World

Human Rights Court turns up heat for Russia in Scientology case

by Sam_Butler | October 3, 2009 at 02:52 am

256 views | 34 Recommendations | 6 comments

STRASBOURG—The European Court of Human Rights delivered a verdict Thursday entitling members of two Scientology groups in Russia to registration as religious groups, finding that their rights to freedom of religious association under the European Convention of Human Rights had been breached by the Russian state.

The applicants in the case hailed from the Tatarstan Republic in western Russia, and the Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Region in central Russia, presenting similar cases of discrimination by government agencies responsible for registration of religious organisations. In one case, a Church of Scientology was unable to be registered as a non-religious group due to its religious affiliation, yet could not register as a religious group either.

The findings of the court come in the wake of a similar ruling against the Russian Federation after an application by the Church of Scientology in Moscow indicated a breach of the same Article of the European Convention, resulting in the court declaring that the Moscow authorities “did not act in good faith and neglected their duty of neutrality and impartiality vis-à-vis the applicant's religious community”.

Based on the latest ruling, the Churches of Scientology of Surgut and Nizhnekamsk will be entitled to registration as a religious organisation in their respective areas, while Peter Hodkin, a solicitor representing the applicants, declared the ruling, "a great victory for religious freedom in Russia and in all the member countries of the Council of Europe."

Mr Hodkin continued, "The case, which has taken eight years before the Court, establishes that it is not permissible for countries to place discriminatory restrictions on the legal forms and activities of religious groups."

Another case is pending against Russia, brought by a Scientology church in St. Petersburg for similar reasons, as it remains to be seen what effect these cases will have on religious freedom in other parts of Europe.

For the full text of the European Court of Human Rights' October 1st Judgement, see http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=2&portal=hbkm&action=html&highlight=&sessionid=30929681&skin=hudoc-en

0 See all footage | View Slideshow

Share: email story | add to any | | facebook | stumbleupon

recommend Add a comment

sara star

at 05:35 on October 3rd, 2009

I didn't know the European Court of Human Rights yielded such power over Russia.

albertacowpoke

at 06:35 on October 3rd, 2009

I suppose Russia can ignore the ruling if they so desire.

Sam_Butler

at 09:06 on October 3rd, 2009

@albertacowpoke, the ruling is now part of international case law and can be used as precedent in future cases; the awarding of damages is also inncumbent upon the respondent, in this case Russia, that is, they can't ignore the ruling.

Sam_Butler

at 09:10 on October 3rd, 2009

@sara star: You learn something new every day... The Russian Federation is one of the 47 members of the Council of Europe, the oldest international organisation working toward European integration. The European Court of Human Rights is part of the Council of Europe. Don't forget Russia is geographically placed in both Europe and Asia, the border between which is widely held as being signified by the Ural mountains.

Roy C

at 11:00 on October 3rd, 2009

Russia should allow the registration, better as a non-religious group, and the so-called "precedent" is part of the fallacious legal pseudo-logic that underpins activists compulsions to win at any cost.

The sovereignty of a people must not be sacrificed to achieve a human rights breakthrough. There is no moral or legal basis for the imposition of other people's opinions through the force of law by people and groups not a part of that system.

While these various councils and groups around the world may have very good intentions, in their own way, they are just the legal version of the WTO and GATT, the very organizations that inspire the protesters of the G20, and, while their tactics are criminal, their objections to a world trading system that screws the little guy are quite legitimate.

Another example, and one that concerns me personally: UNESCO wants to ban vitamin supplements in the US as part of the international adoption of the Codex Alimentarius.

Not their call. Watch what international agreements your elected officials sign onto.

Sam_Butler

at 00:55 on October 4th, 2009

The Codex Alimentarius is a big deal, it's talked about a bit but mostly kept quiet, and I fear most people think it's just some hype drummed up by a bunch of conspiracy theorists. Actually it's far more oppressive than it seems, potentially giving rise to synthetic-only vitamin products and allowing who-knows-what large corporations to effectively control a populace's intake of vital natural supplements which can, for example, prevent the onset of disease as part of a balanced diet. But these are the same companies that make the medication your doctor prescribes when you become ill, so if people weren't able to take so many vitamins, or they were "regulated" and mostly synthetic and thus not as effective, then more people are likely to need these various medications. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but that just sounds like a match made in heaven for the pharmaceutical companies. Then there are the conspiracy theories on top of that, but as you say, not their call. Here's hoping it can be prevented.

On the registration, according to the ECtHR judgement (link at the bottom of the article), the authorities wouldn't register at least one of the churches as a non-religious group because of their religious affiliation (which is fairly obvious given it is a church, etc.), yet wouldn't allow them to register as a religious group because of this 15-year rule and a bunch of red tape. This was the interference with their rights under Article 9 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights.