EU: Protecting yoga philosophies and their practitioners under Article 18 of the ICCPR
Paper presented at a hybrid event from Denmark about “Challenges on Freedom of Religion or Belief in Europe” organized by Soteria Int’l
By Willy Fautré, Director of Human Rights Without Frontiers
HRWF (10.12.2025) – Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) enshrines one of the most fundamental human rights: the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief.
The scope of Article 18 of the ICCPR
This provision has traditionally been interpreted in relation to major world religions or clearly defined minority faiths, but its scope is considerably broader.
This provision concerns any person or group of persons adhering to the doctrines of any religion, historical or not, global or regional, in the minority or in the majority, in any country which has signed and ratified the ICCPR. It encompasses not only conventional religious systems but also spiritual beliefs, philosophical beliefs, and non-theistic beliefs such as atheism or agnosticism.
Noteworthy is that the ICCPR protections cover any system of beliefs that “contains a set of ideas that a person holds and that form part of their identity or way of life.”
Within this broader understanding, yoga – both as a set of philosophical traditions and as a lived spiritual practice – falls squarely within the protections of Article 18. As yoga continues to spread globally, the rights of practitioners to pursue yoga as a worldview, a spiritual path, or a way of life increasingly require explicit legal recognition as this is currently not the case.
My presentation explores three issues:
- the ways in which Article 18 safeguards yoga philosophies and their practitioners, focusing on the nature of protected beliefs,
- the current challenges faced by yogic communities and their practitioners,
- the cases of yoga practitioners victimized by unethical journalists
Yoga, a comprehensive worldview
Although yoga is often popularly understood as a physical discipline, its historical and philosophical roots make it an integrated system addressing metaphysics, ethics, consciousness, liberation, and self-cultivation. For many practitioners, yoga constitutes a comprehensive worldview: it prescribes moral disciplines, contemplative practices, theories of mind and reality. As such, yoga philosophies can function as a belief system within the meaning of Article 18.
The right of individuals to hold yogic beliefs, to interpret yogic philosophy freely, and to adopt a yogic spiritual identity without state interference must therefore benefit from the full protection of Article 18.
This absolute protection is crucial in contexts where yoga-based communities are misunderstood, politically targeted, or falsely portrayed as extremist or deviant, especially by media in search of sensationalism, anti-cult groups and state institutions.
Contemporary challenges for yogic communities
In today’s geopolitical climate, yoga practitioners face several challenges that highlight the importance of Article 18 protections. Here are a few of these challenges:
- Misclassification and Marginalization
Yoga groups are sometimes misclassified as “sects,” “cults,” or unrecognized associations. Such labels can lead to surveillance, stigmatization, or exclusion from legal benefits available to mainstream religious or belief communities.
- Discriminatory Regulation
Some states impose burdensome registration requirements or deny legal personality to yoga-based spiritual groups due to prejudice or misunderstanding, restricting their ability to own property, organize events, or receive donations.
- Cultural or Religious Intolerance
Yoga practitioners may face hostility from religious majorities who view yoga philosophies as foreign, syncretic, or threatening to traditional norms. Article 18 requires states to protect practitioners from such societal discrimination.
- Restrictions on Teaching or Disseminating Yoga Philosophy
In certain contexts – especially in politically sensitive environments – yoga teachers or spiritual leaders may face censorship, fines, or legal penalties for disseminating yogic teachings.
These challenges underscore the need for consistent, robust interpretation of Article 18 to protect a global and diverse community of practitioners.
Cases of yoga practitioners victimized by unscrupulous journalists
In the last 15 years, I have met and interviewed ordinary yoga practitioners from Argentina, Czechia, Denmark, and France as well as Romania whose personal lives have been destroyed by journalists and media outlets which were not abiding by the ethical rules of their profession. I will select three cases on which I have worked this year.
Case 1
In May of this year, Professor Pavel Hlavinka was dismissed by the Palacký University in Olomouc with a mere stroke of the pen after 29 years and 5 months of good and loyal services. He had never been subject to disciplinary measures by the university. For almost 30 years, there had never been any complaints by students or their parents and he had never been prosecuted. He had even received an Award from the Palacký University nine years ago. He had given lectures in European universities and also on other continents. He was a prolific writer about philosophy.
He was dismissed because a Czech journalist revealed he was not only an expert but also a practitioner of the yoga teachings of the spiritual master of the yoga group Path Jahra, sentenced to a prison term on charges of sexual abuse, now released and living outside Czechia.
The unscrupulous journalist presented the Professor as a risk for his female students. She put the board of the Palacký University in an uncomfortable position in the middle of her media campaign on the Czech TV ‘CNN Prima News.’
Professor Pavel Hlavinka lost his job and cannot find a new one as he has been portrayed in the media as a potentially dangerous person.
The same journalist also destroyed the professional career of another teacher, a fashion teacher at a Secondary Technical School. She was also fired overnight after the journalist had warned the board of the school and highlighted that alleged danger in her TV report.
Within a few weeks, over one hundred articles, almost all negative, featured the TV biased narrative.
The official reason of her dismissal was that “a teacher must be a morally pure person” and she was “putting in danger the reputation and the image of the school.” There had never been any complaint against her and she had never told her students and her colleagues that she was practising yoga in a yoga group of Path Jahra as it was her private life.
Case 2
Over 2022-2024 the Buenos Aires Yoga School (BAYS) in Argentina was pilloried by media outlets which published over 400 news and articles vilifying the school for allegedly trafficking in people for sexual exploitation.
The reality of a big show was staged by a prosecutor on the basis of false testimonies from a former disgruntled member of the yoga school.
All in all, arrest warrants were issued against 19 persons, 12 men and 7 women. They were all imprisoned and submitted to a very harsh jail regime.
Twelve persons spent 85 days in prison from 12 August to 4 November 2022. In two cases, the Court of Appeals revoked the indictment for being unfounded.
Three others were detained during the same period of time but under two different regimes. After about 20 days behind bars, they were placed under home detention. Among them, Juan Percowicz (84) spent 18 days in prison sharing a cell with nine other prisoners, and 67 days in home detention. Four defendants were only released after 28 days of detention.
As of the end of this year, no evidence has been collected by the judiciary and nobody has been sentenced. However, this media campaign destroyed the lives of many of the arrested people: divorces, family trouble, loss of clients, dismissal from jobs, public stigmatization, depression, etc.
Case 3
In August 2024, while Mihai Stoian and his wife Adina, two Romanian yoga teachers living and working in Denmark were arrested when crossing the border of Georgia on the basis of an Interpol arrest warrant issued by France. They had never taught yoga in France but they had been practitioners of the yoga philosophy of the Romanian yoga school MISA whose spiritual master is Gregorian Bivolaru. The yoga master has been in pretrial detention in France for two years on charges of trafficking in human beings, forcible confinement, sexual exploitation and rape.
The charges against the Stoian couple whom I have known personally for many years are based on abuse of a person’s weakness, an accusation that is only liable to prosecution in France. In May, after more than six-month detention in Georgia, they were extradited to France where they have been in pre-trial detention since then.
Disregarding the presumption of innocence, they are said to be dangerous criminals by the judicial and prison authorities in France. Moreover, there has never been any complaint against them in Romania or in Denmark where they were carrying out their professional activities.
They are “just” collateral victims of judicial harassment targeting their spiritual master, Gregorian Bivolaru. After years of court trials based on the presumption of guilt, he was finally acquitted of the charges of human trafficking, sexual abuse, money laundering and tax evasion by the European Court of Human Rights. That was in the case Amarandei and Others v. Romania (Case 1443/10) and Romania had to pay financial compensation to 21 yoga practitioners of the MISA who were acquitted of any charge. One year later, Gregorian Bivolaru won another case against Romania at the European Court (Case 28796/04) and Romania had to pay again financial compensation.
My conclusion is that media outlets are not courts and journalists are not judges. Presumption of guilt is illegal and presumption of innocence is the rule until the final judgment.
Further reading about FORB in the European Union on HRWF website
