Ukraine's Supreme Court rules religious belief does not exempt citizens from military service during wartime
Ukraine's Supreme Court ruled that citizens cannot refuse military service during wartime based on religious beliefs, emphasizing that the obligation to defend the nation applies to all Ukrainians during Russia's full-scale invasion, the court's press office said on May 1.
The ruling comes from a case involving a member of the Jehovah's Witnesses, a religious group whose doctrine forbids any form of military service. Lower courts had convicted a man for failing to report to a military recruitment office after receiving a summons. He was sentenced to three years in prison under Article 336 of Ukraine's Criminal Code for evading conscription during mobilization.
The man's defense argued that his refusal was grounded in deeply held religious convictions and that criminal prosecution should not apply in such a case. However, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction, citing the state of martial law and the urgent need for national defense.
'Ukraine has introduced alternatives to (mandatory) military service in peacetime, and Ukrainian citizens can freely use them,' the court said in a statement. 'However, in wartime, during mobilization and defensive war, the duty to defend Ukraine, which has been aggressively attacked by the Russian Federation, is imposed on all citizens of Ukraine, regardless of their religion.'
The court added that Ukraine's current state of defensive war against a far larger and more heavily resourced Russia constitutes an 'exceptional public need,' which justifies limitations on certain freedoms, including religious exemptions from military service.
Citing previous European Court of Human Rights rulings, the Supreme Court acknowledged the importance of balancing freedom of religion with state obligations. It noted that no ECHR decision has addressed a comparable case involving such a large-scale war and national threat.
The ruling comes amid Ukraine's broader struggle to address personnel shortages on the front lines. On Feb. 11, the government introduced a one-year voluntary service contract for citizens aged 18–24, offering Hr 1 million ($24,000) in one-time aid and monthly payments of up to Hr 120,000 ($3,000). Volunteers also receive housing and travel benefits upon completion of service.
The initiative aims to attract younger recruits without lowering the draft age from 25 to 18, a move urged by the U.S. but resisted by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who argued it could harm Ukraine's long-term future.
Still, the plan has drawn criticism from current service members, who say they receive fewer benefits than new volunteers. 'Why are those who enlisted earlier in a worse position?' asked Alina Mykhailova, a Ukrainian paramedic and soldier in a Facebook post in February.
Read also: Ukraine is failing the mobilization test
We've been working hard to bring you independent, locally-sourced news from Ukraine. Consider supporting the Kyiv Independent.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Nothing is stopping': Peace talks feel far away for Ukraine's soldiers
Sipping a coffee under the blazing sun around 20 kilometres from the front line, Ukrainian platoon commander Andriy is ready for peace. But as Russia and Ukraine hold direct talks in search of an end to the three-year war, he sees no let up to the fighting in east Ukraine, ravaged by Russia's full-scale invasion. "Nothing is stopping. Everything is as it was," the 27-year-old told AFP, in the town of Druzhkivka while on a break from the combat. Hours after negotiations in Istanbul ended on Monday, the sound of Russian glide bombs flying over -- and down onto -- the town resumed. The next morning, those civilians who refuse to leave set about their daily business, meandering through streets dotted with destroyed buildings. Andriy was clinging to hope the war will end this year, and said talks should continue, despite little sign of progress. But asked about Moscow's hardline demands for Ukraine's army to completely pull out of the four regions Russia says it has annexed -- Donetsk, Kherson, Lugansk and Zaporizhzhia -- he is sceptical. "That's too much, I would say. But if the border remained as it is now, then maybe." - 'No real impact' - Nearby, another young soldier who goes by Leleka, in his early thirties, was trying to relax. He is just back from near Toretsk, one of the hottest spots on the eastern front where Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killing each other for months in a battle for the city, claimed by Russia earlier this year. "To be honest, I haven't watched the news for a long time because it doesn't really affect the reality we face here. So it's a bit like a parallel reality," he told AFP. After two rounds of talks that yielded only prisoner exchanges, the ginger-bearded soldier sees no point in trying to deal with the Russians. "It does not work. Negotiations with them? How? How do negotiations work? We talk about peace, and at the same time, they are shooting at us," he said. Moscow has repeatedly rejected calls by Ukraine, the United States and European countries for a full and immediate ceasefire. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has accused Russia of dragging out the talks and not seriously wanting to halt its invasion. The Kremlin said Tuesday negotiations were "extremely complex" and that it was "wrong" to expect a speedy breakthrough. Leleka said there is "no way" Ukrainian troops would pull back from territory they still control. "The local commanders will not allow it." For 59-year-old deputy commander Did -- a call sign which means "grandfather" in Ukrainian -- an unconditional ceasefire is the only "logical" way to end the fighting. But he understands why Russia is refusing. "They have more weapons, their factories are working, they have more men, and North Korea and China are supplying them. Why would they stop?" Moscow's army will only halt their attacks, if Ukraine can deliver "a beating so bad that their teeth fall out or they swallow them," he said. - 'Give us weapons' - Instead of a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire, Moscow has proposed a partial pause to the fighting -- two-to-three days and only in certain areas of the frontline. "They really need this. They need to regroup their troops. They need to restore their logistics," Leleka said of the Russian call for a temporary truce. Both Did and Leleka instead issued their own request for the West to step up its military support to Ukraine -- saying that could help give them a leg-up on the battlefield, and at the negotiating table. "Give us more weapons. We know how to use them ... Give us good weapons and we will stop them. We will stop them, we know how to do it," Did said. Standing away from the other two, Andriy, his head bowed, was thinking of home. "I want to be with my wife, to rest," he whispered. He has been fighting for three years and got married amid the war. "Whatever it takes, I want to go home." fv/asy-jc/giv
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness
Last week, a federal court ruled that President Donald Trump had exceeded his statutory authority by imposing a raft of tariffs based on the "national emergency" supposedly caused by the longstanding U.S. trade deficit. Those tariffs are part of an alarming pattern: In his rush to enact his agenda, Trump frequently treats legal constraints as inconveniences that can be overridden by executive fiat. The U.S. Court of International Trade rejected Trump's reliance on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to justify sweeping import taxes he announced in February and April. The three-judge panel said that 48-year-old law, which does not even mention tariffs and had never been used this way before, does not authorize the president to "impose unlimited tariffs on goods from nearly every country in the world." That decision did not affect tariffs that Trump has imposed or proposed under different statutes, such as his taxes on cars, steel, and aluminum. But by invoking the IEEPA, Trump hoped to avoid the specific rationales and sometimes lengthy procedures those laws mandate. Trump's immigration crackdown features similar legal shortcuts. After he asserted the power to summarily deport alleged members of a Venezuelan gang as "alien enemies," for example, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that they had a due process right to contest that designation. That decision did not address Trump's dubious interpretation of the 227-year-old Alien Enemies Act. But several federal judges, including a Trump appointee, subsequently concluded that it made no sense to portray gang members as "natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects" of a "hostile nation or government" that had launched an "invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States." As with tariffs, Trump had a more legally defensible option: deportation of unauthorized residents under the Immigration and Nationality Act. But in both cases, he chose the course he thought would avoid pesky procedural requirements. Something similar happened when Immigration and Customs Enforcement suddenly terminated thousands of records in the database of foreign students with visas authorizing them to attend American universities. Although that move was described as part of a "Student Criminal Alien Initiative," it affected many people without disqualifying criminal records—in some cases, without any criminal records at all. Those terminations "reflect an instinct that has become prevalent in our society to effectuate change: move fast and break things," U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White wrote when he issued a preliminary injunction against the initiative on May 22. "That instinct must be checked when it conflicts with established principles of law." The same instinct is apparent in Trump's conflict with Harvard University. The administration froze more than $2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard, ostensibly because the university, by tolerating antisemitism on campus, had failed to meet its "responsibility to uphold civil rights laws." That decision ignored the legal process for rescinding federal funding based on such alleged violations. The process includes "a lot of steps, but they're important," the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression notes. "They protect students by making sure colleges live up to their obligations. And they protect colleges by making sure they have an opportunity to contest the allegations as well as a chance to make things right." Trump's disregard for the law is coupled with angry dismay at judicial review. As he sees it, any judge who dares to impede his will is a "Radical Left Lunatic," a "troublemaker" and "agitator" who "should be IMPEACHED!!!" After the tariff ruling, a White House spokesman argued that the court charged with interpreting and applying trade laws had no business doing that. "It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency," he insisted. Contrary to that take, "it is emphatically the province and duty" of the judicial branch to "say what the law is," as Chief Justice John Marshall put it 222 years ago. Especially when the executive branch is headed by someone who does not seem to care. © Copyright 2025 by Creators Syndicate Inc. The post Trump's Haste Begets Lawlessness appeared first on
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
El Salvador convicts army officers for 1982 killing of 4 Dutch journalists
Three former officers in El Salvador's military have been convicted for the killings of four Dutch journalists during the Central American country's brutal civil war in 1982. Former Minister of National Defence Colonel Jose Guillermo Garcia, 91, former police Colonel Francisco Moran, 93, and ex-infantry brigade commander Colonel Mario Adalberto Reyes Mena, 85, were found guilty late on Tuesday by a jury in the northern city of Chalatenango, a lawyer said. The Diario El Salvador news outlet reported that the three former officers – none of whom was present in court – were sentenced to 15 years in prison each for the killings. The four Dutch journalists, Koos Koster, Jan Kuiper, Hans ter Laag and Joop Willemsen, were killed while filming a television documentary on El Salvador's civil war, which saw an estimated 75,000 civilians killed – mostly by United States-backed government security forces – between 1980 and 1992. The journalists had linked up with leftist rebels and planned to spend several days behind the front lines reporting on the war. But Salvadoran soldiers armed with assault rifles and machineguns ambushed them and the rebels. 'We have clearly shown the level of responsibility of the accused,' said Oscar Perez, a lawyer for the Foundation Comunicandonos, which represents the victims. 'The entire organised power structure that intervened in the political-military decisions that led to the murder of the journalists,' he said. A United Nations-sponsored Truth Commission in 1993 found that the journalists had walked into an ambush trap that was planned by Reyes, who still lives in the US, and with the knowledge of other officers. The Salvadoran Supreme Court approved an extradition request for Reyes in March, but there has been no progress in his return from the US so far. The ageing Garcia and Moran are under police surveillance in a private hospital in the capital, San Salvador. García was deported from the US in 2016, after a US judge declared him responsible for serious human rights violations during the early years of the war between the military and the leftist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front fighters. The prosecution of the men was reopened in 2018 after the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a general amnesty passed following the end of the civil war. The case against the suspects moved slowly, but in March 2022, relatives of the victims and representatives of the Dutch government as well as the European Union demanded that those responsible for the journalists' killing face trial.
