John 12.24to28

(translated from Russian to English with Apple Translate) https://jw-russia.org/docs/587.html?utm_content=sidebar "Transcript of the court session of 23.01.2019 In case No. 1-37/2018 charged with Christensen D. O. in committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Defender Bogdanov A.N.: Today is the 73rd court session and every time I came to this court, I paid attention to the sign that hangs on the building. And there is an inscription: "Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy visited this house on September 25-27, 1898." Interestingly, it was during this period of time, when Leo Tolstoy visited this building, where the Railway Court was subsequently located, which judges my client Mr. Christensen, during this period of time the great Russian writer Tolstoy finished writing the famous novel "Resurrection", where he sharply and deeply outlined one problem that existed in tsarist Russia, which was related to And he described this particular case as follows: "People in the village were going to read the Gospel, and the authorities came and dispersed them. Next Sunday they gathered again, then the order was called, an act was drawn up, and they were brought to justice. The judicial investigator interrogated, comrade prosecutor drew up an indictment, the judicial chamber approved the charge, and they were brought to justice. Comrade prosecutor accused, there was material evidence on the table - the Gospel, and they were sentenced to exile. To the bewilderment of the hero of the novel: "Are there really any laws by which you can exile a person for reading the Gospel with others?" - the lawyer of that era replied meaningfully: "Not only to exile to places not so remote, but to hard labor, unless it is proved that by reading the Gospel, they allowed themselves to interpret 120 years have passed since Tolstoy wrote the novel Resurrection, but we see that the problem of freedom of religion in modern Russia is still acute. Before us is an honest good man, a subject of the Kingdom of Denmark, Mr. Christensen, who is still accused for the same thing as at the end of the XIX century, only for reading the Gospel, the Bible, with other people. And the whole, unfortunately, only difference is that then, in the past, 120 years ago, the prosecutor asked to exile, and now the prosecutor asks to be exiled to a general regime colony and for a period of 6 and a half years. Therefore, at the very beginning of my speech, I want to focus on this key point, that whatever stamps, clichés, in the indictment, no matter what terrible words the prosecutor now says in his part of the debate: "unconstitutional activities", "threat to the basics of state security, the foundations of the constitutional order", "in The only thing is that now he has no way to discuss it with other people, because he is now isolated from these people. [ON THE MAIN THESES OF THE PROSECUTION] And when I received a copy of the indictment, and subsequently, when I heard the prosecutor at the stage of the beginning of the judicial investigation, and then now, today during his debate he outlined what is a "crime" and tried to explain to the listeners why this person still needs to be kept in this glass armored aquarium and why he still needs That the prosecution focuses on finding an organizational principle in the divine services of Jehovah's Witnesses, not the extremist activity itself. I wrote down the main theses of the prosecutor's speech, and there were such words: "Kristensen committed active actions of an organizational nature, namely collecting donations, preaching, convening meetings, giving orders to other Jehovah's Witnesses about paying for utilities, cleaning the premises," well, etc. I won't repeat it in full now. And when we interrogated witnesses, we heard similar questions from prosecutors about witnesses who do not matter who they are - Jehovah's Witnesses or not - the main thing is that they are in the status of witnesses in the case and they were at 50 Zheleznodorozhnaya, where the divine services of local Jehovah's Witnesses took place. They were interested in prosecutors: "Who determined the topic of speeches? Who determined the correct answer or the wrong one? Who took out donations? Who organized the cleaning? Who made the cleaning schedule? Who opened and closed the gate? Who cleaned the snow in the yard? Did Christensen do that?" Once, when we watched the video of the entrance to the building on Zheleznodorozhnaya, house 50, or rather to the gate, the prosecutor even emphasized "Here, look, Christensen comes out last, closes the gate behind him." But is it all prohibited by law? To close the gate, even at the divine service of Jehovah's Witnesses? Is it forbidden to draw up a cleaning schedule? Remove the snow? Donate money for religious needs in order to pay for utilities later? Not to steal electricity and water, but to pay for them, in a way that provides a normal opportunity for people to gather in a living room and discuss certain religious texts, to discuss the same Gospel? Is it forbidden to make religious speeches on religious topics? In this case, I really liked the answer of FSB officer Azarenka, who, by the way, formed, as they say, "documented" by conducting hidden operational and investigative activities, how the divine services were conducted, including with the participation of Christensen. And we asked him questions: "Tell me, are Jehovah's Witnesses forbidden to gather together and read the Bible in Oryol?" - "No." "Disseminate your religious beliefs?" The answer was, "No." I wanted to ask the question, why is a person judged then? But, of course, this is not a question for the operational officer, but rather to the prosecutor's office, which approved the indictment. But now it is important to me, your honor, that you hear: what the prosecutor's office draws your attention to is not the subject of proof in our case. Because it is necessary to prove the fact that there is an extremist organization, and the prosecutor's office proves the existence of some kind of organization. There are two words in this phrase "extremist organization." One is scary, the other is familiar. And the key word is "extremist." It's not easy: here's an "organization." "Look, here they got up and sing a song in chorus, but here look, they came to a certain time, so there is some organization, the time is the same, and people from different parts of the city together in the same place, sing the same song, discuss the same article, read the same passage from the Bible." Yes, there is some kind of organization and as we have heard many witnesses who spoke, who are Jehovah's Witnesses by religion, did not deny that we, as they said, belong to an international religious organization. And the word "organization" implies organization. But it has nothing to do with the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle", which was liquidated by the Oryol Regional Court in June 2014. So, the main mistake of the accusation is that she is looking for some kind of organization in the course of worship, and not genuine extremism itself. And in this case, unfortunately, it is your honor, they are trying to impose the following stereotype of thinking on you in assessing the circumstances of this case. Look, the Oryol Regional Court has already decided in June 2016, that is, it is no longer necessary to prove that the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle" carried out extremist activities, and then this court decision in October 2016 came into force when it was left unchanged by the Supreme Court. Therefore, we do not need to prove extremism, here we are looking, here again Jehovah's Witnesses, they are together again, the fact that they are extremists is already determined in advance by Judge Mayorova from the Oryol Regional Court, and we only need to prove that they are Jehovah's Witnesses and that they conduct their divine services here together And this logic - it is not invented by me, we heard it during the interrogation by the prosecution of witnesses of both the prosecution and the defense. But, most importantly, this logic can be traced in the religious expertise appointed by the investigator and now the prosecutor also referred to it in the debate. There were only 2 questions. Videos of the divine services were handed over to a religious expert. And one question was: "Representatives of which religion perform actions on the appropriate video?" And the second question: "Are these actions collective?" Of course, the religious scholar said that, yes, they are Jehovah's Witnesses. Yes, their actions are collective, well, because there are more than one or two of them, there are a lot of them there. And this is the core of the accusation that once in June 2016 they labeled "extremists", then, accordingly, all subsequent, where they are together, is also the same organization. [ON THE FORMAL APPROACH OF THE PROSECUTION] And here it is very important to figure out, your honor, whether it really is so. What did the Oryol Regional Court forbid to do, in what did the Supreme Court support it and what will actually be a continuation of the activities of the extremist organization? Because, for example, I go to court not only to defend, but also to look for the truth. And any university graduate, maybe anyone who went to school, knows that one of the first Russian court officers was called "Russkaya Pravda". So, Pravda is one of the names of the court in Russia in ancient times. The court was called the truth because people went to sue to find the truth. And now it is very important to establish this truth - whether extremism was in the specific actions of this defendant. Because it is very dangerous to take the following position, which is described by the same Leo Tolstoy: "We are used to thinking that the prosecutor's office is some new liberal people. They used to be like that, but now it's completely different. These are officials concerned only about the twentieth. He gets a salary, he needs more, and that's what limits all his principles. Whoever you want to accuse, judge, sentence." I would not like the same mistake to happen in this case, in this trial. So that because of some personal interests, corporate interests related to... Public Prosecutor Fomin I.A.: Your Honor, I may even have a remark on the debate that there are some statements about the prosecutor's office here. Defender Bogdanov A.N.: I quoted Leo Tolstoy. You can file a lawsuit to recognize this book as extremist. The novel "Resurrection." Make a lawsuit and recognize it as extremist. Public Prosecutor Fomin I.A.: No, after Leo Tolstoy. Now, corporate, a statement... In fact, accusations, if possible. Defender Bogdanov A.N.: The Gospel of Matthew contains the words of Jesus Christ: "For by what judgment you judge, you will be judged." Therefore, if a person is brought to justice, it is important to remember that the way we administer justice to him depends to some extent how we will be people. And in this regard, I want to draw attention to the fact that in general, the whole accusation resembles a Christmas ball: shiny outside, but empty inside. A lot of scary words, there is no specific evidence. [WHAT TO MEAN BY CONTINUING THE ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES OF A BANNED ORGANIZATION] So, now I want to go through the specific signs of the crime. And the first thing I want to draw attention to, Your Honor, is the clarifications given by the Supreme Court in the famous Resolution of the Plenum "On Consideration of Criminal Cases of Extremist Orientation", where the Supreme Court explained what should be understood by organizing the activities of an extremist organization. And here he points out that this should be understood as organizational actions aimed at continuing or resuming - illegally - activities of a banned organization. That is, not any activity inherent in that organization, the legal entity that was liquidated, namely the prohibited activity for which it was liquidated. Because you and I watched the Charter of the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle". What does it say? It says that the goals of the activity are quite extensively formulated. These are preaching at home, spreading the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, holding divine services, meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses. And if we proceed from this logic: "Well, look, this was done in the Charter, respectively, the same was done by the defendant together with the doers," we will violate the explanations of the Supreme Court with you. Because all the activities that are spelled out in the Charter were recognized as legitimate by your colleague, who in 2001 obliged, despite fierce resistance, I cannot otherwise call it the local Office of the Ministry of Justice for the Oryol region, to register the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle", saying that all the provisions of the Charter comply with the law. That is, if we see that something recorded in the Charter of the MRO was at the divine services, then it is already prejudicially legal, it has already been established. The Ministry of Justice stamped "registered", the fact of registration according to the law is the official fact of recognition by the state of the legality of some activity, plus there is also a court decision, which explicitly states that all the statutory activities of the MRO complied with the law. But why was the MRO liquidated? According to the text of the Decision of the Oryol Regional Court of June 2016 and the text of the Appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of October 18, 2016, "for storage for the purpose of disseminating extremist publications." That is, this illegal activity, the fact of which must be established to say: here is an extremist organization. Not organization in the order they come, leave the divine service, but to find extremism itself. And then we can say yes, here is an extremist organization. Neither the conduct of divine services, nor the collection of donations, nor the cleaning of even the premises, no matter how "terrible" it may be, are a prohibited activity, the resumption of which would mean the fact of re-establishing an extremist organization. Only - and only! - dissemination of extremist publications. [ON THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED BY THE PROSECUTION] And here I would like to draw attention to the following evidence, which was listed by the prosecution to confirm the alleged fact that there was still extremism. We heard about the protocol of the search carried out on May 25, 2017 on Zheleznodorozhnaya, 50. Many of those present here probably saw a video of this search, we watched in the court session. Thank you, you are honored for attaching it as relevant evidence. And we saw that 3 FSB officers in the status of investigators came to the people peacefully in the building, including the majority of women and children, including elderly women, that is, an investigation team, several operational officers and about 15-20 people from a special police detachment, that is, in fact, special forces. If you look at the search protocol, it was not a search in the room itself, the persons present in the room were searched more. And they seized a huge number of digital media, ranging from phones and tablets to laptops. They took away the printed publications that someone had during this divine service. All this was examined, including by us, in court hearings. And the prosecutor never stood up and said: "Your honor, here it is, that extremist literature, that publication, the name of such and such, the year of publication of such and such, which they studied during the divine services. This is the resumption of extremist activity, which the Supreme Court said that it is eliminated only for this fact. But in this numerous catch there was, among other things, a list of extremist publications, which was at the stand in the foyer of the building, where there was extraction from several thousand already made publications of different publications, confessions and so on, as extremist, extraction in terms of the publications of Jehovah's Witnesses. And during subsequent interrogations, we found that this list of publications that related to the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, which were recognized as extremist, hung only for one purpose to comply with this prohibition and not to bring these publications to worship services. As many as 6 computer and technical examinations were carried out and the main question was to find electronic versions of various printed publications, brochures, some bulletins, books to see if there are any extremist publications. And you and I have devoted more than 10 court sessions, as far as I remember, to studying the results of these computer and technical examinations. But instead of extremist publications - and the defense was not lazy, the Ministry of Justice requested almost every publication that was found either during the search or on digital media from the searched - each of them was not included in the list of extremist materials, at least for a sane period as of May 25, 2017. But you and I could all see how many brochures with about the following names, I will list only a part of them: "How to find a way to reconciliation?", "Will corruption come to an end?", "Why so much suffering? When will it end?", "Violence in the family will come to an end," "Protect yourself from criminals," "A world without prejudice. When?", "Imitate Jesus in humility and compassion," "Settle differences in the spirit of love" and "Continue to show brotherly love." I would really like, your honor, to find the answer in your court verdict whether it is possible to commit extremist actions using literature on this subject. You can take it as my petition. [ON "EXTREMIST" LITERATURE] And although, as I mentioned, no evidence was obtained during the searches indicating that believers used extremist materials in their divine services, on the contrary, evidence was obtained to the contrary that they took measures to prevent this, I still cannot but touch upon this topic. In principle, every case of Jehovah's Witnesses, now criminal, is based on extremist literature. That is, at first individual publications were recognized as extremist materials, then they were planted to separate religious associations, legal entities, and then, when they were liquidated on this basis, a further attack went on ordinary believing citizens who profess the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. That is, literature is the basis, it all started with this. And I can directly say that extremist literature, which is one of the Jehovah's Witnesses, in fact, has nothing to do with what the law "On Countering Extremist Activity" should fight. For example, I want to touch upon the case that you and I were able to see in this case at one of the court sessions. The decision of the Zavodsky District Court of Kemerovo was attached, which, among other things, recognized the book "The Bible. The word of God or man?" And it's good that the investigator was not lazy, he not only demanded this court decision from the court, but also demanded an examination, with reference to which the court recognized the book "The Bible. The word of God or man?" Extremist material. And the court itself did not read this book, it only quoted in his decision that there is incitement to religious hatred in this book. And when we, together with you, Your Honor, drew attention to the examination on which this conclusion was based, we saw that the notorious expert Osadchy saw religious strife in the facts of mentioning the atrocities and cruelty of the Roman Catholic medieval Inquisition. And in this he saw the diminishment of Catholicism, and, as he believed, thereby fuels hatred for him. Although John Paul II in 1982, that is, almost 30 years before, publicly apologized for the crimes of the Inquisition. And Mr. Osadchy, 30 years later, still sees the facts of extremism and incitement to hatred and hatred in the fact that historical events that do not form the most pleasant part of human history are described. Also with the "Translation of the New World" - with the translation of the Bible, which was made by Jehovah's Witnesses. This translation of the Bible was recognized as extremist material, now this case is before the European Court of Justice, but it is interesting what was the impetus for this. The reason for this was the linguistic examination conducted by Ms. Kryukova, a mathematics teacher, which did not specify any reason why "Translation of the New World" is not a Bible, and there was no answer to what specific signs of extremism, in what specific words in this book she considers not to meet the requirements of the law. And the only argument she stated was that this translation was made without the blessing of the Moscow Patriarch. That's how a person answers, that's how he evaluates and sees reality. Therefore, this is to the question of the role of expert research in the judicial process, an expert is not some oracle or visionary to whom the case can be sent, and he will consider it and say: "Yes, here is hatred, here's enmity." The expert's view is not a reason for each of us to close our own ears, close our own eyes and turn off our own minds. Regardless of what the expert said, in this case or in another, you need to study the essence of the issue yourself. I'll come back to that. Having found no evidence of extremist publications at the divine service in the results of the search, the prosecution did not abandon its attempts to prove this fact. And now that the prosecutor's office spoke, we heard, in fact, a list, without disclosing the content, of witnesses who were interrogated and who testified. For example, we heard Kuznetsov's testimony. However, they were disclosed in the editorial office of the investigation. That is, Kuznetsov was interrogated by an FSB investigator, and Mr. prosecutor outlined what Kuznetsov said during the investigation. That's why I objected, because in the court session he gave completely different testimony, and the request of the prosecutor's office to announce the protocol drawn up by the investigator was rejected by you. Despite this, the prosecutor still refers to this unexplored evidence. [ON A SECRET WITNESS UNDER THE PSEUDONYM ERMOLOV] The same with Yermolov. When his testimony was reproduced, Mr. Prosecutor again read out how they were given in the indictment. And in the indictment, again, the interrogation protocol at the investigation, which was also not disclosed in this court session. And Mr. "Yermolov", of course, said another, significantly different in the court session, not what the investigator recorded. Because during the investigation, the investigator writes what he needs to put a person in this "aquarium". And people, when they are interrogated in court, say how they really saw, know or understand something. And so I will now turn directly to part of the testimony of individual witnesses, which was given in court. But we have already heard Banshchikova's last name, it's Jehovah's Witness, and just the prosecutor asked her: "Did someone tell you at the meeting, including Christensen, not to use prohibited literature?" "Yes, of course they said," is Banshchikova's answer. I testify here without interpretations, I specifically quote them, word for word. Next: "Specifically, have you heard from Christensen about literature recognized as extremist?" Banshchikova's answer: "He said, look, there's a list hanging there" (this is exactly what was seized during the search), "and we walked, watched that we needed to get rid of it. You don't need to bring it and have it at home at all." "And to spread?" the next question was asked. "No, of course, by no means." Regarding electronic publications that could be extremist or not, whether they were digitally recognized as extremist or not. SCTE, that is, computer expertise did not find any. But still, questions were asked, and I want to announce one of them to you now. This is our colleague, defender Zhenkov, asked: "Please tell me, were 50 electronic versions of publications recognized as extremist at divine services on Zheleznodorozhnaya Street?" And Banshchikova's answer: "No, of course. It didn't happen." Here I cannot but pay tribute to your insight, your honor, because you asked a very subtle and clever question, but to another witness, Romanova: "Have there been cases of discussion of prohibited literature under a different name at the meeting?" That is, they banned literature, changed the cover and everything, the same forbidden with a different name, is discussed. And Romanova's answer: "No." A similar question was also asked to witness Chernetsova: "Please tell me at the Zheleznodorozhnaya services, have you used publications, including in the discussion and study that are included in the list of extremist materials?" "No. This has never happened." What did Mr. "Yermolov" say? This is a special witness to the prosecution, which we interrogated only on the fifth attempt, because all the previous four attempts, for one reason or other reasons, did not make it possible for us to interrogate him. Either the FSB did not deliver it, then delivered it, but for some reason it was not ready for interrogation, then by the judicial department the dedicated equipment that changes the voice did not work as it should. But still, when we interrogated him, Mr. "Yermolov" received a question from Mr. Fomin, the public prosecutor, and he was as follows: "Alexey Petrovich, please tell me. Here they answered the question about literature, which was recognized as extremist. I have the following question, that is, more detailed: after October 18, 2016, have you seen this literature indoors or not? After the ban on this organization? And did the defendant Christensen say anything on this issue after October 18?" I quote it as a quote, that's how it was said, that's how it was recorded by me, including with a voice recorder. And "Yermolov's answer," as it was given at the meeting: "I heard statements in the spirit that literature was banned by the authorities, and, in general, as a coercive measure. However, Christensen made sure that this literature did not appear indoors, in the Hall of the Kingdom." That is, this building on Railway House 50. The next question has already been asked by another prosecutor, Mrs. Naumova, to the same "Yermolov": "And please tell me, you said that at first, when you started attending these services, they saw the literature. But including banned, extremist literature?". And Yermolov's answer: "I didn't have the opportunity to compare the literature I saw with the list of forbidden extremist literature." I wonder how this person answers when he does not wear this mask "Ermolov Alexey Petrovich", invented by the investigator, apparently for patriotic reasons in memory of the Russian commander who conquered the Caucasus. His, as we know, and this was confirmed by the defense and the defendant, his real name is Oleg Gennadievich Kurdyumov and he is a lecturer at Oryol State University. And during a conversation in a cafe with my client, Mr. Christensen, he spoke as follows about forbidden, extremist literature, during the discussion of this topic: "Of course, I did not see this literature prohibited." This was said on May 16, 2017, that is, at the very end of the time period brought against the charge. That is, the man didn't see it. In principle, he said the same thing under his pseudonym. But here these testimonies, you will agree, they are more convincing. Why? And because we asked you to reveal, officially disclose, although we know, but officially disclose information about this person, and interrogate him in person in person. Why? It would seem, what's the difference if a person is in another office, he can answer questions, hear questions, give answers with the help of special equipment with a changed voice. But when a person is present in the courtroom itself, he is seen in the face, he is not hidden under a pseudonym and under some mask, these are serious factors that allow and promote a person's honesty. Because with a mask on your face and from another room with a closed door, it's much easier to cheat than when you look the participants in the process, including my client Christensen in the eyes. In general, I would really like Mr. Kurdyumov to look into the eyes of this man, whom he helped to illegally prosecute. [AS EVIDENCED BY HIDDEN VIDEOS OF DIVINE SERVICES] So, we decided and saw that the very facts of the use of extremist materials, and in general the facts of their physical presence at the services, were not confirmed either during the interrogations of witnesses, both by the defense and by the prosecution, nor during the searches that were carried out at several addresses, including the liturgical building itself. But there is another evidence, and the prosecution considers it key for its purposes, and the defense considers it key for its purposes. These are videos of divine services from February 19, 2017 and February 26, 2017. If any extremist publications were really discussed there, the prosecutor or investigator in the inspection report or an operational officer, highlighting in bold italics, would have written: "Look, they are studying a book called... At such a minute of audio and video recordings are pronounced from it. That's where it's read, that's where it's commented on." But nothing happened, and you and I heard and saw that on February 19 and 26, 2017, believers were discussing articles from the brochure "We were freed from sin by undeserved kindness", and on May 25, 2017, they discussed the Bible based on the sequence and schedule that was drawn up in the so-called workbook "Our Christian Life and Service" for May 2017. And my colleague, Mrs. Krasnikova, was not lazy, asked the Ministry of Justice for these publications, and the day before yesterday, at the stage of supplementing the investigation, she attached the answer of the Ministry of Justice that these publications are not on the list of extremist materials. Accordingly, the faithful complied with the requirements of the decision of the Oryol Regional Court, which liquidated the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle". Yes, in addition to publications, there were also speeches-preachings. On February 19, 2017, there was a speech-preaching "Jehovah is a protection for your people", and on February 26 of the same year there was a speech entitled "Be courageous relying on Jehovah." They are also not on the list of extremist materials. And, the Ministry of Justice's response to the request is also in the case. Significantly, these speeches were not delivered by Christensen in any case. And in the course of testifying, both individual witnesses and defendants, we learned that, according to the practice of Jehovah's Witnesses, any believer who considers it necessary to address the audience with a sermon, he compiles it himself. There is a plan that is determined by the world international organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, but the specific content of this speech is formulated by each individual speaker. And others present, including Christensen, do not know what this person will be talking about. That's what we've all seen. I wonder how these two sermon speeches were evaluated by a certified linguist, Candidate of Philological Sciences Ivanenko: "The theme of the texts of these speeches is far from areas of practical action in which violence and aggression can be shown. The texts are addressed to the sphere of spiritual search, moral self-improvement. The texts do not raise the issues of confrontation of any forces other than the abstract confrontation between good and evil, not associated with any specific groups of people. All the materials studied (we are talking about these sermons) express the ideology of non-violence. Cruelty and aggression are represented by the terrible evil of this world." And of course, as the prosecutor has already mentioned, a linguistic examination of these sermon speeches was carried out, which established in each of these speeches the presence of negative statements about persons united (the expert took in quotation marks) in "this world", in the "godless world", or in "not related to Jehovah's Witnesses". And we have already noticed that "negative statements" are not a sign of extremism. The linguist Ivanenko, interrogated at the court session (whom the court saw and interrogated, unlike the expert Ryzhikova, whom you did not see or ask questions in order to verify her conclusions) explained that the very wording about the presence of "negative statements", which was determined by the investigator and put before the expert, is very insid "I believe right, you're not right" is already a negative statement plus another expression of advantage, because I'm right and you're wrong. "I know some sphere better, and you know worse. Someone understands jurisprudence better, someone is worse, already negativity and a statement of advantage." Therefore, of course, we understood, when we asked the investigator to withdraw these questions, that they not only do not have any legal content and, in fact, are absolutely meaningless to identify speech signs of extremist activity, we understood that they were not some innocent mistake, they are the result of malicious intent. The investigator did not raise the question: "Is there an expression of aggression or calls for violence?" He understood that the answer would be No. Therefore, he raised the question as broadly as possible, formulating the existence of an expression of advantage or expression of any negative attitude. And if you understand it thoroughly, the expert found this "negative" and "statement of advantage" in statements, which are, in fact, a citation of the Sacred texts that "God will destroy the wicked" ("Here's a negative attitude towards the wicked!" And "God will destroy the evil world" ("Here's a negative attitude towards the evil world!"). After all, she says "a negative statement about a group of people called "this world" or "this godless world" in the final conclusions," and takes it in quotation marks. The very fact of putting words in quotation marks means that this is not an existing category, an abstract concept. There are no people who beat themselves in the chest and say, "I am a godless world, I am part of a godless world." Here we have a group of people, here is our banner." This is certainly pure profanity, that is, it is not true, and Ivanenko drew attention to this methodological mistake made by the expert. [ON TELEPHONE RECORDINGS AND FALSIFICATIONS] Let's now think about how the participants in the process behave when they do not suspect that their FSB secretly develops, writes their phones, records their divine services, provokes them with the help of the implemented agent "Kurdyumov-Yermolov". I want to present to your judgment, your honor, a few telephone conversations. One of them took place on March 24, 2017 between Christensen Dennis and Christensen Jess, this is the father of this man. And according to the investigator described this conversation in the case file, Christensen allegedly says the following: "When the police come to our services, and there are books that are declared extremist, and search and find books, and we can no longer rely on the legal system." This is how the investigator reproduced this fragment of the father and son's telephone conversation as a result of the audition with the translator, as if there were extremist books at the divine service. But at the meeting on July 30, in the process of repeated auditions, the erroneousness of the above translation was established and Uskov's translator himself confirmed this fact that it is that when (based on Christensen's words) they have divine services, the police come to them and bring the publications declared extremist, puts them herself, that When the legal system or those who are obliged to protect it, the law, there is no one to rely on. You can, say, a baseball bat on your fists, but these people are not like that, they rely on God and, of course, expect justice from you in the court verdict. The next conversation, it is no longer telephone, but no less interesting, took place on May 16, 2017. And Kurdyumov in a cafe, talking to Christensen, touched upon the main issues step by step, expecting, of course, that somewhere Christensen would make some kind of puncture, something will say that it will be possible to be used against him in the future, when a preventive measure is chosen, prosecuted. He will make a puncture not because he makes a reservation by telling the truth, but because he will say something that can be interpreted not in his favor. But Christensen was honest, and when Kurdyumov asked him the question: "What happened in the forbidden literature? That is, it is allowed everywhere and only here it is forbidden? And how to get out of the situation? Should I completely stop using literature or some advice?" And Christensen answers: "This literature (we are talking about prohibited) is spreading all over the world. Not here. But we don't really need it. There is a Bible. Basically, everything is there." And it's interesting how investigators and operatives reproduced and described this fragment of the conversation in the case materials. If Christensen said "this literature is spreading all over the world, but not here," operatives and investigators rearranged the particle "not". She was after the word "only," and they put it in front of it. And it turned out: "This literature is spreading all over the world, not only here." That is, if initially Christensen said "everywhere, but not in Russia," it turned out "and all over the world? And here too." And in principle, these are already two obvious, I will not call them falsifications, I will call them softly - unfair work on the part of the prosecution at the investigation stage. They already generally show what threads this criminal case is sewn with. What did other participants in the criminal case say, for example, as witnesses about extremist literature? The name of Melnik Vladimir Vasilyevich, former chairman of the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle" was mentioned. He gave a very convincing testimony, in my opinion, in five or six court sessions. In my practice, this is the first time that a person has been interrogated for so long. And there is a telephone conversation in the case materials. I don't know if it really belongs to Melnik Vladimir Vasilyevich, but in terms of the protocol of inspection, listening to this conversation, as the investigator indicated, allegedly, it's from his phone number and a conversation, allegedly with Dmitry Prikhodko. And here, as the investigator points out in the protocol of listening to this telephone conversation, the person designated by him as Melnik reports, speaking about the search carried out in his home: "I also wrote objections that I was told to issue extremist materials, but since there are no extremist ones, I naturally could not give anything, and everything else is not Thus, your honor, neither during searches, nor during interrogations, nor during listening to telephone or conversations in a cafe, there was no evidence that believers violated the decision of the Oryol Regional Court using publications recognized as extremist materials. On the contrary, the fact of the opposite has been confirmed. [ON THE ALLEGEDLY ORGANIZING ROLE OF CHRISTENSEN] I have already said that the prosecution focused not on proving extremism, but on proving Christensen's organizing role. Let's deal with it briefly. So, about Christensen's role in the divine service. I will now give you a fragment of the interrogation of the same FSB officer Azarenka. I refer to it not because I have nothing else to refer to, but because of the FSB employees, only he was the only one who watched what took place at the divine services. And none other than he could say, but who led everything there. And the defense asked the FSB operative Azarenka the following question: "When you answered the prosecutor's questions about conducting an operational and investigative event, observation on February 19, 2017 at Zheleznodorozhnaya, 50, you reported the sequence of the divine service that the presenter announced a speech that Brother Dmitry would make, and after the speech the presenter invited a man And we asked the question: "Did you identify this presenter?" The FSB operative replied: "Personally, I'm not." We asked, "Was Dennis Christensen this host?" Operative Azarenka replied: "No." And on the divine service of February 26, 2017, we repeated the question: "Did Christensen host the divine service?" The answer was exactly the same: "No, it's not Christensen." So, if Christensen wasn't the host of the divine service, why is Christensen the most important there? We don't want to shift responsibility now, saying, "Everything was bad, but you know, it's not him." Everything was fine, there was no extremism. But since the prosecutor's office is deepening to figure out who's in charge, let's figure out that there was another presenter. And during the interrogations of witnesses and the defendant himself, we established an obvious fact that at the divine services of Jehovah's Witnesses, different believers can share their thoughts and speak. And from this they do not become the main ones, organizers, spiritual guruses and leaders. We also dealt with you during the study of material evidence, including the presentation of it to the defendant and witnesses, that the program of each divine service itself is printed by the Governing Council of Jehovah's Witnesses in the following publications: this is a brochure for studying Jehovah's Witnesses, where articles are published for discussion for each week, it is directly written - year, month And the brochure "Our Christian Life and Service" for each month, where there is also a divine service program for every week, what goes for what, what verse is read, what song is performed, what biblical passages are discussed. And as the defendant himself explained, and his testimony are confirmed by the content of the literature I listed, as explained to us, including the interrogated witnesses in the court session, that in principle there is no need to organize anything for the reason that there is already this schedule for each week. What's strange here is that the religious trend, Jehovah's Witnesses, has its own governing, canonical body. But no one is surprised that the Muslims of Russia have a council of muftis, no one is surprised that Catholics have a pope and a council of cardinals, that the Orthodox have a synod and a patriarch. Well, let the Jehovah's Witnesses have the Governing Council - their religious canonical body that prints this literature. What's wrong with that? So far, we have not received an answer to this. Ending with the objective side of the crime ... (for those present, I want to clarify that the objective side is the very action for which the law provides for liability; the objective side of this crime, which is imputed to Christensen, are specific facts of extremist activity, not the organization of "something", but above all specific facts of extrem The witnesses were closed." And, according to the prosecutor, this was the official publication of information on the liquidation of the MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle". Why is it even important that we understand everything? For one simple reason: The Plenum of the Supreme Court said that a person could be prosecuted for a crime no earlier than the date of official publication of information on the recognition of the relevant religious organization as extremist and the prohibition of its activities. And we want to draw the court's attention once again to the following fact that official publications are not carried out in a sarcastic manner: "closed the sect", "banned Witnesses". Official publication is just facts. And even more so without reference to the name of correspondent Vladimir Poletaev. And I want to remind you that we submitted a request to the publication of "Rossiyskaya Gazeta" and a response to it, according to which the official publication took place much later, namely on January 19, 2017. This date also falls within the period of the charge against Christensen, but what is important to establish here? How was the text of the publication marked? I will now reproduce it verbatim, we have attached it: "Addition to the list of public associations and religious organizations and other non-profit organizations in respect of which the court has taken an enforceable decision to liquidate and prohibit activities," and further: "MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle". What's wrong with this publication? It seems that everyone wrote both "MRO "Eagle" and "prohibited activities" and "liquidated", but the Supreme Court says that it is necessary that information on its recognition as extremist be officially published. So this publication does not indicate that this religious organization is recognized as extremist, it is simply "liquidated". It can be just a legal formality and, of course, it doesn't say that we want to cling to some cane now, no. The main point on which the defense side emphasizes is that there were no specific actions related to extremism in Christensen's actions. They did not read extremist literature, calls for violence, aggression, discord, hatred, enmity were also not allowed. But since the prosecutor, among other things, outlined this moment in the publication in Rossiyskaya Gazeta, I consider it necessary to also indicate it in his debates, because it is a mistake. [ON THE SUBJECTIVE SIDE OF THE CRIME AND MOTIVES] I want to touch upon the subjective side of the crime now. Subjective is a person's inner attitude to what he has done. And as the Plenum explains to us, extremist crimes are committed only with direct intent and, according to Part 2 of Art. 25 of the Criminal Code, direct intent is as follows: "a person who commits a crime is aware of the public danger of his actions, that is, understands: the way he acts is extremely dangerous, foresees the possibility or inevitability of socially dangerous consequences (keeps it in mind) and wants them to occur." Let's see what Mr. Christensen's inner attitude was to reading the Gospel and other publications at the divine service? Here I will start not with specific quotes that took place at the divine service, but a little from another. In March-April 2017, Jehovah's Witnesses around the world sent letters to various government agencies in Russia, expressing their concern about the judicial process to liquidate the "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia". The Christensen family, Irina Alexandrovna and Dennis Ole were among them. They also wrote, among others, to the Prosecutor General of Russia Chaika. Where they said (there is a copy of the letter attached to the case materials): "Let us, as well as the 175,000 Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, continue to worship God freely and with joy." That is, it was about worshipping God together with other Jehovah's Witnesses. It is your honor, have you seen in the course of your extensive jurisprudence at least one criminal who would write to the Prosecutor General about what he would consider a crime? But Christensen writes: "I am a Jehovah's Witness, and so is my wife, and we profess this religion together with others." Writes to Prosecutor General Chaika. What is a person's attitude to these actions? How to be socially dangerous and criminal? This question will need to be answered during sentencing. A telephone conversation that took place between Christensen and the person designated by the investigator as Donskoy A.A. A very interesting passage, I consider it necessary to say: Interlocutor: "Listen, the second question: in connection with all these... How can we officially get together, no, tomorrow?" I would like to emphasize the telephone conversation on April 21, 2017, that is, the day after the liquidation of the "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia." Christensen: "I think so. To be honest, I don't know... He called me and said that he was everything, he organized that there were bags." Christensen then thought it was a subbotnik, which was then planned in parallel. Donskoy's interlocutor corrects: "No, I mean, tomorrow we will have a divine service." Christensen: "Ah, do you mean tonight?" Interlocutor: "Yes, will the divine service be tomorrow"? And what does Christensen say? His inner attitude to actions to participate in the divine service: "I think yes, why not. So... we're not connected with a legal entity, so let them come, shoot everything, we'll appeal everything." What does a person have to do with his actions? Next: "Therefore, I'm sure you're meeting on Saturday, and we're on Sunday morning, we're a religious group, we're not connected to the MRO or the Management Center." Donskoy's interlocutor: "No, well, yes, that's understandable." And Christensen: "Constitution 28 gives us the opportunity to share, talk." What does Christensen have to do with his actions in this case? Any criminal wouldn't even discuss it on the phone. And a person discusses openly by phone, in a sane period, the intention to go to the divine service, expressly expresses his confidence that his actions are within the framework of the law and, moreover, are protected by this law. The next telephone conversation took place between the interlocutors (as the investigator designated them) Bondarenko Valery and Melnik Vladimir. No phonoscopic examinations were carried out, there were no testimony from these participants in the telephone conversation that they really said it. But the investigator exposes that it was so. And let it be. We won't even dispute it, it doesn't matter to us, but the content of that conversation is interesting. Let me remind you that Valery Bondarenko and Vladimir Melnik used to be participants of the MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle". And talking on May 26, 2017, it's after the night during which the searches were carried out, Valery Bondarenko tells Melnik Vladimir, as the investigator means: "Well, that's right, they accused that Dennis is the organizer, and I'm a courier. Look how I got a new position." Vladimir Melnik: "Courier of what?" Valery Bondarenko: "The courier of something, well, probably literature, a courier of literature. Well, yes, like this." Vladimir Melnik: "Well, that's understandable. They have crazy nonsense there, because they wrote there that Dennis is a member of the MRO at all." Valery: "A MRO? Dennis?" Vladimir: "Yes, yes! That's what it's written in the resolution." (Apparently, this refers to the search order.) Valery: "Everything, that's it, I got it. Falsification continues on." And here it is interesting to note that this telephone conversation was hidden by the investigator. That is, it was long enough, about 10 or even 15 minutes, but the investigator described only his passage, which did not include this fragment. Already, when we listened during the court sessions, we found that we were talking about it, including this. But the investigator omitted it. Why? Because it was obvious from the conversation of the interlocutors that Dennis was not a member of the MRO, and such wording of the investigator was falsification. Here's another example of how believers treated what they did. Did they consider their activities to be a continuation of the activities of the IRO and did they consider their activities a crime? Here, speaking about the internal attitude of the defendant to his actions to participate in the divine services of Jehovah's Witnesses, I want to draw the attention of the court that the understanding by other believers of whether or not to conduct divine services after the liquidation of the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle" is not any mandatory for a professional judge. Why am I talking about it? Well, as we saw, in addition to Christensen, there were about a hundred more people at the divine service, i.e. each of them also understood that it was possible to gather together, discuss the Bible, religious texts to Jehovah's Witnesses. But if suddenly in about twenty volumes of this criminal case you see some kind of interrogation or some telephone wiretapping that someone says that "you can't gather," this is his personal opinion. It's not some established fact. Well, a person took it this way. Because people perceive everything differently. Let's say the prosecutor perceives the fact of the termination of divine services after May 25, 2017 at 50 Zheleznodorozhnaya Street as proof that in reality it was impossible to gather there. And when witnesses were interrogated, they asked: "Why did you stop gathering there after May 25, 2017?" And the background of the question was as follows. Well, if you thought it was possible to gather there, you would continue to conduct your services there after this roundup of several pumped-up men with weapons. But I liked how most of the Witnesses answered this question: "You know, it wasn't safe anymore," i.e. people were just afraid. If people are dispersed for legitimate actions, it does not mean that they consider themselves criminals if they no longer appear there. Rather, this suggests that people are prudent and take care of their health, their lives. Now I will touch upon the key point for establishing the subjective side, i.e. Christensen's inner attitude to his actions. It's a motive. What is a motif? This is an motivation that moves a person when he does something. And in criminal law, the concept of motive is key. Not only because formally it is written in the CPC: the subject of evidence in a criminal case includes the motives of the defendant. In some cases, it is also a delimitator of some crimes from others. Well, let's take, for example, a person beats another person on the street. Is he an extremist? Maybe his goal is to take his property, a cell phone. Then the motive is selfish and he is a robber or robber, depending on whether the violence was life-threatening and health. Everything will be differentiated on the motive. I wanted to get rich - it's a crime against property. I wanted to express disrespect for public order, for society as a whole - he will be a bully. But if he hit him for what he thinks differently, different religion, different political beliefs, or does he look different, different skin color, eye incision? If the motive for a certain action is only the thoughts of another person - the way he thinks or how he looks, this is extremism. That is, all anti-extremist legislation is aimed at teaching people to respect the freedom of choice and freedom of thought of another person. All anti-extremist legislation is created to guarantee people freedom of opinion, and not as in this case - to prohibit them from having their own beliefs. And as for the motives, extremist crimes, as indicated in both the Criminal Code and the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court: "The motive of hatred and enmity should be understood as statements that justify, assert the need for genocide, mass repression, deportation and other illegal actions against persons depending on their race, religion And here it is very interesting, i.e. the motive of hatred of enmity, which must be established to say that a person has committed an extremist crime, is expressed in such obviously evil and obviously always pronounced actions as genocide, call for genocide, deportation, violence or calls for violence. And in this case, I cannot help but remember the words of Jesus Christ from the same Gospel of Matthew: "How can you say good, being evil, for the mouth speaks from the abundance of heart" (Synodal translation). That is, what is in a person's heart, his desire, his motive, he will always be outside, in his words. And in this case, Mr. Christensen is charged with actions, allegedly as criminal, which are verbal or, as they say, verbal. If he had a motive of hatred and enmity, it would have been manifested sooner or later in his telephone conversations, in his words at the divine services of Jehovah's Witnesses. But what was there, let's remember. Large volume, I won't quote everything, a few blocks. February 19, 2017. Discussion of the article "Put all your worries on Jehovah." Believers read out the following passage: "Love, joy, peace. If you try to treat people with respect, you will surely find that you experience less negative emotions. Why can I say that? By showing brotherly love for others, tender feelings, honoring them, you will avoid a situation that can cause concern. Meekness, self-control. Think about how wise it is to show these qualities. Thanks to them, you will most likely not do what will eventually deprive you of peace and there will be no place for anger, anger, rage, screaming, offensive speech in your life. As you can see, the content of the publication discussed by believers is exactly the opposite of the signs of hatred and enmity that the Supreme Court formulated and highlighted. But the question arises: maybe it was read out and discussed in a different way. Let's see how individual believers discussed this and other fragments. You can't set their names, let's call them "female voice." And here's one of the fragments of the discussion: "First of all, we ourselves will be a source of love and joy for others, which means that worries can no longer overcome us. Secondly, we will not be afraid of people that they will cause us any pain. We will love them, respect them and it will be a protection for us. We will only give positive from ourselves to others." Another female voice gave the following comment during the discussion held at the divine service: "To prevent problems and difficulties, to maintain peaceful relations, we read in the Bible: "Be kind to each other, deeply compassionate, forgive each other generously." And this citation could continue, but then it would take too long. But I'm sure you, Your Honor, remember how the defense side drew your attention to the numerous fragments of the video, where the discussion of this article was recorded, where there were all the other comments and similar discussion in the same canvas. February 26, 2017. Speech-preaching. I won't fully reproduce it, of course, it's half an hour of text. But how was it completed, in what words? "No matter how the authorities and officials treat us, we will not squeeze our fists. We will continue to remain peaceful, obedient people. We must remember that sanctification belongs to Jehovah. We will make every effort to lead a quiet peaceful life." And when we interrogated the linguist Ivanenko, we asked the question: "What is the fact that these words are placed at the very end of the sermon's speech?" And here's what she replied: "At the end, the most important thing is always said, at the end it says what should be perceived one hundred percent, what a person should leave after the conversation," and gave an example: "When someone needed to organize a revolution, the last phrase was - "Forward, to Winter!" And in this case: "Do not squeeze your fists, remain peaceful obedient people, lead a quiet and peaceful life." Where is hatred, enmity in its understanding, as the Plenum describes it? Please answer this question in your sentence, your honor. So, let me remind you that we talked about what the motive is. The inner motivation why a person does does does certain actions. And now we have considered with you specific examples of what we talked about, what believers at the divine service, including Christensen, encouraged themselves to do. It's all peace, kindness. And in general, everything is within the framework established by law. And when I listened to the speeches in the prosecutor's debate, I heard a little different. However, there were no specific quotes like me. That is, you can't argue with the quote, as they said, they wrote it down, so they've read it now. There was an interpretation, and again the testimony of Kurdyumov was given, the testimony of witness Kiryushina, who used to attend the divine services of Jehovah's Witnesses, but stopped doing so. That they allegedly reported that there is a lot of negativity towards other people, that they treat people who profess a different religion badly. But is that really true? Let's listen to what question was asked by Prosecutor Naumova to witness Kiryushina: "Please tell me, at these meetings the leaders of Christensen, Melnik, did they say something about the state structure, about some measures to counter him?" And Kiryushina's answer is how it sounded verbatim: "They just said, if they come to us from the police, well, then from the police, then be sure to politely accept them: on what issue? And if you detain us, then indicate the rule of law, on the basis of which. They are very polite, they never quarrel with anyone, they always smile like that." Where are any signs of incitement to hatred, enmity, some kind of aggression and calls for it? [A CONVERSATION WITH A SECRET WITNESS AGAIN] As for "Yermolov." The defense asked him: "Did he have any danger from the people when he came to the divine services of Jehovah's Witnesses in Orel, where Christensen was present?" And here's a short answer: "No, I didn't feel it." And already under his real name, Oleg Kurdyumov, in a conversation with Christensen in a cafe, spoke as follows about the divine services of Jehovah's Witnesses, who had visited before: "I feel that something is missing. Work - home, work - - home, it's good, but here... And here I came - and some atmosphere is very friendly, it's just nice to be." And then: "Wonderful, somehow I look, again both young and old grandmothers are sitting, all together, somehow everything is friendly, everyone is on an equal footing, i.e. there is no pompotism." And then: "You'll go to the Orthodox church, where your grandmothers will tell you so much "pleasant" things, from which leg it is right to go, how to do what to do and something else." I fully quoted what Kurdyumov said. And what is interestingly Christensen replied: "Sooner or later everything will be revealed, we will continue to do good." This is a person's inner motivation: to do good. [FINAL CONCLUSIONS] To be honest, the situation that arose in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia reminds me of the events of 1991, when in November President Yeltsin issued Decree No. 169 "On the activities of the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR". And there was such a postulate: "The activities of these structures (CPSU) were clearly anti-popular, unconstitutional, was directly related to inciting religious, social and national hatred among the peoples of the country, encroachment on the fundamental human and civil rights and freedoms recognized by the entire international community." In modern legal terminology - to liquidate the party, it does not matter any other association to incite national, social and religious hatred, it means to eliminate on extremist grounds, i.e. to actually recognize it as an extremist association. And the question arises, and after 1991, when this decree was issued by President Yeltsin, was anyone imprisoned or prosecuted for continuing to profess communist ideology, say, he wrote a thesis on Marx, Engels or Lenin, took Ilyich's works in the school library, discussed on a bench with other people No. And why? Because there was paragraph two in President Yeltsin's decree: "State bodies, including prosecutor's offices, exclude the prosecution of citizens of the RSFSR for belonging to the CPSU." That's the wording. I want to draw your attention to the fact that there is a similar wording in the court decision on the liquidation of the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Eagle", namely in the Appeal Decision of the Supreme Court of October 18, 2016: "The rights of MRO participants to freedom of religion will not be violated, as they are not deprived of the The same wording, the essence of which is to exclude the persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses for belonging to this religion if they do not use extremist literature. And in conclusion, I want to return to where I already started, that people come to court to look for the truth. And the truth is not always a simple word. Let's say, at the trial of Jesus Christ, Pilate said meaningfully: "What is truth?", i.e. what is truth? And he didn't want to get an answer to his question. I was interested in how the prosecutor interpreted the testimony of some witnesses, in particular witness Melnik, the testimony of the defendant Christensen, other witnesses who gave explanations in court. The wording was as follows. In the part of the testimony in which they are consistent with the position of the prosecution, well, that there were divine services in Orel after October sixteen, that Christensen was on them, that Christensen professes the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, it's all acceptable, you need to believe it, it's true. But in the rest of the part, where this does not correspond to the charge, when it comes to the fact that believers are not an MRO, that there was no extremist literature, do not believe it, because they are Jehovah's Witnesses. That is, we must believe one thing when this person says what the prosecutor considers beneficial for him, for his position, and when he says another that the prosecutor no longer likes it so much, we should not believe him. In my opinion, such a subjective "truth" is not allowed when what is beneficial to me is true, and all that differs from my point of view is a lie. And now I want to note the exceptional importance of your judgment, verdict, your honor, for many Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia. Not only for those who have already faced persecution, but who may still face them. Because your court decision, your sentence will be a kind of precedent on which both investigators, the prosecutor's office and other judges will rely, making decisions in similar cases, where people are also tried for faith. And there are not many Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, but also not a few, it's 175 thousand people. This may be about half or 40 percent of the city of Oryol. And it is important to remember, in my opinion, that people go down in history, are generally remembered based on what decisions they made. Both in relation to yourself and in relation to others. Let's say Pontius Pilate, whom I mentioned, made a decision about another person and we remembered him in a certain way. At the end of my speech, I want to quote the words made on December 11, 2018 at a meeting of the Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights under the President of Russia. I quote: "Jehovah's Witnesses are also Christians, I don't really understand what to persecute them for either." President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin said these words. I sincerely hope your honor that you will share with the President the bewilderment about the criminal prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses and reflect it in your acquittal. Thank you."

(translated from Russian to English with Apple Translate) https://jw-russia.org/docs/1351.html?utm_content=sidebar "Defendant Klimov S. G.: Your Honor! Dear prosecutor and participants in the process! Dear defender, Artur Evgenyevich! Friends! My own family and my dear wife Julia! The trial at this stage has actually come to an end. What the continuation will be depends largely on the verdict. In any case, I want to thank all participants in the process for their work. Special thanks to my defender Arthur Evgenyevich. He made a lot of effort to attend the process, and also prepared competent protection, thank you! Many thanks to friends who came regularly to support me and my wife, thank you! And, of course, my family! I'm proud to have you, and I love you very much! Pass the same words to your sister Svetlana and mom! My dear Julia, you are a real assistant and my closest friend! The time will come, we'll be together again. We need to wait a bit. In the meantime, I want to assure you that I love you very much and appreciate you! Your honor, I'm just forced to touch upon the spiritual topic in the last word. I want to note that this is not a fanatical goal - to preach at all costs, especially since you talked about it. Thus, I want to emphasize my motives, for what motives I act. To make it clear whether extremism is present here (Article 73 1.2 of the CPC). First, I will express my opinion on why this process is. Why are there people in the dock who only peacefully profess their religious beliefs? There's an explanation for that. The trial taking place in Tomsk and similar trials in Russia are clear proof of the veracity of the prophecy recorded in the Bible. About 2000 years ago, Christ described the components of the sign of the last days. Jesus mentioned one important detail written in Luke 21:12, 13: "Before all this, they will lay their hands on you and drive you into synagogues and prisons, and they will lead you before kings and rulers for my name." What's the goal? Jesus explains, "It will be for you to testify to them" or, "This is the case for you to testify about Me." What certificate should people get? This is the Good News that Jesus, as a God-appointed King, will soon cleanse the whole earth of evil and injustice. He will establish peace and justice on earth. There will be no death, disease, grief and tears. The Bible describes how events will develop, and there is also a clear guide on what needs to be done to survive the impending events and receive the promised blessings. The Bible predicts that most people will treat this News coldly. They will be absorbed in everyday worries and will not take it seriously. That's how it was in the history of mankind. Matthew 24:37-39: "But as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the coming of the Son of Man: for as in the days before the flood they ate, drank, married and married, until the day Noah entered the ark, and thought (did not think) until the flood came and destroyed everyone, so will the coming The main problem of people was that "they didn't think about it." But, regardless of people's attitude to these events, God considers it fair to warn every person about his intentions regarding the earth. Given our right to freedom of choice, Jehovah offers: "To witness before you today I call heaven and earth: I have offered you life and death, blessing and curse. Choose life so that you and your descendants may live" (Deuteronomy 30:19). Today, everyone has a choice between eternal life and eternal death. It's not an idle question. It's literally a matter of life and death. The Bible has a clear guide on how to choose life. First of all, you need to gain knowledge about God (John 17:3). To convey this information to all people, including those who are very busy, like you, for example, or a respected prosecutor, Jehovah God allows such processes. He is a loving and just God and does not want to deprive people of the right to choose. The next serious event that will affect all inhabitants of the Earth is the prohibition of the activities of religious denominations throughout the world. I will not talk about it, as the case materials contain a transcript of speech on this topic. This event will mark the beginning of the Great Disaster - a short period of the history of mankind, which in its scale of disasters will surpass all the grief experienced by people (Matthew 24:21). The Bible has a guide on how not to suffer and survive these events at this time. So, I believe that the manifestation of extremism will hide this information from people, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to make their own informed choice. I (like all Jehovah's Witnesses) am not the initiator of these events. What God intends to do does not depend on our desire and preferences. As weather forecasters only warn of an impending hurricane and cannot affect it in any way, so I can only warn people, and whether to listen to it or not, they decide for themselves. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation has 125 articles called "Remanding in danger." And in human society there is such a concept - knowingly leaving without the help of a person who is in a life-threatening or health-threatening condition. What are the reasons for helping? Out of love, not out of hatred or extremist motives. So I don't want anyone to die, I don't want to leave people without help. And that's why I'm an extremist?! This is tantamount to calling black white and white black (Isaiah 5:20). Someone may not like the sermon, but I never acted out of hatred. Now a little bit about the criminal case itself. I am accused of organizing the activities of the liquidated legal entity of the local religious organization "Jehovah's Witnesses - Severnaya, Tomsk" - this has not been proven. I did not try to carry out the activities of a legal entity, did not try to resuscitate the MRO and have nothing to do with it. I was arbitrarily appointed de facto leader, although I have never been one. The prosecution arbitrarily mixed the concepts of the activities of the MRO with the canonical structure without reason. Whether what I did is a crime is not. I only professed my religious beliefs as an individual, and my involvement in the canonical structure is arbitrarily interpreted as organizing the activities of a legal entity. The fact that I use jw.org at meetings is nothing but a lie. Information about this is suspected and refers to unacceptable evidence, as the "secret witness" testified contrary to article 73 1.1 of the CPC. In the materials of the criminal case there is his phrase (volume 3, p. 113): "From whom I know this information, I do not want to indicate, as I am a classified witness..." (Article 75.2 of the CPC). To all the clarifying questions, he answered: "I wouldn't like to talk about it." This is the essence of his testimony. The malicious motives that I am imputed to have not been proven. To summarize the essence of the matter, I in no way carried out activities for the mass distribution of materials included in the list of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, which was imputed to the liquidated legal entities. I didn't write, print, distribute them, especially en masse. I also did not create or contain sites for posting and distributing such materials. And the usual confession of one's faith together with others, which, in fact, is attributed to me to blame, is not prohibited by anyone by law. 30.10.2019, when I spoke in the debate on the case, they remember the victims of political repression, I would like not to become such a victim. I ask the court to pass a fair sentence, for which years later I will not be ashamed of God and people."

(translated from Russian to English with Apple Translate) https://jw-russia.org/docs/1315.html?utm_content=sidebar "Opinion on the indictment. Defendant Klimov S. G.: The indictment begins with reference to the Supreme Court decision of 17.04.2017. It is also concluded that the MRO (Local Religious Organization) of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk" (hereinafter referred to as the MRO) is an association of all persons from among the followers of the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses of the Tomsk region. It's not true. It is unreasonably to identify the MRO (legal entity) with a theocratic structure and put an equal sign between them. The Supreme Court by a decision of 17.04.2017 liquidated legal entities, but did not address the issue of teachings and confession of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses as such. The operative part clearly states what decision was made: "Liquidize the religious organization "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" and its local religious organizations; to turn the property of the religious organization in liquidation, left after the satisfaction of creditors' claims, into the property of the Russian Federation." That's what the Supreme Court decided. Paragraph 2 of Part 6 of Article 180 of the CAS of the Russian Federation provides that the operative part of the court decision should contain the conclusions of the court on issues resolved by the court, based on the circumstances of the administrative case. In the operative part, the Supreme Court did not assess the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses, did not address the issue of the profession of this religion, did not talk about the prohibition to gather together. Believers, including elders, were not outlawed. As I see, it follows from this decision that no one forbade Jehovah's Witnesses to profess religious teachings (beliefs). There was also no ban to get together peacefully to discuss religious topics. Sharing these beliefs was also not prohibited. Was I involved in the Local Religious Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk"? No. But the prosecution appointed me its de facto leader. It's speculation. According to the charter of this organization (volume 3, p. 49, para. 3.10), "the chairman of the Committee is appointed by the Center indefinitely." No one appointed me as such chairman, no one accepted me among its participants. The whole point of view of the prosecution is due to a misunderstanding of the structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. All over the world, according to the legal norms of interaction, religions are forced to register associations called religious organizations. This is what makes it possible to build places of worship, find and rent premises for large services, have property, avoid its appropriation by individual believers, etc. However, registration of such an organization does not mean the unification of all believers of a certain territory into this legal entity. And it is not identical to the theocratic (spiritual) organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. Is it possible to register a charter if it indicates that its head is God, and its participants are believers around the world and angels? The answer is obvious. Therefore, the prohibition of a legal entity should not be interpreted as a prohibition of everything related to the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses and its understanding of the world. Faith is not a company, it can't be put on paper. Otherwise, we will get to the point that we will start filing declarations and other reports on what and how we believed last year. The MRO was liquidated, it stopped operating, and I did not try to revive it. Of course, we are all waiting for the ECHR decision on this issue, but I had no intention to start the activities of a legal entity, especially the one in which I have never participated. I acted as an individual, enjoying the rights enshrined in Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. How did the idea arise that the Supreme Court's decision affects the profession of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses and prohibits spiritual discussions? Because of this understanding of the court decision by the operative Dudko, for whom the main thing was to find any individuals solely on the basis of their religious affiliation for further criminal prosecution. That is, the purpose of law enforcement agencies was only to find believers and accuse them of organizing a prohibited legal entity, because they did not give up their religion. And friendly ties were not broken. The distinguished prosecutor's office considers it unacceptable to introduce the opinion of Doctor of Philosophy Ivanenko to the criminal case, and also did not support the introduction of examinations and excerpts from the appeal ruling of the Appeals Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 17.07.2017, which states that the Supreme Court did not assess the creeds of Jehovah's Witness But the evaluative opinion of the operative Dudko formed the basis of the accusation, although the latter had no grounds for such an arbitrary, without legal certainty assessment of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Is it reasonable for me to expect the prosecution to take an objective approach? Everything that happens resembles the judgment of Jesus Christ: there is no crime, but there is a goal to bring to justice and prohibit. That's the only way I can explain this process. I have not committed anything wrongful, but I am constantly accused of committing a serious crime, for which a long term of imprisonment is provided. All court decisions to extend the period of detention have this phrase. I am methodically inspired: you are a criminal, you will have a long time, because you have not left your religion and communication with co-religionists. I sat alone in the pre-trial detention center for 10 months, as there were no defendants with suitable articles. Then there was an option. Which one? Two people who are charged with Art. 205 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is an activity related to terrorism. In this I even found one resemblance, as in Matthew 27:38: "Two criminals were crucified with Him, one to the right and the other to his left." The footnote to this verse says: "two criminals - literally, two robbers." Most likely, they were popular fighters who waged a terrorist war with the Romans. By what article would they be tried today? 205! (Quoted from Modern Russian Translation, 2nd edition, 2015). All this is accompanied by a distortion of facts to denigrate me. Ordinary life is presented as a crime. Here are the statements from the indictment that are clearly not true: "Aware that by its actions undermine the foundations of the constitutional order and security of the state, anticipating the onset of socially dangerous consequences in the form of violations of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person and citizen, depending on his religious affiliation and attitude to religion as a result of incitement to religious hatred, propaganda of excl What are we talking about? Where are the victims besides me and my family? Isn't it because of my religious beliefs that I've been imprisoned for the 16th month? Who did I hate other religious denominations? On the contrary, the Investigative Committee, by conducting a search and attracting witnesses, spoiled my reputation, the reputation of my family and exposed my religious beliefs as criminal. Absolutely groundless. To whom have I dealt at least a small part of what I faced myself because I serve God as my conscience suggests? I believe that my rights have been violated, and in the most unceremonious way. It's against me to act motivated by religious hatred. And there are fruits: there are victims - me and my family. My wife's emotional and mental health has been undermined, she was forced to turn to specialists and is still undergoing treatment courses. In refuting the argument about the so-called propaganda of advantage over other religions, it is enough to pay attention to the fact that any person in his right mind and mind who takes what he believes seriously will claim that he is on the right track. And he will have a sincere desire to help others find the truth. To consider your religion false, but at the same time to remain in it is nonsense. Any religion considers itself true to everyone else, this is its essence. Jesus Christ said: "Not everyone who says to me, "Lord! Lord!" will enter the kingdom of heaven, but who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me that day, "Lord! Oh my God! Didn't we prophesy on your behalf? Didn't we cast out demons in your name? And didn't many miracles work in your name? And then I will declare to them: I never knew you; depart from Me, who do iniquity" (Matthew 7:21-23). So, you need to be sure that your faith is in harmony with the will of God. Otherwise, a person will face a very bitter disappointment. After all, verse 22 says that there will be many such people. In the 25th chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, we can read a similar thought from verse 31 to 46. The mistake with the choice of religion is catastrophic: the loss of the future. What happens to Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia can only be explained from a spiritual point of view. Jesus, describing the last days, foretold in Luke 21:12, 13, 16, 17: "Before all this, they will lay their hands on you and persecute you, delivering you to synagogues and to prisons, and they will lead you before kings and rulers for my name." Jesus explains why: "...it will be for your testimony" (Lukah 21:13). Or, "Here's your case to testify to me." He also warns in John 16:1-3: "I said this to you, lest your faith tremble. You will be expelled from synagogues; even a time will come when anyone who kills you will think that by this he serves God. They will do so because they did not recognize either the Father or Me." I don't see any other logical explanation. Article "Why talk about religion?" How did we talk about it? What methods do we use? From what motives? "The iron is sharpen, and man makes his friend's gaze" (Bible, Proverbs 27:17). You can't sharpen knives by hitting each other. Sharpening is a more gentle process. Similarly, human minds during a conversation can be "shined" correctly and incorrectly, especially in a conversation on such a delicate topic as religion. To begin with, it is necessary to respect the dignity of the interlocutor, and this respect should be expressed in words and manners. "Your word always be with grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone," the Bible says (Colossians 4:6). The kind "seasoned salt" of speech is not characterized by a dogmatic tone of voice, even if the speaker is convinced of his rightness and wrongness of the interlocutor. Courtesy is also reflected in the way we listen. If a person interrupts or listens inattentively, conceiving how to object to the interlocutor, there is no need to talk about courtesy in this case. The speaker is likely to feel a lack of interest in his opinion and stop the conversation. In addition, it is never possible to force a person to change his views by force or by intimidation. After all, it is God who cultivates the seeds of truth in the heart of sympathetic ministers (Bible, 1 Corinthians 3:6). The Apostle Paul set us a good and worthy example: preaching, he resorted to reasoning and persuasion (Bible, Acts 17:17; 28:23,24). Paul went to the people and spoke to them about religion everywhere: both in the markets and in private houses (Acts 17:2,3; 20:20). Jehovah's Witnesses seek to imitate his example by going to people wherever they are, reasoning with them through the Scriptures. Avoid misunderstandings. The truth is popular or unpopular (volume 6, p. 50-51). How to find the right way. Francis Bacon, an English philosopher, essayist, lawyer and statesman of the XVII century, advised seekers of truth to weigh and take everything into account. Thomas Jefferson, one of the first presidents of the United States, said: "Mind and free research are the only effective means of delusion... They are natural enemies of delusions. Therefore, if we really want to find the truth, we will weigh and take everything into account, going the path of reason and free research." The English scientist Sir Harman Bonde said: "Only one faith can be true, which means that there is a very high probability that people firmly and sincerely adhere to the wrong religious beliefs. And it is quite natural that this obvious fact should encourage a person to show a certain measure of humility, encourage him to think that no matter how deep his faith is, he can still be wrong." Also, how do we determine if we are following a narrow path leading to life? Christ taught that it is necessary to worship God in the truth, and common sense suggests that two interchangeable teachings cannot be correct at the same time. For example, people either have a soul that lives after death or do not. God either intends to interfere in people's affairs or does not intend to. God is either the Trinity or not. Truth seekers need reliable answers to such important questions. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that God answers them in his word of the Bible. Since "all Scriptures are inspired by God," various religious teachings must be checked primarily with the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16). Thus, you can find out "what is the will of God, good, pleasing and perfect" (Bible, Romans 12:2). God does not want you to be misled along with the "whole universe" (Bible, Revelation 12:9). Where is the propaganda of exclusivity here? What does it have to do with the superiority of a person on the basis of his religious affiliation? What kind of religious hatred are we talking about here? It's just a call for exploration and the search for the truth. The truth exists. Each court session at the initial stage has a goal: to get to the truth, to establish what really happened. A judicial investigation is under way, evidence is collected and if there is a clear picture, the court makes a balanced and fair decision, right? So with faith. Each person conducts his own "judicial investigation" and concludes whether his faith is justified and real or whether it just seems like this (Bible, Hebrews 11:1). And just as the court publishes its decision, so the believer indicates for others what he believes in. As already mentioned, we believe that the Bible can help with this, and encourage people to investigate this issue. We offer people to study the Bible. It is based on freedom of choice. If a person doesn't want to, he just refuses. The prosecution witnesses said this clearly. What kind of recruitment? It's a label. How to explain the desire of Jehovah's Witnesses to tell people about their faith to others? Article 22.2.99 4-7 states: "The message that Jesus Christ preached is more important than ever today. Why? Because, judging by the situation in the world, we live in the "last days" of this world order, and at the end of these last days we will have to cleanse the earth of evil. Jesus compared our time to the days of Noah (2 Timothy 3:1-5, Matthew 24:37-39). Therefore, now is the time to test the truth of our faith, because only those who know God and worship him in spirit and truth will have eternal life (John 4:24; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-9)." Our main motive is love for people, not extremist motives, as the prosecution imagines. Sometimes it costs us quite dearly, as in my case. But, driven by love for people, we want to warn everyone that there is a real opportunity to survive the impending events predicted by God and live forever in beautiful conditions. Helping people is the main motive for action, not the desire to develop their hatred for a particular religious denomination. And we don't do it out of hatred. And how is it presented by the prosecution? Your honor, we are not enemies of people, we are not extremists. No Jehovah's Witness, including me, acts because he hates any of the people, no matter what religion this person belongs to. An example with the Yellowstone volcano or the warning of weather forecasters about an approaching hurricane. Weather forecasters warned in advance of an impending hurricane. Hurricane Dorian was recently discovered on the U.S. coast. The authorities begged citizens to wait out the elements in a safe place. Nevertheless, dozens of people were injured. The authorities could not influence the elements, they can't do it. You can only hide and survive. That's how we talk about what doesn't depend on us. We're just warning people. The next serious event that awaits people is the prohibition of all religious denominations throughout the world. There is this speech in the materials of the criminal case. Bible, Ezekiel 33:33: "But when this comes true - behold, it is already coming true - then they will know that there was a prophet among them." Jehovah's Witnesses are not the initiators of this event. We're just saying that the biblical prophecy about this will soon come true. Can we call extremism a sincere desire to help a person avoid suffering and even death? This is tantamount to calling white black and black white. God condemns this approach. Bible, Isaiah 5:20: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good is called evil, light replaces darkness, and darkness with light, sweetness replaces with bitterness, and bitterness with sweetness" (SovP). "Woe to those who call evil good, and good - evil, darkness is considered light and light - darkness, bitter is considered sweet and sweet - bitter!" (Synodal Translation). I can talk a lot about the inconsistency of the accusation with reality with regard to enmity, hatred, extremist motives, negative assessments of persons who are not followers of Jehovah's Witnesses. But I think that's enough. We can return to this issue if necessary. I am accused of inducement to break kinship and family relations with non-Jehovah's Witnesses. Otherwise, it can't be called a thoughtless repetition of rumors and gossip. Anyone who is truly familiar with Jehovah's Witnesses knows that this is completely untrue. 1 Corinthians 7:10 "And I do not command those who marry, but the Lord: the wife should not divorce her husband; but if she divorces, she must remain uncelibacy, or reconcile with her husband, and the husband shall not leave his wife." Verse 12: "Tother I say, not the Lord: if any brother has an unbelieving wife, and she agrees to live with him, he shall not leave her." Verse 13: "And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he agrees to live with her, shall not leave him." Verse 14: "For an unbelieving man is sanctified by the wife of a believer, and a disbeliever woman is sanctified by a man to the believers. Otherwise, your children would be unclean, and now they are holy." The only reason for divorce and remarriage is treason. My own marriage was saved thanks to the Bible. Having lived seven years, Yulia and I seriously thought about divorce. When I started studying the Bible, I learned that God does not approve of a frivolous attitude towards marriage. This year there have been 30 years of our legal marriage. Inducement (call) to refuse medical intervention, including for emergency indications, to eliminate the threat to human life. Having learned that Jehovah's Witnesses refuse blood transfusions, someone decides that they are religious fanatics. But those who themselves questioned believers about this were often pleasantly surprised to see that their position was based on the Bible and that there were safe, effective alternative treatments (Leviticus 17:13,14; Acts 15:28,29). And in view of the problems with donor blood, one observer noted: "Thank God for the search for blood substitutes at the initiative of Jehovah's Witnesses" (22.2.99 4-7). This is briefly my position. We wanted to watch the movie "Alternative to Blood Transfusion," but for some reason we didn't find it. As I understood from the trial, the prosecutor removed this issue. Non-recognition of state and local self-government bodies. How does this manifest itself? Two biblical principles. Romans 13:1-7: submission to the rulers. Acts 4:19, 5:29: submission and absolute life belong to God. "I took active actions of an organizational nature aimed at continuing the illegal activities prohibited by the court of the MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk", expressed in the convening of assemblies, organizing religious speeches and divine services at these meetings, collecting funds under the guise of donations, carrying out preaching activities, namely..." (nex I acted as an individual. What is the structure of the World Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses? Is it forbidden? No. There is not a single court decision prohibiting the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses. Paragraph 2: "Involved in the activities of the MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk" persons professing the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses, distributing the role and functions among them, instructed to perform certain one-time actions in order to maintain and develop the MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "North Tomsk". How was it established by the prosecution that joint meetings, participation in them, preaching service are the activities of the MRO, and not the actions of individuals related to the profession of their faith within the framework of the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution of the Russian Federation? What does the prosecution mean by probing religion? Where is this defined in the legislation of the Russian Federation? I even asked the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Tomsk region to clarify this issue. The answer was this: Russian legislation does not contain a definition of such a concept. That is, the state does not determine what to believe in and how to profess religion. The Law on Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations establishes that the state does not interfere in the internal affairs of religious associations and respects them (Article 4): "In accordance with the constitutional principle of separating religious associations from the state, a religious association: creates and carries out its activities in accordance with its own hierarchical and institutional structure, selects, appoints and Have I collected the founders of the MRO? How was the activities of such a liquidated legal entity even confirmed? In fact, the prosecution refers to a group of co-religionists from the theocratic (internal) structure of Jehovah's Witnesses (meathing "Tomsk, Northern"). Similarly, in the first century AD, Christians united in meetings. And the mentioned meeting was not associated with the liquidated organization, but independently (without the participation of the MRO) determined the issues of its activities. "Continued to use the premises at A. Nevsky 16/9, exploited by the MRO to hold meetings of the organization, including in the form of collective religious services. According to the extract of the Unified State Register of Legal Entities dated 17.04.17, the address of the MRO is Yakovleva 65/1, Tomsk, 634003. What do you mean continued? Is Nevsky 16/4 the property of the MRO? It's a private house. "I took conspiracy measures." The unhealthy situation in Russia around Jehovah's Witnesses does not act as relaxing. I understood and understood that anything could happen. A misinterpretation of the Supreme Court's decision could have a variety of consequences. As long as there is uncertainty about this issue, you can suffer, which is what happened. There is also a concept of the mystery of confession. I carefully make sure that I do not specifically or inadvertently publicize someone's innermost, personal affairs that do not concern anyone. And the question is not related to the fear of "exposing," as the prosecution expresses itself, but to the usual desire for human self-preservation. It's very unpleasant when someone digs in your life, and absolutely unreasonably and unceremoniously. And just because someone misinterprets and applies the decision of the Supreme Court. I regard it as an interference in personal life. "Organized the storage of religious literature in electronic form." Is it written with annoyance? I can't comment on it any other way. What does "storage" in electronic form mean? A lot of religious literature that is not included in the list of extremist materials is freely available on the Internet. Absolutely anyone can freely download it. The fact that I tried to follow the law and did not keep the printed literature included in the list at home is my fault. "The authorship of the spiritual leader of followers of the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses." Am I a spiritual leader or an MRO leader? If it is spiritual and spiritual is not forbidden, then what am I judged for? If the leader of the MRO, where is the evidence of this? Until there is certainty about what exactly was forbidden, there will be confusion. This is an attempt to pass off what you want as real. "I decided to admit new members to the IRO." What are we talking about? Charter regulating membership: 4.1: The members of the organization are its founders and persons adopted by the decision of the committee. I never had the authority to decide alone whether a person could become a Jehovah's Witness (with regard to the confession of faith). Moreover, I did not have the authority to decide on the membership of the IRO. I've never been a member of this committee. He distributed religious literature both in printed and electronic form.e. As I have already explained, anyone can freely download any literature without any of my participation. I have never coordinated this issue. Everyone makes a personal decision on what to download and what to store on their electronic device. In order to increase the psychological effect on others, a phrase is used to emphasize allegedly illegal actions. But it can also be used for the authors of the indictment. And their goal is to increase the psychological effect on others (including the court). This document was drawn up to give the appearance of legality and validity of the prosecution. For whatever reasons, I will not continue - I will leave it to the court. "Organized a collective religious service on 26.11.2017 and 12.12.2017." The meeting is qualified as a divine service, that is, it is directly related to spiritual discussion, although spiritual discussion is not prohibited. The following refers to downloading from www.jw.org As I have said more than once, this is a lie based on the "testimony" of a secret witness. There is no evidence of using jw.org in the electronic media seized from me. What the expert opinions say about visiting this site has nothing to do with me. I cannot be responsible for the actions of all Jehovah's Witnesses in the Tomsk region. How to use electronic devices is a personal matter and personal responsibility. Information about the use of jw.org is the GUESSES of a secret witness. During his testimony, when the defense tried to find out where this information came from, the answer was always the same: "I don't want to answer this question" or "I don't want to talk about it," and this is unacceptable evidence (Art. 75 of the CPC). According to CPC 75.2.2., unacceptable evidence includes: the testimony of the victim, witness based on guesswork, assumption, hearing, as well as the testimony of a witness who cannot indicate the source of his awareness and cannot, because he is lying. Paragraph 5:2 - the accusation is repeated. Paragraphs 6:1, 2, 3 - similar accusations, I have already given comments. 6:4 - conclusion. 6:6 - a copy of the Supreme Court decision (there is already an exhaustive comment). 7:1 - MRO charter, which refers to statutory activities. Lawyer's explanation. 7:2 - testimony by Dudko A. S., states the facts of the events taking place and unacceptably assesses the "extremist organization". He acts as an expert. At the same time, documents that he may be an expert or specialist in religious matters are not submitted to the court. Speaks about the use of materials from the prohibited site jw.org. These materials are posted as separate publications that are freely available on other Internet resources. The federal list of extremist materials is not included (for example, "Songbook" from which songs for religious meetings are taken). If the Constitution of the Russian Federation or the anthem of the Russian Federation were posted on the site, it would not mean that now it cannot be used, and the use would be fraught with consequences. There is no evidence that I personally downloaded something from jw.org (time, place, method). Dudko also draws attention to the trial of the conflict situation between members of the "extremist organization". He says that a committee has been formed, which is a form of conduct. Where did he read it in the charter? The solution to the conflict situation has nothing to do with the activities of the MRO and this is a purely spiritual sphere in which individuals took part. This whole distorted picture is due to elementary ignorance and misunderstanding of how the spiritual (canonical) organization functions. 2 Thessalonians 3:14 - to have a remark. 1 Corinth. 5 - delete from the assembly. 2 Corinthians 2:5 - recovery. Philippians 4:2, 3 - disagreements between Evodia and Syntchia, please help them. The familiar word "committee" does not mean the same thing in the MRO and in theocratic organization. I can't talk about it without a smile, so incompetent conclusions are drawn and presented as proof of guilt. All information about how the World Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses operates is freely available and is known to religious scholars. Further, Pudov's testimony is D. Year The question I had: when was the site reviewed? Witness Pudov repeatedly explained (I hope this is in the protocol) that he has been to the CPE only once. The testimony is dated 24.09.2018, and the events in question are dated 17.04.2018. On which of these dates was he in the CPE? If on 24.09.2018, they are drawn up "rein retroactively", that is, with a gross violation, and according to Art. 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation cannot be acceptable. What does it give us? So, the original accusation was fabricated. This issue needs to be clarified. Pudov said that all the documents were drawn up on the same day. Testimony of witness Pavlov. The gradual "evolution" of testimony is visible. At the very beginning, he says lies about jw.org. To all the questions that were clarifying, he said: "I would not like to answer this question." At the same time, he answered the same questions, if asked by the court, without citing any obstacles to give such answers. Says: "using an extension installed in his browser that allows him to bypass the lock." Where does this information come from? How is it confirmed? He prepared religious literature and distributed it among the participants and listeners of the meeting. "Klimov received the necessary materials for the meeting from the website www.jw.org, after which he recorded the information on a usb drive and transferred it to the elders before the meeting." This information is not confirmed and is a speculation of a secret witness. It can't be confirmed because it didn't happen. The result. The decision of the Supreme Court is wrongfully applied to me. The court did not prohibit the profession of Jehovah's Witnesses. The ban applies to a specific legal entity. The prosecution unreasonably appointed me head of the MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk". All my activities are related to the profession of my religious beliefs as an individual, which is guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the Russian Federation and is not prohibited by any court. No one has gathered or is going to resume the activities of the MRO until the decision of the ECHR on this issue. There is no and cannot be evidence, except for the speculation of the employees of the investigative committee that I am the head of the MRO. The incriminated use of the jw.org meeting at the meeting is a lie. I didn't encourage anyone to use this resource. Religious publications that are not prohibited for use on the territory of the Russian Federation are in sufficient quantities freely available on other sites, which are also not prohibited for use on the territory of the Russian Federation. I have never been engaged in providing co-religionists with publications in both electronic and printed form. Every Jehovah's Witness decides what to download on the Internet and store on his electronic device, so I am not responsible for it (2 Corinthians 1:24). No links to this resource were found on my electronic devices."

(translated from Russian to English by Apple Translate) https://jw-russia.org/docs/1307.html?utm_content=sidebar "Transcript of the court session of 28.10.2019 In case No. 1-417/2019 charged with S. Klimov. D. in committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Defender Leontiev A.: Sergey Gennadyevich Klimov is accused of committing a crime under Part 1 of Art. 282.2. The Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is the organization of the activities of a public or religious association or other organization in respect of which the court has made an enforceable decision to liquidate or prohibit activities in connection with extremist activities. What does the law mean by organizing the activities of an extremist organization? According to the resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 28.06.2011 No. 11, "the organization of the activities of a public or religious association or other organization in respect of which the court has made an enforceable decision to liquidate or prohibit activities in connection with extremist activities (part 1 of Article 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation Thus, the composition of the crime under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, maybe in case of resumption of illegal activities of the MRO Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk", that is, such activities in connection with which this legal entity was liquidated, namely, in connection with the assumption of repeated facts of distribution and storage for the purpose of mass distribution of literature recognized as extrem That is, the law does not refer to any statutory activity of a legal entity until the moment of liquidation, which was registered in accordance with the procedure established by law (i.e. recognized as legitimate), but about the one that was declared illegal. Substitution of legally significant concepts and facts by the prosecution. However, the accusation is uncertain and alleged. It is based on the substitution of legally significant concepts and facts. The evidence, in an attempt to pass off wishful thinking, has been replaced by a set of formulations simply rewritten from a number of regulations or certificates written by an operational officer of the CPE of the Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Tomsk region, with the repetition of the "right" statements in the testimony of a secret witness. This tendentious approach inevitably leads to incorrect conclusions in the case. Thus, the prosecution claims that by the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 20.04.2017, the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk" is a religious association of all persons from among the followers of the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses living in the Tomsk region. This statement is an assumption, not proven, contrary to the law and factual circumstances. It is refuted, in particular, by the fact that two more religious associations of Jehovah's Witnesses were registered and operated in the Tomsk region until the moment of liquidation: the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Seversk and the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Asino. At the same time, the prosecution claims that Klimov S. G. coordinated and coordinated his actions on the leadership of the MRO of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk" with a higher organization in the structure of the World Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses on the territory of the Russian Federation. However, the structure of the "World Organization of Jehovah's Witnesses" has not been disclosed, there is no information about the ban on the activities of this organization on the territory of the Russian Federation. The religious organization "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" was liquidated on 20.04.2017, in connection with which its statutory bodies ceased their activities, and S.G. Klimov in objective reality could not coordinate and coordinate his actions with it. In addition, the concepts of a legal entity - a religious organization with a limited composition of persons, a certain legal structure of its bodies and statutory activities, and a canonical confessional structure, which differ significantly from each other in composition, type, liturgical activity, etc. are not divided. The definition of these concepts is essential for making an objective and legitimate decision on the case. What did the interrogated religious specialist clarify? A specialist in religious studies, Doctor of Philosophy S.I. Ivanenko, who was questioned at the court session (40 years of research and expert experience, doctoral thesis "Evolution of the ideology and activities of the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia: (historical and philosophical analysis)" at the Russian Academy of Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation, until 2017 - employee of the analytical department of the apparatus of the Federation Council of the Russian Federation, since 2017 a member of the expert council of researchers of religion at the Department of State-confessional Relations of the Russian Academy of National Economy and Public Administration under the President of the Russian Federation) explained the following. All known religions have such important signs as individual and joint confession of faith, participation of followers in religious rites and divine services, as well as the dissemination (preaching) of faith. At the same time, all religions tend to convince their followers that only this religion is absolutely true. Typical ways of expressing faith inherent in all religions are personal and joint prayers, collective performance of spiritual songs by co-religionists, reading sacred texts, conducting divine services, spiritual training, religious rites, preaching, and others. There are no religions that do not practice collective confession of faith and collective participation in divine services and religious rites, and whose followers are characterized exclusively individual confession of faith and only individual participation in religious rites. Jehovah's Witnesses are an independent denomination - that is, they are a special direction in Christianity with specific characteristics. They use the spiritual term religious organization (or international religious organization), which, in essence, is part of the name of this denomination and is not associated with any secular association (legal entity). Such an organization by believers means the theocratic structure of the world (from the Greek theos - God, kratos - rule), organized by God and consisting of the heavenly part (spiritual creatures) and the earthly part (a set of all followers of this religion on earth). As of September 1, 2018, the religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses had about 8.6 million followers in 240 countries and territories. Jehovah's Witnesses firmly believe that their calling is to be subject to the Kingdom of Jesus Christ here and now on earth. For this reason, Jehovah's Witnesses do not participate in political life (including do not vote in elections, do not join political parties, do not take part in rallies and demonstrations), nor do military service, performing alternative civil service instead. Jehovah's Witnesses respect state power, obey the laws of their country, pay taxes in good faith, as prescribed by the Bible in the Epistle of the Apostle Paul to Romans, chapter 13, verses 1 to seven. However, in cases where the authorities demand renunciation of faith or violation of the biblical commandments, Jehovah's Witnesses are guided by the principle established in the Bible: "It is necessary to obey God more than to men" (Acts 5:29). The peculiarity of the confession of Jehovah's Witnesses revealed in religious studies is the absence of the need for its followers to belong and participate in the activities of any religious association (legal entity) registered in a particular state. The rite of baptism carried out by Jehovah's Witnesses testifies to the inclusion of their followers in the world spiritual family and allows them to profess a religion without membership in any registered association. At baptism, a protocol is not drawn up, a document similar to the certificate of baptism in some other denominations is not issued. Religious analysis indicates the significant fact that S.G. Klimov is a believer who belongs to the religious denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses (world spiritual association), without associating himself with any particular legal entity. Also, religious studies show that S.G. Klimov did not take measures aimed at creating or re-establishing any religious organization. They performed the usual actions for the Jehovah's Witness, arising from the internal (canonical) structure of the confession of Jehovah's Witnesses. These include preaching, discussing spiritual issues and biblical texts with co-religionists, joint performance of religious songs. As the religious analysis of the materials provided shows, in order to follow the chosen creed, S.G. Klimov did not need to create or recreate any organization provided for by the current legislation of the Russian Federation. What was the mistake of the Dudko CPE employee? During the investigation of the criminal case, the internal (canonical) structure of the confession of Jehovah's Witnesses was not investigated by specialists who studied this religious direction. In view of this, the unregistered religious association (assembly) provided for by the canonical structure of Jehovah's Witnesses was unreasonably identified, from the point of view of religious studies, identified with a legal entity previously registered and subsequently liquidated by the state. Thus, in the certificate dated April 17, 2018, the operative of the CPE of the Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Tomsk region A.S. Dudko is an extremist organization of Jehovah's Witnesses as a whole (volume 2, sheets 150-153), not just the "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" and 395 local religious organizations recognized as extremist by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Whereas it is completely unreasonable to equate the entire religious denomination as a whole (the world religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses operating in 240 countries and territories) and individual legal entities that previously carried out their statutory activities in Russia. In the certificate-memorandum dated May 8, 2018, the operative of the CPE of the Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Tomsk region A.S. Dudko (volume 1, sheets 55-62) the meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses is identified with the liquidated "extremist organization." Meanwhile, such meetings are unregistered associations of believers provided for by the canonical structure of Jehovah's Witnesses, existing regardless of belonging to any registered legal entity. In view of the above, I believe that the testimony of witness A.S. Dudko should be assessed critically, since he, not being a specialist in religious studies, draws conclusions about the religious denomination of Jehovah's Witnesses that contradict the facts about this "famous religion". How to assess the testimony of Pasekov's "secret witness" and other witnesses? It is also necessary to critically assess the testimony of a secret witness under the pseudonym Pavlova E.V. (actually Pasekov D.M.) After initiating a criminal case, the secret witness directly pointed out that he was interested in bringing the defendant to criminal responsibility (volume 3, etc. 106). During the interrogation in the court session, he was confused, and the content of his answers on the subject of the services recorded by the investigation contradicts the transcripts of these events. At the same time, during the interrogation in conditions that exclude its visualization, he "do not want" to answer numerous questions from the defense related to the establishment of significant circumstances in the case and not aimed at establishing his identity. He could not explain on what his claim about the use of the site was [hidden] personally by S.G. Klimov, as well as who else attended the divine services he allegedly attended. It is noteworthy that during the initial interrogation during the preliminary investigation, the secret witness did not give such "necessary" testimony to the prosecution as long after that. The content and wording of these testimony echo the certificates drawn up by the operative of the CPE of the Regional Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the Tomsk region A.S. Dudko and were obviously given under the influence of this employee, who, being interrogated by the court as a witness in the case, accompanied a secret witness during his testimony in the court session. The argument that S.G. Klimov directly used or encouraged others to use the banned site [hidden] is not true is an assumption, without indicating the reliable source of this information. No evidence of his use of this site was found on devices seized at the place of residence of S.G. Klimov. That is, this assumption is not supported by evidence that meets the requirements of relevance and admissibility (Art. 75 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation). The mere presence on this site of the same materials that were used by believers at liturgical meetings not included in the list of prohibited ones is not a violation of the law and does not serve as proof that these materials were obtained from this site. Since there are similar materials on other sites on the Internet. The testimony of other witnesses in the case also does not prove the guilt of S.G. Klimov in the incriminated act, as they only indicate that he or his perpeters in practice exercised their right to confess any religion individually and jointly with others, guaranteed by Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. S.G. Klimov's testimony also confirms that he has no intention to commit a crime under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, and refute the claim that he organized the activities of the liquidated local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk". The argument of the accusation that S.G. Klimov is the de facto head of the liquidated local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses "Northern, Tomsk" is illegal. It is based on an incorrect and expansive interpretation of the concept of "religious organization" and arbitrary confusion of this legal concept with the concepts of "internal or canonical institutions" of religious denomination, as well as "joint confession of faith", which are not directly related to the activities of a legal entity. Have the motives attributed to Klimov by the prosecution been proven? The prosecution claims that S.G. Klimov acted on the grounds of religious hatred, acting out of extremist motives expressed in the promotion of the advantage of followers of the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses over other persons, the negative assessment of persons who are not followers of the religious teachings of Jehovah's Witnesses and initiating the severance of family and family relations with them, calling for refusal of medical intervention, including for emergency indications to eliminate the threat to human life, non-recognition of state and local self-government bodies, in the period from 20.04.2017 to 03.06.2018. However, these allegations are presumably, not confirmed, the legal norms allegedly violated are not specified. In fact, there is a substitution of legally significant concepts and facts. What is unreasonably interpreted by the consequence as incitement to hatred? According to p. 7 Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 28.06.2011 No. 11 "actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity should be understood, in particular, statements justifying and (or) affirming the need for genocide, mass repression, deportations, committing other illegal actions, including the use of violence, against members of a nation, race, adherents of a particular religion. However, the examination of S.G. Klimov's statements was not carried out. Statements justifying and (or) affirming the need for genocide, mass repression, deportations, other illegal actions, including the use of violence, against representatives of a nation, race, adherents of a particular religion on the part of S.G. Klimov do not contain the case materials. At the same time, specialist in the field of religious studies Ivanenko S.I. explained that all religions tend to convince their followers that only this religion is absolutely true, and the rest, respectively, are false. Advice to those who are not married to marry their perpetrators in order to avoid difficulties in family life, and for those who are already married to unbelievers not to leave their spouse (1 Corinthians 7:39, 1 Corinthians 7:12-16), and the exercise by believers in practice of their rights to dispose of family rights, to enter into marriage 7, 12, 31 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation) is presented as a call for the rupture of family and family relations. The Council shall refrain from taking someone else's blood into your body (Acts 15:29) and exercising in practice the patient's rights to choose a doctor, as well as modern types of medical interventions not related to the use of the main components of donor blood (Art. 6, 19-21 of the Federal Law "On the Fundamentals of Public Health Protection in the Russian Federation"), presented as a call for the refusal of medical intervention in general. The position of Christian neutrality, if there is advice, to obey human authorities, but not against the will of God (John 6:14, 15, John 15:19, Matthew 26:52, 53, Romans 13:1, Acts 5:29) and the exercise by believers in practice of the right to participate and not to participate in elections, to replace military service with 59 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) is presented as non-recognition of state and local self-government bodies. In addition, the Decision of the European Court of Justice of 10.06.2010 in the case "Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Moscow and others v. the Russian Federation," complaint No. 302/02, refutes the above allegations of the prosecution (see subpara. 109-114, 131-146, 149-153, 160). The facts of distribution and storage for the purpose of mass distribution of literature recognized as extremist materials and banned in the Russian Federation have not been directly established by S.G. Klimov. Klimov's accusation in the light of international law. At the same time, it should be noted that the Committee of Foreign Ministers of the Council of Europe, which monitors the implementation of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, urged the Russian authorities to urgently take all necessary measures to ensure the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to profes their religion without hindrance. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe checked compliance by the Russian Federation with the rulings in the cases "Jehovah's Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia" and "Krupko and Others v. Russia". The document published on the website of the Council of Europe states: "The Committee is concerned about information from various sources that, as a result of the new ban, Jehovah's Witnesses are arrested, prosecuted and tried only for participating in peaceful religious services and making donations." The prosecution claims that S.G. Klimov violated paragraph 2 of Art. 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, according to which any advocacy of religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence should be prohibited by law. However, according to Opinion No. 11/2019 of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the UN Human Rights Council regarding Dmitry Mikhailov (Russian Federation), adopted on April 26, 2019: "76... Mr. Mikhailov's actions have always been absolutely peaceful, and there is no evidence that he or other Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia have ever resorted to violence or called others to violence. The Working Group notes that Mr. Mikhailov is one of the currently growing number of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, detainees and detained, who have been charged with criminal activities on the grounds that they simply exercised the right to freedom of religion, a right protected by article 18 of the Covenant (see also paragraph 39 above). Therefore, the Working Group concludes that the detention and detention of Mr. Mikhailov was a manifestation of religious discrimination... 77. The Working Group wishes to note that although this is the first case related to the situation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia brought before it under the standard reporting procedure, numerous such cases have been initiated by joint immediate action by the Working Group and other UN special procedures (see para. 74 above). In all these cases, the peaceful religious activities of Jehovah's Witnesses were described as "extremist", which led to the detention and detention of those who belong to this religion. Therefore, although this Opinion concerns the specific circumstances of Mr. Mikhailov, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that its conclusions in this Opinion apply to all other persons in circumstances such as those in which Mr. Mikhailov is. The Working Group declared the complainant's deprivation of liberty arbitrary and called for the termination of the criminal case against the complainant and that appropriate action be taken against those responsible for violating his rights. Moreover, according to the Opinion of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention of the UN Human Rights Council No. 34/2019 concerning Vladimir Alushkin (Russian Federation), adopted on August 12, 2019: 51. The source claimed that Alushkin was accused of committing two crimes: (i) organizing the activities of an "extremist" organization and (ii) participating in the activities of an "extremist" organization. The Government decided not to deny these statements. The decision to initiate criminal proceedings claimed that Alushkin was a religious servant of Jehovah's Witnesses and "carried out general management" their activities in the city of Penza, which was illegal after the decision of the Supreme Court of April 20, 2017. In particular, it was assumed that they committed a crime expressed in "conversations in public places and residential premises with residents of the city of Penza... and involve new participants from among their relatives, acquaintances and residents of the city. Penza", as well as holding divine services to "study its ideology." 52. The Working Group cannot agree that any of these activities could be called an organization or participation in the activities of an extremist organization. The Working Group cannot find any other reason that could justify the restriction of its rights under article 18 of the Covenant. All the activities in which Alushkin took part are an absolutely peaceful religious discussion. It is obvious to the Working Group that Alushkin only enjoyed the right to freedom of religion provided for in article 18 of the Covenant, which allows him to do so, for which he was detained by the authorities and spent 6 months in prison. The Working Group emphasizes the fact that even in its late response, the Government did not provide any examples of extremist activity or organization in which Alushkin participated. 53. In addition, the search of Alushkin's home and the seizure of his Bibles and religious texts that he used in worship are also an interference with his rights under article 18 of the Covenant. The Working Group therefore concludes that Alushkin's detention falls under category II. The Working Group shall refer the case to the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion for further action. 54. Taking into account the conclusions that Alushkin's imprisonment was arbitrary under category II, the Working Group would like to emphasize that Alushkin should not have been detained and detained before trial, and that there is no need to consider Alushkin's case in court. 65. The Working Group recalls that it has recently considered a very similar case concerning Russia (see Opinion 11/2019). She also draws attention to the fact that since 2015, UN special procedures mandate holders have taken at least five joint immediate measures expressing concern about the prohibition of religious activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, about the amendments made by the Spring Law, including restrictions on the expression of religious opinion and activities, as well as about the violation of the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of The Working Group particularly wishes to draw attention to the latest joint complaint in which special procedures mandate holders expressed concern about "the issue of systematic and institutionalized persecution of Jehovah's Witnesses". 67. As mentioned earlier, Alushkin's actions have always been absolutely peaceful, and there is no evidence that he or other Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia have ever resorted to violence or called others to violence. The Working Group notes that Alushkin is only one of the currently growing number of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, detainees and detained, who have been charged with criminal activities on the grounds that they simply exercised the right to freedom of religion, a right protected by article 18 of the Covenant. Therefore, the Working Group concludes that Alushkin's detention and detention was a manifestation of religious discrimination and therefore falls under category V of the Working Group. 68. The Working Group wishes to note that although this is only the second case related to the situation of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia brought before it under the standard reporting procedure, numerous such cases have been initiated by joint immediate action by the Working Group and other UN special procedures (see para. 65). All these cases are related to the fact that the peaceful religious activities of Jehovah's Witnesses were described as "extremist", which led to the detention and detention of those who belong to this religion. Therefore, although this Opinion relates to the specific circumstances of Alushkin, the Working Group wishes to emphasize that its conclusions in this Opinion apply to all other persons in circumstances such as those in which Alushkin finds. 71. The Working Group believes that, given all the circumstances of the case, the unconditional release of Vladimir Alushkin and granting him the enforceable right to compensation and compensation in other form in accordance with international law would be an appropriate measure of protection. 72. The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a comprehensive and independent investigation into the circumstances of Vladimir Alushkin's arbitrary imprisonment and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for violating his rights. On 07.02.2019, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, speaking about the criminal prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, noted that this "creates a dangerous precedent and actually criminalizes the right of Jehovah's Witnesses to freedom of religion and belief in Russia, which contradicts the obligations of the state arising from the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights... We also call on the authorities to drop charges and release persons detained in connection with the exercise of their right to freedom of religion or belief, freedom of expression, as well as freedom of peaceful assembly and association. There is an unlawful imposition to S.G. Klimov of a violation of international law. Whereas the authorized body authorized to decide whether or not violated these norms has made the exact opposite decision. S.G. Klimov's accusation is also based on the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of April 20, 2017 on the liquidation of the Religious Organization "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses" and its local religious organizations of Jehovah's Witnesses (hereinafter referred to as the Court Decision). However, this court decision does not prohibit the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Tomsk as a religious denomination in general. According to the appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of July 17, 2017 in the case of liquidation of the religious organization "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia", the court did not assess the legality of the religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and ways of expressing them. The court decision does not require Jehovah's Witnesses citizens in the city of Tomsk to stop practicing well-known ways of proving their faith. It is a mistaken assumption that since it was the religious organization as a legal entity that was liquidated, the methods of professing and spreading faith characteristic of the religious denomination to which the organization belonged were prohibited. It is important to take into account the fact that the ways of joint confession and dissemination of faith in different faiths may coincide or differ from each other, which is not a violation of the current legislation (Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 3, 6 of the Federal Law "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Associations"). S.G. Klimov was not the founder or participant of these legal entities and was not a member of their governing bodies. He did not receive any official warnings, warnings or instructions about the illegality of his actions. At the same time, it is illegal to set an equal sign between a particular legal entity and all believers of this denomination living in a certain territory. This is similar to the statement that all citizens who profess, for example, Orthodoxy in the territory of the city of Tomsk are legally responsible for the actions of legal entities of the Russian Orthodox Church, even though they are not their founders or members of the governing and other bodies of these organizations, which is illogical and illegal. By virtue of Part 1 of Art. 14 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, a socially dangerous act prohibited by the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation under threat of punishment is recognized as a crime. Therefore, wrongfulness as an integral sign of a crime excludes the possibility of criminal prosecution for acts that are lawful. The actions of persons who previously participated in the activities of a religious association or other organization preceding the adoption of the relevant court decision against whom the court made an enforceable decision to liquidate or prohibit activities in connection with extremist activities should be differentiated into lawful and illegal (prohibited by law and served as the basis for the application of sanctions). Therefore, any requirement beyond the legal consequences of the entry into force of the decision to liquidate or prohibit activities for these persons to cease lawful activities, as well as the requirement for other persons to refrain from carrying out similar activities, is completely arbitrary. Since according to Part 2 of Art. 3 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, the application of criminal law by analogy is not allowed, then Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation may not apply to those actions that, although similar to those committed before the adoption of the relevant court decision by persons who participated in the activities of a religious association or other organization in respect of which the court made an enforceable decision to liquidate or prohibit activities in connection with extremist activities, but were not the basis for such a decision. Types of activities prohibited as extremist activity (extremism) are established by paragraph 1 of Art. 1 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 25.07.2002 "On Countering Extremist Activity" is: Forced change of the foundations of the constitutional order and violation of the integrity of the Russian Federation; Public justification of terrorism and other terrorist activities; Incitement of social, racial, national or religious hatred; Promotion of exclusivity, superiority or inferiority of a person on the basis of his social, racial, national, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion; Violation of the rights, freedoms and legitimate interests of a person and citizen depending on his social, racial, national, religious or linguistic affiliation or attitude to religion; Obstruction by citizens of their electoral rights and the right to participate in a referendum or violation of the secrecy of voting, combined with violence or threat of its use; Obstruction of the legal activities of state bodies, local self-government bodies, election commissions, public and religious associations or other organizations, combined with violence or threat of its use; Commission of crimes on the grounds specified in paragraph "e" of part one of Article 63 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation; Propaganda and public demonstration of Nazi paraphernalia or symbols or paraphernalia or symbols similar to Nazi paraphernalia or symbols to the point of confusion, or public demonstration of paraphernalia or symbols of extremist organizations; Public calls for the implementation of these acts or mass distribution of deliberately extremist materials, as well as their manufacture or storage for the purpose of mass distribution; Public knowingly false accusation of a person holding a public office of the Russian Federation or a public office of a subject of the Russian Federation of committing the acts specified in this article and constituting a crime during the performance of his official duties; Organization and preparation of these acts, as well as incitement to their implementation; Financing of these acts or other assistance in their organization, preparation and implementation, including through the provision of educational, printing and material and technical base, telephone and other types of communication or provision of information services. As follows from the cited rule of law, the list of activities prohibited as extremist does not include the profession of religions of the same confessional affiliation as religious associations, in respect of which the court has taken an enforceable decision to liquidate or prohibit activities in connection with extremist activities. The consequences of recognizing an extremist organization are established by Art. 9 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 25.07.2002 "On Countering Extremist Activity": it is the liquidation of a legal entity, including its structural subdivisions, or a ban on the activities of a religious association that is not a legal entity, the circulation of property into the property of the Russian Federation, informing the public about the decision by publishing a list of extremist associations. Article 15 of Federal Law No. 114-FZ of 25.07.2002 "On Countering Extremist Activity" establishes a prohibition to be the founder of a public or religious association or other non-profit organization within ten years from the date of entry into force of the relevant court decision to a person who was previously the head or member of the governing body of a religious association, At the same time, the current legislation does not establish an obligation to stop the profession of religion of the same confessional affiliation as religious associations in respect of which the court has made an enforceable decision to eliminate or prohibit activities in connection with extremist activities and does not prohibit the profession of such religions. At the moment, the List of non-profit organizations in respect of which the court has made an enforceable decision to liquidate or prohibit activities on the grounds provided for by the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity", published on the official website of the Ministry of Justice of Russia, includes religious associations of the following confessional affiliation: Slavic neopaganism 7, 9, 16, 34, 35, 53), Jehovah's Witnesses (paragraphs 10, 42, 47, 50, 51, 54, 56, 59, 62), Orthodoxy (para. 66). At the same time, it should be noted that none of the relevant court decisions assesses such religions as Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses, Orthodoxy in general. Court decisions did not prohibit the profession of these religions both by persons who were members of the relevant religious associations and other people at the time of liquidation or prohibition of activities. Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees everyone freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, including the right to profess individually or jointly with others any religion or not to profess any, freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs and act in accordance with them. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes the freedom to change his religion or belief and the freedom to profess his religion or belief, both individually and in community with others, public or private, in worship, education, religious and religious rites. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Article 18 proclaims that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right includes the freedom to have or accept a religion or belief of your choice and the freedom to profess one's religion and belief, both individually and in association with others, in public or private, in worship, performing religious and ritual rites and teachings. No one shall be subjected to coercion that diminishes his freedom, have or accept religion or belief of his choice. These legal provisions vested in paragraph 2 of Article 4 and paragraph 4 of Art. 15 The Constitution of the Russian Federation by legal supremacy in the Russian Federation are fully applicable to Islam, Jehovah's Witnesses and Orthodoxy. The freedom of religion thus enshrined allows a person to continue to profess the religion he profesed at the time of the court's decision to liquidate or prohibit the activities of a religious association, as well as to recognize that he has appropriate religious beliefs. At the same time, holding joint divine services, providing premises for them, reading and discussing religious literature, disseminating religious beliefs, observing religious rites and ceremonies, performing spiritual songs, collecting donations for religious activities are forms of legitimate behavior that are part of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion as a set of rights to profess 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), as well as to profess their religion together with others, in worship, training, religious and religious rites, worship, religious and ritual rites and teachings (Art. 9 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). According to the binding position of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, expressed in Resolution No. 4-P of 26.02.2010, not only the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, but also the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights - to the extent that they interpret the content of the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Convention, including the right to access to justice and justice, based on universally recognized principles and norms of international law, are an integral part of the Russian legal system, and therefore should be taken into account by the federal legislator when regulating public relations and law enforcement agencies when applying the relevant rules of law. Therefore, the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights expressing legal positions on the application of Art. 9 The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms to Concrete Acts of a Believer make it possible to confidently determine the scope of actions that, under the protection of the European Convention, cannot be considered not only as criminal, but also as at least illegal. Thus, the European Court of Justice explained that as follows from article 9 of the European Convention, the freedom to profess one's religion is exercised not only together with others, "public order" and in a circle of converts, but also "individually" and "privately". In addition, it, in principle, includes the right to try to convince one's neighbor, for example, through "training", otherwise "the freedom to change [your] religion or belief" enshrined in article 9 of the European Convention would not be applicable at all. With this exercise of the right to try to convince its neighbor, the European Court recognized the conversations of Jehovah's Witnesses with other people in order to spread its beliefs. The Court recognized that in this case the activities of Jehovah's Witnesses correspond to the signs of Christian testimony - The most important mission and responsibility of every Christian and every church, and it differs significantly in inappropriate proselytism, which can be expressed in activities related to the supply of material or social benefits to involve new members in the church, or in activities involving inappropriate pressure on those who suffer or are in poverty; proselytism may even entail the use of violence or methods of forced change of consciousness (Decision of 25.05.1993 in the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece, complaint No. 3/1992/348/421, § 48). Applying a similar approach to the interpretation of freedom to profess religion, the European Court of Justice ruled that the prohibition of peaceful religious assembly in the absence of evidence that any of the participants would provoke or participate in violence was a violation of Art. 11 of the European Convention, interpreted in the light of Art. 9 of the European Convention (Resolution of 26.07.2007 in the case of Barankevich v. Russian Federation, complaint No. 10519/03, § 32, 35). Also, the European Court of Justice explained, it is under the protection of Art. 9 of the European Convention "joint study and discussion of liturgical texts by members of a religious group of Jehovah's Witnesses is a recognized form of confession of their religion during divine services and training" (Decision of 11.01.2007 in the case of Kuznetsov and Others v. the Russian Federation, complaint No. 184/02, § 57). The European Court of Human Rights also drew attention to the fact that on December 5, 2012, in connection with the complaint of the Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation, filed in the interests of two Jehovah's Witnesses, who were brought to administrative responsibility due to the fact that they did not notify local authorities about the upcoming religious congress, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation issued Resolution No Following the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, which found violating the requirements of Articles 17 (part 3), 18, 19 (parts 1 and 2), 28, 31 and 55 (part 3) of the Constitution of the Russian Federation to punish believers for holding prayer and religious meetings of Jehovah's Witnesses indoors, the European Court of Human Rights recognized that such meetings cannot be considered an offense, 9 of the European Convention (Decision of 26.06.2014 in the case of Krupko and Others v. Russian Federation, complaint No. 26587/07). Confirming that Jehovah's Witnesses are subject to the definition of "known religion" (it is obvious that Islam and Orthodoxy are also known religions), the European Court of Human Rights found it unreasonable to prosecute persons who professes this religion only for finding a place for worship (Decision of 26.09.1996 in the case of Manussakis and Others v. Greece, complaint No. 18748/91, § 40, 53). Considering the case "Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Moscow and others v. the Russian Federation," the European Court of Justice examined in detail the accusations made by the authorities of the Russian Federation against Jehovah's Witnesses, rejected them as unfounded and reminded the authorities of the duty of the state to maintain neutrality and impartiality. In addition, he stopped an unreasonable attempt to hold the local community responsible for the actions of the Religious Organization "Management Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" (Resolution of 10.06.2010, complaint No. 302/02, § 57, 120, 160). Finally, in response to an attempt to restrict the rights of Jehovah's Witnesses, citing it solely by the form of religious association in which believers worship God, the European Court of Human Rights ruled: "The unimpeded exercise of the right to freedom of religion of Jehovah's Witnesses is guaranteed by article 9 of the European Convention" (Resolution of 30 At the same time, the Court also recognized donations that ensure the conduct of divine services as protected by this article. Since actions aimed at inciting hatred or enmity should be understood, in particular, statements justifying and (or) asserting the need for genocide, mass repression, deportations, other illegal acts, including the use of violence, against members of a nation, race, adherents of a particular religion (para. 7 Resolutions of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 11 of 28.06.2011), the desire to achieve these consequences is an integral part of the motive of hatred or enmity. The European Court of Justice recognizes indisputable manifestations of incitement to violence and hatred, that is, the implementation of statements with a clear intention to push people to unleash conflict, calls for bloody revenge, bringing to the reader the idea that the use of violence is a necessary and justified measure, the expression of open threats of physical violence. Such manifestations are characterized by hateful statements and praise of violence, as well as statements that bring the reader to the decision to participate in the war. These manifestations can take the form of aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism. (See Decisions of 08.07.1999 in the case of Surek v. Turkey (No. 1), complaint No. 26682/95, § 62 and of 08.07.1999 in the case of Shurek v. Turkey (No. 3), complaint No. 24735/94, § 40; Ruling of 10.07.2008 in the case of Soulas and others v. France", complaint No. 15948/03, § 43; Resolution of 04.11.2008 in the case of Balsyte-Lideikiene v. Lithuania, complaint No. 72596/01.) Accordingly, such actions and statements of persons may indicate the existence of a motive of hatred or enmity. At the same time, if the actions and statements of a person are identical to the religion and the corresponding practice of religious denomination, are exclusively peaceful and do not indicate the presence of hatred or enmity, signs of the subjective side of the crime under Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, none. Official representatives of the Russian Federation at the federal level have repeatedly stated that the Court Decision does not affect the right of citizens to profess their faith. On March 23, 2018, the Chief of Staff of the Commissioner of the Russian Federation to the European Court of Human Rights on behalf of the Government of the Russian Federation in objections submitted to the European Court of Human Rights on complaint No. 10188/17 "Management Center for Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia and Kalin v. Russia," said: "The authorities of the Russian Federation emphasize that the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 20.04.2017 and the appeal ruling of the Appeals Board of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 17.07.2017 do not assess the creeds of Jehovah's Witnesses, do not contain a restriction or prohibition to profess the above doctrine individually." The unjustified criminal prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 20.04.2017 was also drawn to the attention of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights: "this court decision contains an exhaustive list of legal entities subject to liquidation. At the same time, the court decision does not contain conclusions on the prohibition of the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses as such. A similar conclusion is formulated in the appeal ruling of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 17.07.2017 in this case, which noted that the court of first instance did not assess the legality of the religious beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses and ways of expressing them (page 43 of the ruling). [...] The situation causes associations with the Soviet period, when Jehovah's Witnesses were subjected to unreasonable repression on the basis of religion, as a result of which the Law of the Russian Federation of October 18, 1991 No. 1761-1 "On Rehabilitation of Victims of Political Repression" was extended to them. At the last meeting of the above-mentioned Council on 11.12.2018 Russian President Putin V.V. said: "Jehovah's Witnesses are also Christians, I also don't really understand what to persecute them for." The European Union 06.02.2019 called for an end to the criminal prosecution of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia: "No one should be imprisoned for peaceful services in expressing their religious beliefs." According to the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of 05.12.2012 No. 30-P, citizens who profess the religion of Jehovah's Witnesses do not violate the law by holding joint divine services in the form of assemblies, but exercise the right granted to them by Art. 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. As the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation pointed out, the right to freedom of conscience and religion "cannot be limited exclusively to the space of personal (private) life - receiving its implementation in the external sphere, including in mass collective forms, it objectively acquires a very significant social significance, which obliges the Russian Federation as a legal and social state (Article 1, part 1 Article 7, Part 1, of the Constitution of the Russian Federation) to ensure, neutrally and impartially, the profession of various religions, beliefs and beliefs in order to achieve civil peace and harmony..." As mentioned above, the European Court of Human Rights recognized that the following forms of religious activity of Jehovah's Witnesses are under the protection of Art. 9 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: - Christian testimony in the form of preaching the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses "from home to home" (Decision of the European Court of 25.05.1993 in the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece", Series A, No. 260-A, p. 22, § 31, 48); - joint study and discussion of liturgical texts by members of the religious group of Jehovah's Witnesses (Resolution of the European Court of 11.01.2007 in the case of Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia, complaint No. 184/02, § 57); - free entry into associations of believers in the form of religious groups in accordance with the internal canonical regulations of Jehovah's Witnesses (Resolution of the European Court of 10.06.2010 in the case "Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Moscow and others v. the Russian Federation", complaint No. 302/02, § 99, 100); - religious education of children by each of the parents, including the upbringing of their children in accordance with their religious or non-religious beliefs (Decision of the European Court of 10.06.2010 in the case "Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Moscow and others v. Russian Federation", complaint No. 302/02, § 125); - financing the activities of associations of believers (including religious groups) through donations (Resolution of the European Court of 30.11.2011 in the case "Association of Jehovah's Witnesses v. France", complaint No. 8916/05, § 53). The Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 11.01.2007 in the case of Kuznetsov and Others v. Russia (paragraphs 56, 57) emphasizes: "As provided for in Article 9, freedom of thought, conscience and religion is one of the pillars on which a "democratic society" is based within the meaning of the Convention. With regard to religion, it is one of the most significant components of the distinctive feature of believers and their life concept, but it is also important for atheists, agnostics, skeptics and those who are not interested in it. Without it, there can be no pluralism, which is an integral feature of a democratic society and a precious acquisition won over the centuries. Although religious freedom is primarily a matter of the conscience of an individual, it also implies, inter alia, the freedom to "confess [your] religion." The existence of religious beliefs is inextricably linked to bear testimony in word and deed..." Further, the Court once again draws attention to the fact that "...Art. 9 of the Convention guarantees the protection of acts related to worship and the performance of rites, which are characteristic features of the profession of religion or belief in a universally recognized form... It is undeniable that the joint study and discussion of liturgical texts by members of the religious group of Jehovah's Witnesses is a recognized form of professing [they] their religion in worship and training." A similar position of the European Court of Justice is enshrined in the Decision of 25.05.1993 in the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece, in which the European Court of Justice gave the following interpretation (para. 31:32) of the Convention: "In accordance with article 9, freedom to profess one's religion is not only feasible in community with others, "publicly" and within the circle of those whose faith is shared by a person, but can also be asserted "individually", "privately"; moreover, it includes in principle the right to try to convince one's neighbor, Religion, "and the benefits arising from it." The European Court of Justice, in its ruling of 26.09.1996 in the case of Manussakis et al. Greece, confirming that Jehovah's Witnesses enjoy the status of a "known religion", indicated the following (para.p. 47, 48): "The right to freedom of religion, as guaranteed by the Convention, excludes any freedom of action on the part of the State to determine whether religious beliefs or means used to express such beliefs are legitimate... As it is clear from the testimony and numerous other cases listed by the plaintiffs and not disputed by the government that the government that the public authorities were inclined to By general agreement, the Supreme Administrative Court shall repeal any unjustified refusal to grant permission in the absence of grounds, but the broad case law in this area seems to show a clear tendency on the part of the administrative and spiritual authorities to use these provisions to limit the activities of religion beyond the Orthodox Church. The Decision of 28.08.2018 in the case of "Ibrahim Ibragimov and Others v. Russian Federation" (paragraphs 90, 98, 106, 115, 116) notes that "the European Court has repeatedly stressed that States are obliged to neutrally and impartially ensure the practice of different religions, beliefs and beliefs ... The European Court of Justice also stressed An appeal to violence, hatred or intolerance... The European Court of Justice notes that the district court approved the conclusions of the experts without giving them any significant assessment, simply stating that it has no reason to question them. The court did not so much quote the relevant parts of the expert opinions as referred only to their general conclusions. In addition, the relevant examinations have gone far beyond solving only linguistic or psychological issues. Instead of limiting themselves to determining the meaning of individual words and expressions or explaining their potential psychological influence, they, in fact, gave the texts a legal assessment. In fact, the court decision shows that the most important legal conclusions regarding the extremist nature of the books were made not by the court, but by experts in the field of linguistics and psychology... Although the European Court of Justice recognizes that some people may be offended by such statements, it recalls that the observation cannot be considered a "language of hatred" only because it may be perceived by an individual or group of individuals as offensive or humiliating... ...For any monotheistic religion, "has a psychologically based belief in the superiority of its worldview over other worldviews, as it explains the choice of this worldview" ... in particular, through statements that it is better than others." The European Court of Justice, in its ruling of 13.12.2001 in the case "The Bessarabian Metropolis and Others v. Moldova" (clause 121), also indicated: "The Court recalls that the obligation of the State, determined by its jurisprudence, to remain neutral and manifest impartiality is incompatible with any right granted to the State to assess the legitimacy of religious faith." The European Court of Justice, in its ruling of 03.05.2007 in the case of "97 members of the meeting of Jehovah's Witnesses "Gldani" and 4 other applicants v. Georgia" (paragraphs 131, 132) indicated: "The European Court has repeatedly pointed out that the state, exercising its power in this area and in the sphere of its relations with various religions and denominations, must maintain neutrality and impartiality... and this is incompatible with any powers of the state to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs... The European Court of Justice would like to emphasize that in order to respect freedom of religion, it is unacceptable to exert undue pressure on others to promote someone's religious beliefs... However, in such circumstances, the role of the authorities is not to eliminate the cause of friction by banning pluralism, but to ensure the tolerance of rival groups towards each other... This role of the state contributes to the rule of law, religious harmony and tolerance in a democratic society ... and can hardly be perceived as a potential diminishment of the role of the creed or church with which the population of a particular country is historically or culturally connected. The European Court of Justice, in its Judgment of 31.07.2008 in the case "Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses and Others v. Austria" (paragraphs 97, 98) indicated: "The European Court considers that the requirement for a waiting period as a condition for granting a religious association with the status of a legal entity a fuller scope of rights as a public law organization raises subtle issues, since the state is obliged to remain neutral and impartial both in the exercise of its regulatory function in the field of freedom of religion and in its relations with various religions The European Court of Justice could agree that such a period might need to be applied in exceptional cases, for example, to newly founded and unknown religious groups. But it can hardly be considered justified when it comes to long-standing religious groups in the world, which have also been operating in this country for a long time and are therefore well known to the competent authorities, which is the case in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses. The European Court of Justice, in its Decision of 11.02.2010 in the case of Fedchenko v. Russian Federation (paragraph 28), indicated: "The European Court recalls that the right to freedom of expression enshrined in article 10 of the Convention is one of the essential foundations of a democratic society. Subject to article 10, paragraph 2, of the Convention, it applies not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favorably accepted or considered harmless or neutral, but also to insulting, shocking or disturbing... It includes, inter alia, the right to disseminate information in good faith on issues of common interest, even if such information contains defamatory statements about individuals. In the Resolution of 22.04.2010 in the case of "Fatullaev v. Azerbaijan" (complaint No. 40984/07, p. 116, 124) The European Court of Justice, unanimously recognizing a violation of Art. 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms gave the following assessment: "In cases where the publication cannot be classified as incitement to violence or incite ethnic hatred, Contracting States may not, with reference to public order and security, restrict the right of the public to receive information on issues of universal interest by imposing a burden of criminal liability on the media (see para. 63 Decisions of the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice of 8 July 1999 in the case "Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey" (Sürek and Özdemir v. Turkey [GC]) on complaints Nos. 23927/94 and 24277/94; and p. 71 Judgments of the European Court of Justice in Erdogdu and Inche v. Turkey (Erdoğdu v. Turkey) on complaint No. 25723/94, ECHR 2000 VI)." "In view of the above, the European Court of Justice concludes that in the present case, national courts have arbitrarily applied the provisions of criminal legislation on terrorism. Such arbitrary interference in freedom of expression, one of the fundamental freedoms that form the foundation of a democratic society, should not take place in a state where there is the rule of law. The European Court of Justice, in its Decision of 26.07.2007 in the case of "Barankevich v. Russian Federation" (paragraph 31), indicated: "According to article 9 of the Convention, freedom to profess a religion covers the conversion of others, moreover, if otherwise allowed, this article in terms of "freedom to change religion or belief" could remain unapplicable (see decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Kokkinakis v. Greece"). In the Judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case "Religious Community of Jehovah's Witnesses in the city of Moscow and others v. the Russian Federation" of 10.06.2010 (complaint No. 302/02) states that: "...the responsibility of the state to maintain neutrality and impartiality does not allow it to assess the legitimacy of religious beliefs or ways of expressing them..." (para. 119). "...patients... Jehovah's Witnesses just choose the method of treatment, but still want to recover and do not refuse treatment in general... The analogy involving equality between refusing blood transfusion and suicide is not applicable" (para. 132). "The European Court recalls that although discussions on a person's religious views can be persuaded to some opinion through irrefutable arguments, the right to "try to convince one's neighbor" is an integral part of freedom of religion..." (para. 139). "First of all, the European Court of Justice notes that a comprehensive ban on the activities of a religious community belonging to a famous Christian religion is an extraordinary event. Since its inception at the end of the nineteenth century, Jehovah's Witnesses have appeared and are active in many countries of the world, including all European countries that are members of the Council of Europe. In these countries, they were granted permission to profess their religion together with others, although they may have faced delays and difficulties in obtaining official recognition..." (para. 155) "The European Court recalls that under the European Convention, the state is not entitled to decide which beliefs can be taught and which not, since the right to freedom of religion guaranteed by the European Convention excludes any freedom of action on the part of the state to determine the legitimacy of religious beliefs or the means used to express them" (para. 141). The European Court of Justice, in its Judgment of 26.06.2014 in the case of Krupko and Others v. Russian Federation in paragraph 48, "notes that on April 12, 2006, the Applicants [Jehovah's Witnesses] gathered together with their faithful to conduct the divine service. This divine service was a form of their profession of their religion, which falls under the protection of article 9 of the European Convention. It should also be noted that S.G. Klimov has a registration on the territory of the Russian Federation. He legally has a place of residence in the city of Tomsk at [hidden] according to [hidden]. He is guaranteed employment in the city of Tomsk. S.G. Klimov has not been convicted before, is not prone to violent actions, is positively characterized, married, has chronic diseases that have worsened in conditions of prolonged detention. In particular, he suffers [hidden]. I believe that these circumstances can also be recognized as mitigating in accordance with Part 2 of Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. On the basis of the above, guided by Art. 1, 24, 47, 49, 53 of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of 28.06.2011 No. 11 "On Judicial Practice in Criminal Cases of Extremist Crimes", Art. 28, 45, 48 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, Art. 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 9, 14, 18, 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, I ask Sergei Gennadyevich Klimov to acquit himself in connection with the absence of a crime under Part 1 of Art. 282.2 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation. Return material evidence - personal belongings and money belonging to Klimov's wife S.G. - Klimova Yu.V. material evidence - personal belonging to Klimov S.G., also return to him."

(Sorry, there was a typo on it! It said "South" instead of "North" on the second line but it's fixed now...😬)

Well, I didn't have the patience to listen to it, so I am thankful you were willing to summarize for us! The fact that he would make up all those stories when the scriptures clearly say "no one knows the day or the hour" the Kingdom would begin...I don't understand why they keep saying it was 1914 or 1975 or that they know since Jesus said they wouldn't know. The scriptures do have a ton to say about the time the UN rules as a dominant world power and how long the great tribulation lasts. It's amazing the GB don't have anything to say about that. They are asleep. Jehovah has made clear that we are not yet in the time of Jesus' rule. We also are not at the feet of the dream image yet. The UN isn't the dominant world power yet. Satan hasn't been cast down yet. Religion hasn't been attacked and destroyed yet. God's Word shows that we are not at the end of the end of the "toes" yet. The great tribulation hasn't started yet, and once it does start the Bible says it will last 3 1/2 years.

"However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron. They forbid marriage..." (1 Timothy 4:1-3) "In fact, when we were with you, we used to give you this order: “If anyone does not want to work, neither let him eat.” For we hear that some are walking disorderly among you, not working at all, but meddling with what does not concern them. To such people we give the order and exhortation in the Lord Jesus Christ that they should work quietly and eat food they themselves earn. For your part, brothers, do not give up in doing good. But if anyone is not obedient to our word through this letter, keep this one marked and stop associating with him, so that he may become ashamed. And yet do not consider him an enemy, but continue admonishing him as a brother." (2 Thessalonians 3:10-15) "Concerning that day or the hour nobody knows, neither the angels in heaven nor the Son, but the Father." (Mark 13:32) "So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction." (Acts 1:6,7) It's interesting how many talks, presentations, videos, and books have been made about a make-believe topic! 1914 1975 etc etc...And also how the entire "Bethel" arrangement is an apostasy from what Jesus taught as regards the Christian congregation. Paul said to "mark" anyone who doesn't want to get a job and instead wants to live off others to do a "ministry" and to not associate with them. By that counsel, all of those at Bethel and all the COs should be "disfellowshipped" in the manner described by Paul. What a big mess! @Srecko Sostar, thank you for taking the time to listen to and summarize that talk - F.W. Franz's talk is clearly all a form of a "performance" or like a comedy act! "Clowns" indeed! "Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. All the works they do, they do to be seen by men, for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards and lengthen the fringes of their garments. They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. But the greatest one among you must be your minister. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." (Matthew 23:1-12) Jesus is going to humble them in time. Hopefully they repent. "The GB has no clothes." Their self-exaltation as some kind of "FDS" clergy class thing is make-believe.

Given that you feel the way you do about the subject matter, I’ll accept this as high praise. Please do! I look forward to reading the rest of the book.🙂 It's nothing personal that I don't agree with you on the GB part. I love the brothers in Russia, as I love all the brothers (even the GB ones, whether anybody wants to believe me or not). And I love you too, Tom. Thank you.☺️

I know. I'm sorry. I just get upset talking about that stuff, it makes me sick. But I think it needs to be told. Thank you for telling me ExJWs care. 🥲

I skipped ahead to those chapters you mentioned, @TrueTomHarley, about "Brainwashing", "Discipline", and "Governing Body". (I won't say anything more about "brainwashing" and "discipline" because I already did share my own personal experience on this thread regarding the organization and the type of "brainwashing" and "discipline" I came in contact with. You can judge for yourself if it's cult-like or not.) I will comment on this selection from your book on the Governing Body... (Excerpt From I Don't Know Why We Persecute Jehovah's Witnesses: Searching for the Why, Tom Harley https://books.apple.com/us/book/i-dont-know-why-we-persecute-jehovahs-witnesses-searching/id1560211086 This material may be protected by copyright.) “Governing Body "The first institution of higher learning in the Western World, the Academy of Athens, was founded by Plato in 387 B.C E. Much of what is bedrock to Western civilization traces back to him. Plato recorded his concept of ideal government in which he advocated rule by “philosopher-kings.” He favored monarchy, but not hereditary monarchy. Instead, his rulers were to be selected, by already-existing rulers, on the basis of merit. This would follow a lengthy period of education designed to separate the wheat from the chaff, so lengthy as to preclude anyone under age fifty or so from consideration. Consider an excerpt from The 100, a book by Michael Hart, which undertakes to rate the one hundred most influential persons throughout history (Plato is #40): “Only those persons who show that they can apply their book learning to the real world should be admitted into the guardian class. Moreover, only those persons who clearly demonstrate that they are primarily interested in the public welfare are to become guardians. Membership in the guardian class would not appeal to all persons. The guardians are not to be wealthy. They should be permitted only a minimal amount of personal property, and no land or private homes. They are to receive a fixed (and not very large) salary and may not own either gold or silver. Members of the guardian class should not be permitted to have separate families, but are to eat together and are to have mates in common. The compensation of these philosopher-kings should not be material wealth, but rather the satisfaction of public service.” "Anyone familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses will recognize at once that these words almost exactly describe their Governing Body. Only the “mates in common” does not apply. It is too ironic—the group that, without fuss, and no doubt unknowingly, actually applies the words of the philosopher Plato is a relatively uneducated group beneath the notice of today’s thinkers—Jehovah’s Witnesses. Imagine! A standard-bearer of modern intellectuals devises a system of government that they admire but cannot reproduce and then the Governing Body stumbles along and says, “Hey, we’ll try some of that,” and implements it without sweat! One may object that Plato’s recommendation is for the government of nations, whereas Jehovah’s Witnesses are a religion. But the similarities are more striking than the differences. Worldwide, Jehovah’s Witnesses number over eight million, midway on the scale of nations, with about the same population as Switzerland. The Bible speaks of God’s people as “a great nation.” It shouts, “Open up the gates that a righteous nation may enter, one that keeps faith.” It warns religious opponents that, “the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people (translations vary about 50/50, some opting for people, others nation) that will produce its fruit.” "Scripturally, Jehovah’s Witnesses are a nation as real as any nation on the world’s roster of nations today. They better fulfill the goal of most nations in being more united. Their universal reputation of being a moral, decent, and law-abiding people is no accident, nor is it explained solely by their belief in the Bible as the source of divine instruction. It is also the result of effective administration—governing. Many groups that claim to follow the Bible are populated by members whose lifestyles belie the claim, as Sider points out in the previous chapter. Jehovah’s Witnesses are unified in a common goal and purpose. They practice what they preach. It is all a result of effective governing. They are Plato’s dream come true.” It's a nice bedtime story, Tom. "Once upon a time..." "...and they lived happily ever after." I enjoy your writing style. But it's not the truth you're writing. You're writing an "ideal" or an "imagined reality". Plato was a Greek philosopher. Jesus came to get rid of the Greek philosophy influence. The very fact that you describe the current Governing Body arrangement in such terms is evidence that they are an apostasy from what is written in the Bible. The first century Christians in Jerusalem were not there to make extra decrees. They were not there to judge as a judiciary or an act in an executive manner or to make legislation. That was what the elders did in ancient Israel back when they had their own government. Jesus told the Christians to be subject to the governments of the nations, not to make up a new government. The Jewish disciples thought that Jesus was going to restore the Kingdom at that time, but Jesus told them that was not the way. The older brothers in the congregation in Jerusalem were to act like older brothers in a family arrangement. The only record we have of them sending a "decree" was when the other family members couldn't figure it out with the circumcision issue. That's the only time. And it was as a congregation they met, not as some board of directors for all of Christianity. The older brothers of the congregation in Jerusalem were the ones involved. It wasn't because they were the board of directors or some separate entity. They were the elders in that congregation, where it all started. The rest of the time, the letters to the congregations came from individual Christians like Paul or John who were not hanging around in Jerusalem doing so-called "Governing Body stuff". The purpose of them having that meeting about the circumcision issue was to help the family stick to Jehovah's Word. By means of His holy spirit, Jehovah helped them to see that Jesus had fulfilled the Law, so there was no need to continue parts of it. Since Noah had been under restriction from the blood and that took place prior to the Mosaic Law and since immorality had always been frowned upon, holy spirit made it clear through the scriptures that Jehovah had not changed. The apostles and other older men in Jerusalem were not making up "New Light" or new decrees. They already had that information in God's Word. They just repeated it, reiterating it for those in the other congregations who had been confused. Today, the Governing Body sets itself up like a government rather than older brothers in a family. Today, the Governing Body makes up new decrees, in opposition to the example set in the first century. Today, the Governing Body acts like the Sanhedrin, an unscriptural appendage that makes commentaries on commentaries and then holds them up as equal to or higher in authority than the Word of God. The Kingdom did not start ruling in 1914. There is no godly authority backing the Governing Body to rule the way they do at present. They are not representing the Kingdom, because the Kingdom isn't even in place yet. They are making stuff up and ruling as kings now, something that Paul said was very bad. When Jesus was tempted to hold power over the kingdoms of the earth, he rejected that offer. Who do you think would be the one right now offering control over a kingdom that spans the whole earth? How do you think Jesus will react when he is enthroned in the heavens? Do you really think he's going to reward these Governing Body guys who have been lying? You yourself said it in your book that they have a nation they govern now. How can they say they are "no part of the world" when they have set up a kingdom in the manner of Greek Platonic theory and begun ruling during the time Jesus said we must be "no part of the world" which means not setting up a government now in Satan's system of things? Why do you think there are so many false doctrines? Remember that movie quote "if you want to be a star in Satan's world, what do you think he will require of you?" Lording it over the flock as a king now is a form of apostasy. "You are all brothers." What did it say in Acts 15? Who did they go to for help for the circumcision issue? To a board of directors type GB? "On arriving in Jerusalem, they were kindly received by the congregation and the apostles and the elders..." "Then the apostles and the elders, together with the whole congregation..." The current model for FDS/GB is an unscriptural, unholy arrangement that has led to false worship and reproach on Jehovah's holy name. You will see for yourself very soon how Jesus feels about those guys. Your writing style is fun, and I know you believe the things you wrote about because you've been indoctrinated by all the publications of the FDS, but Jesus doesn't approve of the way you are exalting them in that make-believe chapter, Tom. We are not supposed to be "Governing Body Witnesses". We're supposed to be Jehovah's witnesses. Praise Jehovah.

Yeah, nobody here cares either. It's a "Jehovah's Witnesses" forum. I should have figured! (bye)

I grieved the holy spirit for a long time, so I understand how that part of it works.

Everything is already there in the Bible. It's just Jehovah's holy spirit makes it clear at the appropriate time. An anointed person has their heart circumcised. It's painful but it means they have to be like a kid before Jehovah. If an anointed person gets involved in false worship (like how Russell and Rutherford did with numerology and other stuff) then they are not in the light and their understanding stays dark, because they grieve the light, the holy spirit.

Not in my experience, but I know you're into sci-fi...I'm sure there are plenty of talking lizards in some of those shows...🦎🧪🧑‍🔬🦖 This thread is about Russian transcripts? My, we're far away from that one...I did send a transcript of the shepherding call to Bethel. I may as well have sent it in Russian. Bethel doesn't care about culty things because they are part of it. They say "we don't want to bring reproach on Jehovah's name" but it's not really Jehovah's name they care about. Anyway, it'll all get worked out in time. I have to go for now. Call me "crazy" if you want. Everybody else does. I'm not crazy though. (Isn't that a line from Catch 22 or something?) If I were to say "oh, yes, I'm crazy" then they would let me come back, have "privileges", parts, etc... That's how it went all those years. As long as I did whatever they said, I had "privileges". I am not interested in that anymore. "That's some catch, that Catch 22!" "It's the best there is!"😃🙃

I didn't know I needed your approval. Oh, wait, I don't!😝 My reading comprehension isn't always the greatest, I will acquiesce on that one. I don't have anything to prove to you. I am answering your questions to be polite. When I share other things, it's because I love Jehovah and because I'm enjoying the company of others here.

If a lizard told you his mother was a dinosaur, I wouldn't think it's the lizard having the delusions.🤪

You had mentioned having details, that's the only reason I suggested it, because I won't put the last names on here.🙂

Weren't you or TTH just talking recently about everybody being crazy these days? Lol...

You know my full name, right? If you look up my name on fastpeoplesearch or some other free search, you'll see who are listed as my relatives. It has my birth parents, my in-laws, and my adopted parents on there.

The anointed do NOT receive divine revelations from God. And they are not "entitled". That's ridiculous.

I'm fine now. You're right, I did trust too much. If I had sought other opinions, it's possible at the time some people would have said "What are you thinking!" But nobody else knew until after the adoption took place, and since he was also one of the highest rated speakers in the circuit, later substitute pioneer school teacher, etc, nobody dared say anything. I can't hold anybody else responsible for my decisions. But I can be vocal enough so no one else gets hurt in the same way. I told in my congregation because they are around a lot of other kids. The COBE and his wife are into some weird theories, use alternative meds and push the on others, and go to what I jokingly call "witch doctors". If I were to keep silent and some of those kids in the congregation got hurt, how could I excuse myself if I knew what those people are like? I am sorry for you about what you have been through. I know a lot of people have been through difficult things. I know Jehovah will fix all the pain people have. But for today, we are under obligation to protect others if we have the circumstances to do it. It's just the right thing to do.

Details are important for an account to be credible. I do think the Auburn COBE did always want kids. He wrote about it in a book he wrote about himself, that he thought he would have been a good dad. His wife didn't want kids, she wanted to be a career pioneer or a Bethelite. They were both into psychology theories, some pretty weird ones, like if somebody learned how to walk before they crawled, then they had to go back and crawl as an adult in order to "grow" that part of their brain. She was trained as a physical therapist and was also into some New Age stuff, what would be considered some spiritistic medical practices with laying on hands type thing. But there were sketchy things that happened that made me uncomfortable. Obviously the "taking off your clothes so I can spank you" thing was not cool. I have kids now, and I would NEVER do the things they did, not in a million years, and not to an adult. I still tried to tell myself it was all above board. But then more recently (I guess it's about two years ago) when things just got weirder and weirder - it was like I snapped awake one day and I didn't want my kids to be around that. I didn't want them to be "drugged" and put in a figurative prison cell. That's what happened. I was isolated and told "you're crazy, you're crazy" and treated like some kind of possession more than a person. Once I told on the stuff that happened, I told the elders that according to Matthew 18 I had a right to face the person, the Auburn COBE. But they wouldn't arrange for the meeting. The COBE said "I won't meet with you unless you get medicated." I had been going to my primary care physician and another specialist for my thyroid disorder. I took my medication that the doctor said I needed. The doctor did not think I needed any psych meds. But the elders didn't care. What's ironic is that the COBE was also the HLC person. Supposedly the HLC person helps people choose their own care, but that wasn't my experience. The CO on a "shepherding call" was totally rude and yelled at me, saying he and the COBE from that Monmouth KH would even "help me go to the doctor". Finally I got sick of them harassing me so I said, "okay, fine, go ahead, make the appointment and when we get there I'll tell them these Jehovah's Witness elders want me to take drugs because I told on one of the elders for some sketchy stuff and they want to cover for him." They didn't bug me again after that about "taking me to the doctor."

(I don't have fear of man anymore.☺️)

I didn't partake for 20 years, because I had fear of man.