The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation has confirmed the right of those mobilized to the CSO

The Supreme Court of Russia confirmed the right of a mobilized resident of the Leningrad region, who refused to fight due to religious beliefs, to alternative civil service. This is reported by the human rights organization “School of Recruiter”.

As stated in the organization’s message, the Supreme Court recognized the possibility of alternative civil service during mobilization, pointed out the inconsistency of the law on mobilization with the Russian Constitution.

The decision was made after the cation appeal of the military enlistment office in the case of Pavlo Mushumansky, a resident of Gatchyna. Due to his religious beliefs, he had previously completed alternative civilian service instead of compulsory military service. In the fall of 2022, however, he was drafted into the army as part of the so-called partial mobilization. Mushumansky was sent to a military unit, but contested the draft in court – and won.

The Constitution provides that people who cannot do military service because of their convictions can instead do alternative civil service (AGS). The law on mobilization, however, does not specify the possibility to p the AGS. Referring to this, the military enlistment office summoned Mushumansky, requiring him to take an oath. Tot, however, refused to pick up a weapon.

On November 16 of last year, in the first instance – in the Gatchina City Court – Pavel Mushumansky’s call for military service was declared illegal. The military commissar of Gatchyna and Gatchyna district contested this decision in favor of the conscript in the regional court. In March, the Leningrad Regional Court rejected the military authorities’ complaint. Only after this Mushumansky was released from the unit, but the military continued to challenge the court’s decision.

In the end, the case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the conscript. “All judicial authorities agreed with our position that the absence of a law providing for the procedure for the implementation of a constitutional right cannot deprive citizens of this right,” commented lawyer Alexander Peredruk on the decision of the Supreme Court. According to him, when calling on citizens to mobilize, it is necessary to take into account the constitutional right to CSOs.

Source link

Leave a Reply