Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
June 24, 1997

The International Religious Liberty Association ("IRLA"), which has worked for the cause of religious liberty throughout the world for almost a century, in cooperation with the Association Internationale pour la Defense de la Lliberte Religieuse. A U.N.-accredited non-governmental organization that has worked in this field for approximately half a century has held its Fourth World Congress on Religious Liberty in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from June 23-26, 1997 (the "Congress" or "World Congress").

The participants in the Congress included religious leaders, government representatives and academic religious liberty experts coming from more than thirty countries and from numerous denominations, including heads of religious offices from many countries, prominent leaders from various faith traditions, and other distinguished experts on religious liberty matters.

During the Congress, the participants learned of the passage of a new law "On Freedom of Conscience and on Religious Associations" by the Russian State Duma on June 23, 1997 (the "New Legislation") that would operate to narrow the scope of religious freedom available in Russia.

The participants in the Congress are fully aware of the concern of the State Duma to avoid abuses that might be committed in the name of religious freedom. They understand that, as provided in Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, manifestations of religion may be subject to limitations "in the interest of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." However, such limitations may be imposed only if they are "prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society." The participants in the Congress believe that many of the limitations imposed by the New Legislation do not meet this test.

The participants in the Congress were informed that the Russian Chapter of the International Religious Liberty Association, with representation from most major religious organizations in Russia, has adopted a resolution encouraging its members to send letters opposing the New Legislation and requesting opportunity to be heard concerning it. And that among other things, a joint letter signed by the heads of the Baptists, Pentecostals, and Adventists has been sent to the Chairman of the State Duma opposing the New Legislation. The Board of the Russian Chapter of the International Religious Liberty Association is aware of opposition to the New Legislation from most religious communities in Russia.

The participants in the Congress were concerned to learn of the various ways in which the New Legislation appears to violate the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as well as Russia's international commitments under the International Civil and Political Covenant. The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and as a Participating State in the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The participants in the Congress were also concerned with a variety of serious practical problems posed by the New Legislation, and by the risk that while some provisions could be applied reasonably in practice, many open up possibilities for bureaucratic discretion which could lead to abuse.

2. The participant's note with concern that the New Legislation marks a step reversing progress made with the adoption of Russia's Law on Freedom of Belief of 1990.

3.The participants hope that President Yeltsin will not approve the New Legislation, which appears to violate the Russian Constitution and Russia's international commitments in many respects. For example:

<>Provision of New Legislation: Inconsistent with:

Denial of Entity Status. Russia's commitment to grant Article 9 of the New Legislation, believers some kind of legal coupled with the re-registration personality under principle 16(c) of Article 27, denies legal personality of the Vienna Concluding to religious groups which do not Document (1989) in the Helsinki {"have confirmation from the organs Process (OSCE) (constructing the of the local government that [that have] Helsinki Final Act) existed for no less than 15 years" in the relevant history."

Effects of Denial of Entity Status.

Religious groups lacking legal personality (Art. 7) are not eligible to:

• request military deferment for clergy (Art. 3(4))

• obtain equal fiscal treatment (A-rt.4(3))

• establish education institutions (Art. 4(3))

• establish foreign representation (Art. 13(2))

• establish and maintain religious buildings or other places or objects of worship (Art. 16(1))

• produce, acquire, export, or import and distribute religious literature, video and audio material, and other articles of religious significance (Art. 17(l))
• establish institutions to train indigenous clergy (Art. 19(l)

• maintain the full range of international links and contacts (Art. 20)

• invite foreign citizens to come Russia for preaching or other religious activity (Art. 20(2))

• Have benefits of entity ownership of land, buildings and other assets (Art. 21)

• Have entity status for purpose of hiring employees (Art 24)

Children's Rights. Article 3(5) provides that minors may not be taught religion against their will or without the agreement of their parents or guardians. Article 5(3), dealing with education, was amended on third reading to emphasize that "the upbringing and education of children is to be carried out by parents or guardians, taking into account the right of the child to freedom of conscience and of creed," but it is not clear that this fully eliminates the potential for violation of minor's rights under Article 3(5).

Inconsistent with:

Equality Provisions

The effect of Articles 6 to 8 of the law is to treat most religious groups as second class associations, in violation of Art. 14(2) of the Russian Constitution, which requires that "Religious associations shall be ... equal before the law." Other equality and non-discrimination principles of Russian and International Law are violated.

Non-Intervention in Internal Religious Affairs Depriving religious groups of legal personality complicates their ability to carry out their religious affairs, and in many cases operates to intervene in internal affairs of religious groups, in violation of Principle 16(d) of the Vienna Concluding Document (OSCE, 1989) and general right to religious autonomy under Article 9 of the European Convention.

Property Rights

Liquidation of now-registered entities may result in taking of religious property, in violation of Art. 35 of the Russian Constitution everyone from birth." It is also This contradicts Article 17(2) of the Constitution, which provides that the basic rights and liberties such as religious freedom "belong to inconsistent with Article 57 of the Russian Civil Code, which provides that the opinion of the child must be taken into account once the child has reached ten years of age. It also  appears to contradict the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Rights to Citizens. Article 28 of Russian Several provisions of Constitution (Everyone the New Legislation are available guaranteed freedom of only to citizens, and thereby fail conscience) to extend full religious freedom to All applicable international over 26 million persons now living instruments (which also in Russian territory who are not protect "everyone") Russian citizens. E.g., Arts. 3(4), 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Restrictions on Religious Teaching. Violates Freedom of Expression Religious associations are only Rights: entitled to teach their Arts. 28-29 of Russian "followers." Art. 5(3). Constitution Arts. 9-1 0 of European Convention Art. 18-19 of International Civil and Political Covenant.

The foregoing is only a partial list of various ways that the New Legislation appears to be inconsistent with the Russian Constitution and Russia's other international commitments. Both the general tenor and numerous specific provisions of the New Legislation are inconsistent with many of the paragraphs of the General Comment adopted by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations under Article 40, Paragraph 4, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on 27 September 1993, and thus appear to violate Russia's treaty obligations under that Covenant, which is "a component part" of the Russian legal system under Article 15(4) of the Russian Constitution.

4. The participants in the Congress also note that a number of provisions of the New Legislation are likely to create a variety of practical and administrative problems. For example, the New Legislation fails to address what happens to the property of religious entities whose charters fail to clearly specify where assets of the organization should go upon dissolution. This may result in impermissible taking of church assets in violation of Article 35 of the Russian Constitution.

5. In the event that the New Legislation is returned to the State Duma for reconsideration, the Congress participants hope that the State Duma will not adopt legislation that is inconsistent with Russia's rightful position in the community of democratic nations committed to protection of fundamental human rights.

6. The participants in the World Congress urge the Council of Europe to take all appropriate steps to advise Russia that adoption of the New Legislation would be in violation of Russia's obligations under the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and to address issues raised by the New Legislation.

7. The participants in the World Congress urge the Permanent Council of the Organization for Security and Council in Europe to address the contradiction between the New Legislation and the commitments made by Russia in the Helsinki, Process.

8. The President of the IRLA is requested to submit this Statement to the U.N. Special Rapporteur on Religious Intolerance for his consideration and action.

From: keston.institute@keston.org (Keston Institute)

Date: 97-06-27 22:06:43 EDT
By Lawrence Uzzell, Keston News Service

The Federation Council, upper house of the Russian parliament, is likely to insist on changes to the controversial bill on religious associations approved by the Lower House on 23 June. That is the view of SERGEI IVANENKO, who as staff specialist for the Federation Council's Information and Analytical Directorate is in charge of preparing a preliminary analysis of the legislation for the Council's members. Up to now both supporters and opponents of the Duma's proposal have predicted that it will move swiftly through the upper house without any changes and will reach PRESIDENT YELTSIN'S desk by early July, but Ivanenko disagrees.

'I don't think the members of the Council will accept the bill without any changes', Ivanenko told Keston News Service in a 27 June interview. He cautioned that it is hard to predict the members' reactions, since none of them has read the bill yet. But he said that he is sure that most of them will want an even stricter version' (bolyeye zhostki variant) of the legislation dm the Duma does. They will be especially interested, he said, in strengthening the powers of the provincial governors to register and otherwise regulate religious bodies. (The upper house is dominated by the provincial governors to whom those bureaucracies are subordinate.)

Ivanenko said that members may want to remove a provision in the Duma bill authored by pro-freedom deputy VALERI BORSHCHOV, which states that federal law is to prevail over provincial laws if there are contradictions between them on issues of religious freedom. Even though this provision only repeats a requirement in the federal constitution, he said, the members of the upper house 'won't like it on the emotional level'. Also, he observed, in several provinces such as Tatarstan the constitution is largely a dead letter in practice.

Ivanenko said that the legislation would be considered next week at a closed meeting of the Federation Council's Committee on Science and Culture, probably on 1 or 2 July. It will then probably come before a session of the full Council later in the week. He cautioned that usually only a bare majority of members come to such sessions; thus if only five or six vote against for any reason(s), the measure will fail for lack of majority. If changes are needed in order to win the support of a majority, a joint commission of both houses must negotiate those changes, and it is already too late to form such a commission before the two-month summer recess. Therefore, he said, if there were any disagreements at all between the two houses of parliament there would be no chance of resolving them and reaching final passage before the autumn.

Dear friends,

We are glad to offer your the English version of the Legal Opinion on new Law'On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations', prepared by two experts in Law within the framework of the Institute of Religion and Law program "The Law and Freedom of Conscience". Lawrence A. Uzzell kindly translated the document Yekaterina Smyslova, Chief of the Legal department Institute of Religion and Law

irlaw@glasnet.ru, katerina@glas.apc.org

Phone/Fax: 095 288-2929, 095 908-4324

-----------------------

LEGAL OPINION

On the draft Federal legislation 'On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations' (passed by the State Duma of the Russian Federation on 23 June 1997)

1. During the first reading the State Duma passed the Federal legislation 'On the Adoption of Amendments and Additions to the RSFSR Law on Freedom of Conscience and Confession'. On 18 June 1997 at the second reading and on 23 June at the third reading the Dwna considered and passed a new piece of legislation, with a different name and distinct in its concept from the legislation which was passed at the first reading. Consequently, the Federal legislation 'On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations,' having changed conceptually from the legislation adopted at the first reading, should have been presented to the State Duma only for a first reading and not a second and a third.

2. In contravention of the constitutional principle of the equality of all religious associations before the law (Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) the legislation's preamble gives a list of religions 'respected' by the State. One of the Christian confessions - Orthodoxy - is recognized 'as an inseparable part of the all-Russian historical, spiritual and cultural heritage'. Islam is recognized as being equal with Orthodoxy and as having 'many millions' of members. Two world religions - Buddhism and Judaism - and also other traditionally existing in the Russian Federation' religions 'are respected' although they are not recognized as 'an inseparable part'.

Although the preamble is not a regulating norm of the legislation, keeping such a list in the legislation strengthens the exclusive position of one religious association; also strengthens another religious association called 'equal.' With the first and endowed with the status (incomprehensible from a legal point of view) of having 'millions of members'; and strengthens the 'respected' position of a few religious associations over and above all the others. Which in contravention of the Constitution of the Russian Federation places religious associations in an unequal position before the law.

3. Part 5 of Art. 3 of the legislation apply to religious associations a formula, which is simply improper and offensive. 'The attraction of minors to religious associations and also the teaching of religion to them against their will or without the agreement of their parents or guardians is forbidden. That is, if minor children have expressly stated their wishes and if their parents have given their consent, then one may quite legally 'attract' or 'entice' ('vovlekat') such minors. By analogy with the norms of the Criminal Code, the inclusion of the formula 'enticement of minors to religious associations' intentionally presupposes the criminal character of the activities of religious associations.

The constitutional right to choose one's religion is developed in sufficient detail in the legislation. Thus, Part 5 Art.3 stipulates that nobody not only minors, should be subjected by force to define his attitude to religion. To confess or refuse to confess a religion; or to participate or not participate in services, religious rites and ceremonies, in the activity of religious associations, or in the teaching of religion. Part 2 of Art. 5 stipulates that the upbringing and education of children is not only based on the right of parents to bring up their children according to their convictions, but on the right of the child to freedom of conscience and confession.

The legislation adopted at the second reading limits the rights of minors and contradicts current law. Making their religious orientation depend on the agreement of their parents whose attitude to religion may not coincide with the opinion of the child on this matter and with the interests of the child's spiritual development. According to Part 2

Art. 1 7 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, human rights and freedoms belong to everyone from birth. Art.28 of the Russian Federation's Civil Code stipulates that minors are considered children until the age of fourteen. In conjunction with this, according to Art.57 of the Russian Federation's Family Code, consideration of the opinion of a child who has reached the age of ten, is already obligatory, with the exception of circumstances when this contradicts his interests.

In practice such a limitation will lead to the organs which enforce the law demanding that parents present in writing and in the correct form proof of both parents' agreement to a minor participating in religious services, attending Sunday School, and so on. Even when this occurs at the suggestion of a grandmother, grandfather or other relation, or at the suggestion of only one of the parents.

4. According to Part 3 Art.5 of the legislation 'Religious associations have the right directly to teach religion to their followers'. An similar statement is contained in Part I Art.6: 'the religious training and upbringing of its followers'.

To limit the right of religious associations to provide education and upbringing exclusively to their followers contradicts Art.28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation which guarantees the right of each person to freely spread their religious convictions, and also the Law of the Russian Federation 'On Education' according to which state policy in the field of education is based on freedom and pluralism in education (Art.2), and the content of education should enable a student to exercise the right freely to select opinions and convictions (Art. 14). To limit a person's right to receive a religious education and upbringing from a circle of 'followers' contradicts Art. 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Art. 19 of the International Pact on Civil and Political Rights, the right of each person to receive information and ideas.

5. In Art.6 and following articles of the legislation, the right to create a religious association is recognized only for citizens of the Russian Federation. Foreign citizens and those without citizenship, including those permanently resident on the territory of the Russian Federation, are deprived of this right. Meanwhile, Art.28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees each person freedom of confession, including the rights to confess with others any religion and act (in conjunction with others) in conformity with one's convictions. Art.')'O of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, guarantees that each has the right of association, In addition each has the right to have private property, to own, to use and dispose of it with other people (Art.35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), which acts as a constitutional guarantee of each person's rights to legal personality. In conformity with Part 3 Art.63 of the Constitution foreign citizens and persons without citizenship enjoy in the Russian Federation the rights and bear duties in equal measure to the citizens of the Russian Federation, excluding instances established in federal law or in an international agreement with the Russian Federation. Art.55 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes a complete list of grounds for the possible limitation of rights and freedoms for a person and citizen according to federal law. International agreements of the Russian Federation in the field of human rights do not permit restrictions on a person who wishes to act upon his right to freedom of conscience and confession.

6. Art.7 of the legislation stipulates an obligatory system of providing information about the activity of religious groups. Though deprived by the legislation of the possibility of obtaining the rights of legal personalities, religious groups at the same time are required to inform the local administration about their activity; this amounts to direct interference by the State in the religious sphere insofar as citizens who have gathered for joint prayer are thus obliged to inform the relevant organs about aspects of their religious, i.e. their purely personal, lives is not related to their civic or legal relations. This contradicts constitutional Art. 14 (the separation of religious associations from the State) Art.28 (freedom of religious confession) Art.23 (inviolability of personal life). To inform the local administration about one's activity may be a right but not a duty of a group of believers.

7. Art.8 of the legislation introduces the concept of 'the territory where religious organizations are active' which is an illegal restriction on the activity of religious associations. If a religious association is considered as a legal person then civil law does not contain any restrictions on the definition of the territory in which a legal person may be active. If a religious association is seen as an association of citizens which meets to jointly confess and spread a faith, then any restriction on the places where citizens may exercise this right contradicts Art.28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation which guarantees freedom of religious confession.

8. Art.8 of the legislation restricts the right of citizens to form a religious association with the rights of a legal personality by allowing them to form only a 'local' religious organization. In addition, those who initiate the creation of a religious organization must be citizens permanently resident in one area or in one residential point on the territory of one subject of the Russian Federation. To restrict the rights of citizens by allowing them only to create a 'local' religious organization is an infringement of the constitutional principle of separation of religious associations from the State, in accordance with which religious organizations are formed and function in accordance with their own hierarchical and institutional structures. To restrict the rights of citizens to join together in one religious organization only when all the founders live permanently in one area or in one residential point is an infringement of the constitutional right of citizens to confess a faith jointly. Furthermore, to make participation in the creation of a religious organization dependent on local residence contradicts the Law of the Russian Federation 'On the Right of Citizens of the Russian Federation to Freedom of Movement' in accordance with which the registration of citizens (as regards place of residence) cannot provide grounds for restricting or placing conditions on the exercise of the rights and freedoms of citizens recognized in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

9. The provision creating the status of an 'all-Russian religious organization' (Part 5 Art.8) and establishing conditions for obtaining this status (50 years of activity and existence within its structure of local religious organizations on the territory of no less dm half the subjects of the Russian Federation) infringes the constitutional principle of the separation of religious associations from the State. It also constitutes interference in the right of a religious association to form itself and act according to its own- hierarchy and institutional structure. Moreover, the subdivision of religious associations into those that have been 'recognized' and 'not recognized' as all Russian contradicts the constitutional principle of the equality of religious associations before the law. Religious associations are not political parties, therefore the State has no right to impose on them a social-political structure (local, centralized, regional, all-Russian). A church, and first and foremost the Russian Orthodox Church, is not all-Russian but universal. On these grounds it is illegal to restrict the right of religious organizations to use the words 'Russia' and 'Russian' and derivatives of these in their titles. In contravention of the constitutional principle of the equality of religious associations before the law, part 8 Art.8 of the legislation states 'The organs of State, in considering matters touching upon the activity of religious organizations within society, are to take into account the territorial sphere of the activities of a religious organization and are to grant that organization the chance of participating in considering those questions'. It is absolutely clear that 'that organization' in this particular case means an all-Russian organization, which thus receives the right to participate in the state organs' consideration of questions which touch upon the activity of all religious associations. This clause of the legislation contradicts the constitutional principle of the secular nature of the State.

10. Part I Art.9 of the legislation states two conditions for the registration by citizens of a religious association as a legal person - confirmation by a functioning religious organization of this association's presence within its structure, or confirmation from the organs of the local government that the group ha.-, existed for no less than 15 years.

The demand that a religious organization provide confirmation that it forms part of the structure of any functioning religious organization in actual fact bans the formation of autonomous (independent of the center) religious organizations - and this contravenes the right of a religious organization to form itself and act in conformity with its own hierarchical and institutional structure.

It is illegal to mandate a 15-year period before members of a religious group may register their association as a religious organization. The civil code does not stipulate any length of time for the acquisition of legal personality; all that is required is for the founders to state their wishes for a new organization to have all the characteristics of legal personality (Art.48 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and To have state registration. The clause in question illegally restricts the legal capacity of citizens as regards their rights to create legal persons (Art. 1 8 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) and contradicts Art.14 and 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, as it places the religious associations of citizens in an unequal position. Furthermore, part I Art.9, and the following articles of the legislation which define the procedure by which citizens can form religious organizations, establish that citizens' rights to form a religious organization with the rights of a legal personality depend on which religion (one which is traditional or a new one) they profess, and @s is a gross violation of Art. 19 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation which outlaws any form of restriction on the rights of citizens based on their religious adherence.

11. The list of documents which must be presented to the organs of justice for state registration of a local religious organization includes information about the history of a religion and of the religious association; An question (part 4, Art. 11 of the legislation). Furthermore, one of the grounds for refusing a religious organization state registration is the inauthenticity of the information contained in the documents submitted (part 1 Art.12 of the legislation). These clauses illegally oblige the members of a religious association to study - and to expound in written form and present to the registering organ - the history not only of their own religious association but also of the religion as a whole which they profess. The registering organ if it wishes will always be able to find formal grounds (inauthenticity, non-objectivity, inadequacy etc.) for refusing registration. History can never be fully objective and verifiable; there are as many views as there are historians of the same historical events.

12. Part 12 of Article 11 of the legislation states that if a religious organization fails for three consecutive years to present to the registering organ information about the continuation of its activities, indicating the place where it is located (its legal address) and data about its leaders, such failure constitutes grounds for the registering organ to petition a court to declare that the organization has ceased to function as a legal personality. This provision contradicts the law, since such grounds are not stipulated in the Civic Code of the Russian Federation, which regulates the procedures for liquidating a legal personality.

13. In accordance with Art.13 of the legislation, representatives of foreign religious organizations may exist only as parts of Russian religious organizations. The clause in question contradicts Art. 14 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation as it makes foreign religious organizations dependent on Russian religious organizations. The concept of this article completely contradicts the concept passed at the first reading (Art. 11 at the first reading). Which recognized the right of a foreign religious organization, which wished to have representatives in the Russian Federation to apply for registration directly to the registering organ according to a procedure to be established by the Government of the Russian Federation.

14. Part 3 Art. 14 states that the activity of a religious organization can be stopped according to established legal procedure. The clause in question contradicts the laws now in force inasmuch as current laws have no provision for the ending of a legal personality's activity.

15. Article 27 of the legislation provides that state re-registration of religious organizations created before the new law comes into force must be completed no later than 31 December 1998 in accordance with the requirements of the new law. It is quite obvious that if the law is adopted by the Duma on its third reading, approved by the Federation Council and signed by the President in its current form, this re-registration process will cause an enormous number of religious organizations to lose their present status. Some will be turned into merely local organizations, others will altogether be denied permission to re-register as legal personalities. The legislation provides that when the stipulated period expires, religious organizations, which have not gone through re-registration, are subject to liquidation by judicial order at the request of the registering organ. Religious organizations which are denied re-registration on the basis of the requirements of the new law will undoubtedly be placed in the category of organizations which have not gone through re-registration within the period stipulated. As a result, the issue of their liquidation will brought to court. But according to part 2 of article 61 of the Civic Code of the Russian Federation, a legal personality may be liquidated 'by the decision of a court if it has carried out activities without the proper permission (license). Or activities forbidden by law or entailing repeated or gross 'violations of the law or of other normative acts. Or (in the case of a social or religious organization <association>, charitable or other foundation) systematic activities contrary to the goals stated in its charter, or also in other cases as stipulated by the Civic Code.' Not one of these legal grounds can be used by a court to order the liquidation of a religious organization simply because it began its activities less than 15 years ago and wishes to remain autonomous.

Vladimir Ryakhovski

President, Christian Legal Center, Moscow

Telephone 268-01 -II or 268-3 9-883

E-mail <clcentre@dol.ru>

Ailatoli PchelintseN,

Director, InstituLe of Religion and Law, Moscow

Telephone 288-2929

E-mail <irlaw@glasnet.ru> 24 June 1997 Lawrence A. Uzzell Keston Institute,