6 TH DAY April 20th LIVE UPDATES SUPREME COURT RUSSIA VS. JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

bruceq · April 20, 2017

13:15	The courtroom of the Supreme Court gradually filled with students. There could hardly contain the excitement. Hand intently preparing for the debate.
13:50	Most of the seats in the hall already occupied.

14:09	Begin hearing. Omelchenko said the short application for admission of the statement of the European Union on the issue of the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. In it, the European Union says that "the claim of 15 March, submitted by the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation to the Supreme Court, is the latest undertaken harsh measure against Jehovah's Witnesses and the further strengthening of the violation of their rights and the prosecution of which they are exposed in Russia, contrary to international standards on freedom of religion or belief. " Court clarifies how this statement can affect the outcome of today's hearing. Omelchenko said that this is proof of a violation of Art. 18 of the European Convention. While the European Union is not a Council of Europe body, it is made at a meeting of the Council of Europe. Court denies admission of the document.
14:15	The Court proceeds to debate. Presentation by representative of the Ministry of Justice.
14:16	The Ministry of Justice points out that Russia adheres to the principle of the rule of law. For Freedom of Conscience Act provides a framework. The Ministry of Justice points out that the very name of the CA - "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" - indicates that a centralized organization has control over MRW. The Ministry of Justice drew attention to the leading role of the CA in conjunction with the MPO. CA agree on issues related to the appointment of chairmen of MPO, etc. Witnesses Organization represent an entire organism. They are characterized by organizational unity. Links to canonical ties Ministry of Justice considers inconclusive.
14:25	According to the representative of the Ministry of Justice, the fact that the defendant continues to assert planted it indicates that the CA does not repent of extremist activity.
14:28	The representative of the Ministry of Justice: Although many religions have expressed a particular attitude to the secular authorities, the texts of Jehovah's Witnesses contain unacceptably insulting ways of expressing the truth of their beliefs. Extremist Bible quotes are not recognized, and the interpretation of what is written in the Bible.

bruceq · April 20, 2017

14:35	The Ministry of Justice believes that the coverage of court as extremist materials solutions give CAs all possible, do not bring into the country the literature that would fall under the reasoning of courts that considered extremist activity.
14:35	Gross violations of anti-extremist legislation, according to the Ministry of Justice, said the fact that the CA for over 25 years, it imported materials, which were later found to be extremist.
14:38	The Ministry of Justice considers the cynicism of the fact that the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses word "extremist" (reference to the literature of Jehovah's Witnesses) is taken in quotation marks - in spite of the fact that the courts' decisions on the recognition of extremist literature came into force.
14:40	To summarize, a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice, as before, asks the CA to eliminate all the LRO of Jehovah's Witnesses, to confiscate their property and all that - without waiting for the court decision comes into force.
14:42	The debate begins the representative of the defendant administrative Omelchenko.

14:45	Omelchenko analyzes the illegal nature of generalization made by the Ministry of Justice, the fact that different Jehovah's Witnesses are supposedly unified organization "with the structural units."
14:50	Omelchenko leads rules of law on countering extremism. The law does not provide for such extremist actions as "an act in the form of inaction", "act committed inadvertently, negligently." Russia's Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out that extremism can only be active actions aimed at violent change of the constitutional order.

15:02

The representative plaintiff, according to Omelchenko, gave the debate some his own interpretation of what extremism. However, the defendant reiterates that the legal interpretation of the Supreme Court and give the Constitutional Court. And the courts have ruled that extremism can be regarded as "inciting hatred and propaganda of social, racial, national, religious superiority, the presence of which must be determined by taking into account all relevant circumstances of each case , namely the form and content of activities, or information, their addressees and target orientation , the socio-political context, there is a real threat , caused by including calls to unlawful attacks on constitutionally protected values, justification sludge and justification of their commission. "

"Restricting by anti-extremist legislation freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of speech and the right to impart information should not take place in respect of any activities or information on the sole ground that they do not fit the generally accepted ideas are not consistent with established traditional views and opinions , conflict with the moral and ethical or religious preferences. Other would mean a departure from the constitutional requirements of necessity, proportionality and fairness restrictions on rights and freedoms of man and citizen. "

bruceq · April 20, 2017