Constitutional complaints of three conscientious objectors will be judged jointly
(17.10.2025) On 15 October 2025, the Second Senate of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine decided to consider constitutional complaints of Vitalii Alekseienko, Serhii Ivanushchenko, and Dmytro Zelinsky jointly in one constitutional proceeding. Previously, reasons to join the constitutional proceedings were pointed out in the amicus curiae brief submitted by the Director of the Institute of Peace and Law, Yurii Sheliazhenko, which the Court decided to add to the case file on 1st October.
Three prisoners of conscience, two of whom have already been released, ask the Court to declare unconstitutional and avoid legislation that allows to deny in alternative non-military service instead of conscription during wartime and to punish with 3-5 years of prison for conscientious objection to military service, which is not a crime, but a human right that was respected in democratic countries even during world wars. Now the Court will decide whether the disputed Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Alternative (Non-Military) Service” and Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine contradict the Constitution of Ukraine.
Dmytro Zelinsky is a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. His religious beliefs do not allow him to use weapons, but he is ready to serve society and protect life at alternative service. When he declared this to the Territorial Conscription Center (TCC), he was brought to trial for alleged crime of draft evasion, but in fact for his firm Christian faith. In court, one of the witnesses, an assistant pastor, explained that the Church takes an active part in protecting the country and people through non-military methods, such as offering medical and social assistance, and the help of volunteers to those who are in need or suffering. Zelinsky was acquitted in the first instance, but the Ternopil Court of Appeal, upon the prosecutor’s complaint, overturned the acquittal and sentenced him to 3 years in prison. He was imprisoned in August 2023 and released on parole in May 2025.
A Christian pacifist Vitalii Alekseienko does not belong to any church, but in his search for truth adheres to strict spiritual discipline. In his youth, Vitalii underwent alternative service in Uzbekistan. Requests for alternative service in the TCC caused criminal prosecution and a prison sentence. Vitalii spent three months behind the bars, was released by the Supreme Court after an international scandal, and a new trial ended with a suspended sentence. However, despite the relative mercy, it was still unfair to brand as a criminal the honest person who simply follows his conscience and the commandment “thou shalt not kill”. Like many conscientious objectors who chose alternative service in a peacetime, Alekseienko found a job of postman in Ivano-Frankivsk and was reserved from conscription by the Ukrposhta postal service. Vitalii believes that this is a Christian way to defend Ukraine peacefully, to be a peacemaker according to the teachings of Christ, to help people maintain communication despite the criminal attacks of the Russian army.
Prisoner of conscience Serhii Ivanushchenko is a Jehovah’s Witness. He is convinced that those who serve God should not learn to fight war, as stated in the book of the prophet Isaiah, so he appeared before the TCC and respectfully refused to undergo military service. His brethren in faith participate in peaceful work in the public interest, care about sick and disadvantaged people and the environment. Since February 2025, he has been deprived of his freedom in Pervomaisk Correctional Colony No. 117. As of September 2025, eighth Jehovah’s Witnesses were imprisoned for their faith in Ukraine. The European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses reported 1,139 cases of forced conscription of believers, 886 criminal proceedings against them under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of conscription for mobilization) and 36 proceedings under Articles 402 (disobedience) and 407 (AWOL) of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. The Constitutional Court of Ukraine also added to the case file an amicus curiae brief of the European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
As reported in the Voice of Conscience briefing, on 1st October 2025 the Constitutional Court of Ukraine began considering constitutional complaints related to mobilization and punishment of people whose conscience forbids them from participating in the war and restriction of access to alternative service under Articles 1, 2 and 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Alternative (Non-Military) Service” and Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine.
To help the Court, the Institute of Peace and Law submitted an amicus curiae brief which explains that certain provisions of these articles contradict the Constitution of Ukraine. The brief states that the right to have religious or similarly serious beliefs, incompatible with the performance of military duty, cannot be restricted by the state. Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine prescribes a remedy to protect the right to have such beliefs, namely the alternative non-military service of a civilian nature instead of any subordination to the military system. Even if it were not expressly provided for by the Constitution, creation of the alternative service would be required by the principle of equality of all before the law under Article 24 of the Constitution of Ukraine, which must be observed even in times of war in accordance with Article 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The restriction in access to alternative service as a means of legal protection of absolute constitutional freedom of religion or belief (worldview) in the internal aspect (forum internum) by Articles 1, 2, 4 of the Law of Ukraine “On Alternative (Non-Military) Service”, as well as penalization of conscientious objection with imprisonment by Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine contradicts Articles 24, 35, 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine. In addition, the implicit presumption of guilt of conscientious objectors under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine contradicts Articles 62, 64 of the Constitution of Ukraine in terms of the principle of presumption of innocence, which must be observed under the legal regime of martial law. Therefore, there are grounds to find unconstitutional these provisions of legislation, says the amicus curiae brief of the Institute of Peace and Law.
Demands of law must be realistic, otherwise, if a law requires impossible things, such a law will not work and will be constantly violated and disrespected. The duty of all citizens to defend Ukraine, stipulated in Article 65 of the Constitution of Ukraine, is not limited to military service and can be fulfilled through peaceful labor, unarmed defense of civilians, and nonviolent resistance to Russian aggression. For people, whose beliefs prohibit military service, peaceful defense of Ukraine is the only possible option. To demand military service from them would mean demanding the impossible, and therefore discriminating against them, punishing them for their beliefs. Such a blatant violation of human rights is not permissible in a democratic society, even during wartime, because absurd cruelty is incompatible in principle with the concept of law.
The right to hold religious or humanist beliefs incompatible with military duty cannot be restricted by the state under any circumstances, even during war. The conscience categorically forbids conscientious objectors from serving to war effort in the army. The state cannot change their beliefs and experience of nonviolent life and self-protection. No amount of pressure, torture, or deprivation of liberty could silence the voice of conscience.
Even the most ferocious tyrants are powerless against human nature. Both Stalin and Hitler failed to destroy religious pacifism by shootings, deportations, and prison camps. The glory of martyrs for faith lives on, while their oppressors were doomed to shame and historical defeat. Mahatma Gandhi in India and the heroes of Koryukivka in Ukraine proved the power of peaceful people who, without weapons, can force tanks of invaders to move in reverse direction. That is why Winston Churchill emphasized that the state respects the right to conscientious objection during World War II.
A democratic state, in order not to collapse in a senseless war against conscience, must ensure that people who have chosen a non-violent way of life are allowed to defend peace without violence, at alternative non-military service, that employs for the common good their experience of peaceful resistance and disobedience to violence. After all, as President Zelenskyy said, for one soldier there should be eight civilians for the resilience of the economy during a war of attrition: if you do not fight, but work and pay taxes, you also defend Ukraine.
FREE CIVILIAN: Constitutional complaints of three conscientious objectors will be judged jointly, published on October 17, 2025. URL: https://www.civilni.media/448/.
Keywords: ⇒ Conscientious Objection ⇒ Conscription ⇒ Human Rights ⇒ Movement of Conscientious Objectors ⇒ Peace Movement ⇒ Projects ⇒ Ukraine