on the part of Military enlistment office. Theoretically, in such a free country as Russia is, spreading information is a task of free mass media. Alas! The article in your newspaper proves that sometimes mass media does not handle well its job...

I ask You, Mr. Editor, to publish this letter. It seems to me, that it can correct the most serious mistake made by Mrs. Sycheva and to put things right as far as this matter of sometimes literally vital importance for many of Your young readers is concerned.

I would also like to inform You, that we would be glad to provide Your newspaper with all the information we posses concerning the struggle for the adoption of the Alternative Civil Service Law, that is the main goal of our association.

Sincerely Yours,

Nikolaj KHRAMOV,

Secretary of the Anti-militarist Radical Association