Today, 20 May, Russia's Supreme Court upheld a 21 March
ruling by Primorsky Krai regional court to liquidate the Vladivostok-based
charismatic "Faith in Action" Bible College. Regional public
prosecutor Valeri Vasilenko had brought the case, accusing the College of
conducting religious education without a state licence. (See F18News 21 April
2003)
At the appeal hearing in the Russian capital attended by Forum 18, Vladimir
Ryakhovsky of the Moscow-based Slavic Legal Centre argued that, according to
Article 6 of Russia's 1997 religion law, a basic feature of a religious
association is "the teaching of religion and the religious upbringing of
its followers". It was this that the Bible College had been engaged in, he
said, and not "professional religious education for preparing clergy and
religious personnel", which is indeed subject to state licensing under
Article 19 of the same law.
Russia's 1992 education law considers activity to be "educational"
only if students receive a qualification and a certificate of education at the
end of their study. Ryakhovsky maintained that the regional court had not
provided sufficient evidence of this, such as leaving certificates. He also
claimed that there had been no investigation into whether the disputed activity
was being conducted by the Bible College rather than the institution's parent
church, the Church of the Living God, which is situated at the same legal
address. Citing the key participation in the regional court case of
representatives of the local FSB (former KGB) and state department for
religious affairs, Ryakhovsky remarked "What sort of witnesses are these?
This isn't 1981!" and asked the three Supreme Court judges to overturn the
verdict.
The main judge interrupted to clarify whether the defence was claiming that the
Bible College did not need a licence to engage in the activity it had been
conducting. On being told that this was so, and that "no one received an
education" according to the definition in Russia's education law, he
remarked: "Well, they can't have been working very effectively if no one
was taught anything!"
In a brief statement, a representative from the public prosecutor's office said
that letters by the director of the Bible College, Pastor Aleksei Mishchenko,
obtained during a check-up on the church following several complaints by local
citizens, proved that educational activity as defined by the law was indeed
being conducted. After several minutes in recess, the three judges announced
their ruling that the Primorsky Krai verdict was to remain in force.
Following the hearing, Vladimir Ryakhovsky commented to Forum 18 that he did
not see much prospect in filing for a re-hearing at the Supreme Court, or in
referring the case to the European Court, since the issue at stake rested upon
a disputed evaluation of evidence. The effect of the verdict was primarily only
psychological, in his view, since the church should be able to continue
seminars and lectures under its own auspices. However, he acknowledged that the
Primorsky Krai authorities could begin to pressurise the Church of the Living
God by accusing it of conducting unlicensed professional education activity:
"But that would be a separate dispute".
by Geraldine Fagan ("Forum 18 News Service," May 20, 2003)
Today, 20 May, Russia's Supreme Court upheld a 21 March
ruling by Primorsky Krai regional court to liquidate the Vladivostok-based
charismatic "Faith in Action" Bible College. Regional public
prosecutor Valeri Vasilenko had brought the case, accusing the College of
conducting religious education without a state licence. (See F18News 21 April
2003)
At the appeal hearing in the Russian capital attended by Forum 18, Vladimir
Ryakhovsky of the Moscow-based Slavic Legal Centre argued that, according to
Article 6 of Russia's 1997 religion law, a basic feature of a religious
association is "the teaching of religion and the religious upbringing of
its followers". It was this that the Bible College had been engaged in, he
said, and not "professional religious education for preparing clergy and
religious personnel", which is indeed subject to state licensing under
Article 19 of the same law.
Russia's 1992 education law considers activity to be "educational"
only if students receive a qualification and a certificate of education at the
end of their study. Ryakhovsky maintained that the regional court had not
provided sufficient evidence of this, such as leaving certificates. He also
claimed that there had been no investigation into whether the disputed activity
was being conducted by the Bible College rather than the institution's parent
church, the Church of the Living God, which is situated at the same legal
address. Citing the key participation in the regional court case of
representatives of the local FSB (former KGB) and state department for
religious affairs, Ryakhovsky remarked "What sort of witnesses are these?
This isn't 1981!" and asked the three Supreme Court judges to overturn the
verdict.
The main judge interrupted to clarify whether the defence was claiming that the
Bible College did not need a licence to engage in the activity it had been
conducting. On being told that this was so, and that "no one received an
education" according to the definition in Russia's education law, he
remarked: "Well, they can't have been working very effectively if no one
was taught anything!"
In a brief statement, a representative from the public prosecutor's office said
that letters by the director of the Bible College, Pastor Aleksei Mishchenko,
obtained during a check-up on the church following several complaints by local
citizens, proved that educational activity as defined by the law was indeed
being conducted. After several minutes in recess, the three judges announced
their ruling that the Primorsky Krai verdict was to remain in force.
Following the hearing, Vladimir Ryakhovsky commented to Forum 18 that he did
not see much prospect in filing for a re-hearing at the Supreme Court, or in
referring the case to the European Court, since the issue at stake rested upon
a disputed evaluation of evidence. The effect of the verdict was primarily only
psychological, in his view, since the church should be able to continue
seminars and lectures under its own auspices. However, he acknowledged that the
Primorsky Krai authorities could begin to pressurise the Church of the Living
God by accusing it of conducting unlicensed professional education activity:
"But that would be a separate dispute".