The last word of the defendant Sergei Tyurin in Balakovo

 RUSSIA 

 

The last word of the defendant Sergei Tyurin in Balakovo

November 15, 2023

Saratov region

In his speech, the defendant spoke about the respectful attitude of Jehovah's Witnesses towards people and state authorities and asked the court the question: "If the decision of the Supreme Court does not restrict the rights of believers, then why are we being persecuted for exercising these rights?"

Transcript of the court session in the Balakovsky district Court of the Saratov region dated 11/15/2023 in the case 1-371/2023 on charges of Tyurin Sergey Alekseevich and others. of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

Tyurin Sergey Alekseevich:

Your Honor, dear court! First of all, I would like to express my gratitude for your professionalism and for the opportunity to speak during the court session. In my statement today, I would like to sum up some results and draw the court's attention to issues that, in my opinion, need to be covered. Besides, this is the only opportunity for me to ask questions in court that I care about.

First of all, I would like to draw the court's attention to some of the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses that directly affect this criminal case.

Firstly, the attitude towards state power. In the Bible, in the Letter to the Romans, chapter 13, verses 1-7, the following words are recorded: "Let every soul be subject to higher authorities; for there is no authority not from God, but the existing authorities are established from God. Therefore, he who opposes authority opposes God's establishment; and those who resist will bring condemnation upon themselves. For the rulers are not terrible for good deeds, but for evil ones. Do you want to not be afraid of power? Do good, and you will receive praise from her; for the chief is God's servant, for good to you. But if you do evil, be afraid, for he does not wear a sword in vain: he is God's servant, the avenger of punishment for those who do evil. And therefore it is necessary to obey not only out of fear of punishment, but also out of conscience. For this you also pay taxes; for they are God's servants, who are constantly engaged in this. So give everyone their due: to whom to give, to give; to whom the rent, the rent; to whom fear, fear; to whom honor, honor."

Jehovah's Witnesses recognize state authority and comply with the laws of the country in which they live, respecting the authorities. This means, among other things, that no Jehovah's Witness will criticize government policy or speak out against the state in any way. At the same time, being Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses act in accordance with the commandment "thou shalt not kill", and therefore do not take part in military conflicts. Such a position of neutrality in itself excludes many signs of extremism, which are given in the definition of the Federal Law of the Russian Federation. In addition, such a position is legitimate by virtue of articles 28 and 59 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. I proved the seriousness of my beliefs by using the right to replace military service with an alternative civilian one, and information about this is available in the case file along with a certificate for the high-quality performance of official duties during my service as an orderly in the Balakovo boarding house for the elderly and disabled (t. d. 14, l. d. 231).

Secondly, relationships with people. In the same chapter of the Letter to the Romans, the following is recorded: "Do not owe anyone anything except mutual love; for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandments: "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "thou shalt not kill," "thou shalt not steal," "thou shalt not bear false witness," "thou shalt not covet another," and all others are contained in this word: "love thy neighbor as thyself." Love does not do evil to one's neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law" (Romans 13:8-10).

It seems difficult to say it easier here. It is only possible to clarify who Christians consider their neighbors. In short, this is literally everyone who is nearby, regardless of nationality, social affiliation, religion or any other attribute. Jesus Christ even taught his followers to love their enemies. The principle of behavior that expresses this attitude towards others is often called the "golden rule". It is recorded in the Gospel of Matthew, chapter 7, verse 12, and reads as follows: "In all things, as you want people to do to you, so do you to them; for this is the law and the prophets." The desire to act in accordance with these words is actually a guarantee of non—involvement in extremism, because active love is the opposite of hate.

I would like to draw the court's attention to the audio recordings that were listened to during the trial. In fact, we have heard how Christians learn to show love to their neighbors: to family members, colleagues, neighbors, and government officials. Such a mindset helps to maintain peaceful relations with others, and each of the defendants proved this. This is evident from the testimony given in court by their neighbors, as well as from the characteristics of the defendants from the pre-trial detention center.

In connection with all of the above, the question arises: what does the concept of extremism have to do with the defendants in general? I see only one thing. The word "extremism" is translated as "extreme", and the system of views held by Jehovah's Witnesses is extremely far from the legal definition of this concept.

Next, I would like to draw attention to legal issues. During the meeting, many documents from the Supreme Court, resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court and other official documents and statements by legal experts were cited. Their essence boils down to several main theses: a) it is illegal to initiate criminal proceedings under articles on extremism unless the facts of extremist activity or statements of an extremist orientation are proven; b) the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses as a system of creeds has not been evaluated by the Supreme Court, therefore, it is not prohibited; c) Jehovah's Witnesses fully retain the right to freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Based on these theses, I cannot understand how the prosecution's position is justified. Referring to the Statute of the MRO, the prosecution lists as actions aimed at resuming the work of the organization those actions that are actually the realization of the right to freedom of conscience and religion, therefore, their restriction essentially violates the legitimate rights of citizens. The prosecution builds up a logical chain like this: "these actions are listed in the statute of the MRO, which means they are prohibited by the court" — "the accused committed the actions listed in the statute, which means they violated the law" — "if the accused are ready to break the law, then they are extremists." At the same time, each of the links in this chain itself contains certain logical errors.

The question arises: why does the prosecution interpret actions for the joint profession of religion as following the statute of the MRO? This contradicts the logic set out in the decision of the Supreme Court, which separated the cult activities and the activities of legal entities. I believe that such a view of peaceful worship violates the principle of the presumption of innocence, especially considering that there are no signs of extremism in the content of the listened audio recordings (which in itself contradicts the position of the Supreme Court).

In addition, the plaintiff in the case of the liquidation of legal entities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia justified the claim by saying that "the activities of the Organization and its members on the day of the filing of the administrative claim of 395 local religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses are carried out in violation of the statutory goals and objectives." That is, the statutory activity itself did not violate the law. The grounds for the liquidation of legal entities were the facts of mass distribution or storage of printed publications for this purpose, which were included in the list of extremist materials. No such facts have been established in the materials of the criminal case under consideration today (etc. 1 l. d. 230-249).

As a result, the situation turns out to be as follows: a group of people professing religious views that are not prohibited gathers as a religious group (such groups do not require registration by law), and worships God together, while the investigating authorities did not find signs of extremism in its actions. What in this situation violates the law on countering extremist activity? The prosecution did not answer this question.

In conclusion, I want to say the following: I really want to get a clear understanding of what is happening, which would not contradict the position of the Supreme Court. If the decision of the Supreme Court does not restrict the rights of believers of Jehovah's Witnesses, then why are we being persecuted for exercising these rights? In the current situation, a guilty plea would, in fact, be a rejection of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and disregard for the position of the Supreme Court. Therefore, as the only logical outcome of the case, I see only an acquittal verdict. Thanks for attention.

Summary of the case

Region:

Saratov region

Locality:

Balakovo

What is suspected:

According to the investigation, "the activities of the local religious unit [Jehovah's Witnesses] were resumed and organized on the territory of Balakovo, expressed in convening meetings, carrying out preaching activities, ... collecting funds under the guise of donations"

Criminal case number:

12207630001000004

Initiated:

February 11, 2022

The current stage of the case:

The appeal

is being investigated by:

The Federal Security Service of Russia for the Saratov Region

Articles of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation:

282.2 (1)

Case number in court:

1-371/2023

Court of first instance:

Balakovsky District Court of Saratov region

Judge of the Court of First instance:

Natalia Nikitinskaya