LITHUANIA and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, what is the matter?
Enhanced state recognition was refused to the religious organizations based on arguments that have already been rejected by the courts, including the European Court of Human Rights.
by Massimo Introvigne
Bitter Winter (05.07.2024) – Last month, on June 6, 2024, the Lithuanian Parliament (Seimas) rejected the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ request for the enhanced status of a State-recognized religion.
Shortly after the fall of the Soviet Union, Jehovah’s Witnesses had already obtained the basic status as a State registered religion. In Lithuania, there are three tiers of official recognition granted to religions. In the case of “Ancient Baltic Association Romuva v. Lithuania,” no. 48329/19, June 8, 2021, the European Court of Human Rights explained that “Lithuanian law distinguishes between three types of religious associations: traditional religious associations, non-traditional religious associations recognized by the State, and other religious associations.” It explained that “any religious association may be registered and obtain legal personality, provided it meets certain minimum criteria.” State “registration” gives the religious organization the “right to conduct religious services and engage in educational and charitable activities.” In contrast, State “recognition” gives the religion “certain additional privileges, such as the right to provide religious education in schools, the right to perform religious marriages that have the effect of civil marriages and the right to be granted airtime by the national broadcaster for the purpose of broadcasting their religious services.” Other additional rights afforded to State recognized religions include access to state funds for health insurance and pension of the ministers.
In the case of Jehovah’s Witnesses, they applied for State recognition on 15 December 2017. Their request was not considered by the Seimas until more than six years later, on 6 June 2024.
After a discussion where different positions emerged, the majority in the Seimas decided to accept the recommendation not to grant the enhanced state recognition of the Ministry of Justice, which had found two beliefs and practices of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to be contrary to the Lithuanian Constitution. Interestingly, the Seimas discussion showed that many MPs agreed that the Jehovah’s Witnesses are “decent, good citizens” and even “excellent people.” Some MPs also warned that a decision against the Jehovah’s Witnesses may be regarded as discriminatory and expose Lithuania to the risk of being censored again by the European Court of Human Rights, as it already happened after its refusal to grant a higher level of recognition to the “neo-pagan” religious organization Romuva.
Additionally, one of the two reasons on which the decision was based may soon become moot. The Ministry of Justice regarded the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ principle of conscientious objection, i.e., their refusal based on their interpretation of Biblical principles both of armed military service and non-armed alternative service managed by the military authorities, as contrary to the Constitutional obligation to defend the country in case of foreign armed attack. Not surprisingly, some Lithuanian politicians feel even more strongly about this obligation after Russia’s attack against Ukraine.
However, how Lithuania interprets the provision has been declared a violation of Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, protecting freedom of thought, conscience, and religion by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in its decision of June 7, 2022, “Teliatnikov v. Lithuania.” The decision concerned a Jehovah’s Witness minister, Stanislav Teliatnikov, who refused non-armed “alternative national defense service” by claiming that it was still a form of military service. The ECHR found in favor of Teliatnikov, noting that the Lithuanian “alternative national defense service” is “directly under the supervision and control of the military.”
The ECHR ruled in the “Teliatnikov” case that, “1) persons performing alternative national defense service are referred to as ‘military conscripts’ and/or ‘military draftees’ throughout the Law on Conscription and the Regulations; 2) the type of work to be performed is assigned by the military…; 3) if no civilian work assignment is available, ‘the military conscript will be assigned to perform alternative service in the national defence system institutions’…; 4) the ‘military conscript’ is taken to his assigned place of work by the military and is given the same ‘provisions (except for living quarters and clothing)’ as ‘military service soldiers’…; 5) the manager of the institution where the ‘military conscript’ performs his work immediately notifies the military in writing about ‘the [military conscript’s] appointment, specific tasks, conditions and work time,’ and provides the military with a monthly ‘time roster’ for the ‘military conscript’…; 6) a ‘military conscript’ performing alternative national defence service ‘cannot be dismissed’ for disciplinary violations by the manager of the institution where he is working, without the approval of the military… Besides, under Article 26 of the Law on Conscription, in the event of mobilization, the ‘military conscript’ performing ‘alternative national defence service’ may be ‘summoned to perform military service.’ These observations show that alternative national defence service is intrinsically linked to military service, and therefore cannot be seen as separate civilian service” (“Teliatnikov v. Lithuania,” n. 107).
Not to violate its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, Lithuania should offer as an alternative to military conscription a genuine civilian service independent from military supervision. The Jehovah’s Witnesses would have no objection in performing this kind of civilian service, as it happens in many other countries. Lithuania has vowed to comply with the obligations imposed by the ECHR and amend its legislation. In this case, the problem concerning the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ conscientious objection will automatically disappear.
The second objection by the Ministry of Justice concerns blood transfusions. It is surely true that the Jehovah’s Witnesses maintain that “we obey Jehovah’s law regarding blood by refusing to accept a blood transfusion, even during a medical emergency” (“Cherish God’s Gift of Life,” “The Watchtower” [Study Edition], February 2023, 20–25 [23]).
Neither the Ministry of Justice nor the Seimas pointed to even one case where the religious objection of Jehovah’s Witnesses to blood transfusion, and their request to be treated with available medical strategies that employ alternatives to blood transfusion, has ever caused any problem in Lithuania. To the contrary, the Ministry of Justice had made inquiries at the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Ministry of Health, and the State Office for the Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption. Each of those bodies confirmed that throughout the period of existence of Jehovah’s Witnesses in Lithuania there was no evidence of any unlawful activities. On the issue of blood transfusion, the Ministry of Health stated in its 3 January 2022 letter to the Ministry of Justice: “Please be informed that the Ministry of Health has not received any complaints from Jehovah’s Witnesses in recent years regarding treatment with blood component transfusions… To the best of our knowledge, there have been no cases of minor patients receiving blood transfusions against the wishes of their Jehovah’s Witness parents or guardians.” Similarly, the State Office for Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption informed the Ministry of Justice in its 10 January 2022 letter: “On the basis of the replies received, please be informed that the Office is not aware of any cases where parents or guardians, only one of whom professes the Jehovah’s Witness faith, have disagreed on the application of blood transfusion to a minor.”
Further, the Lithuanian Ministry of Justice failed to consider that in most democratic and medically advanced countries the issue is becoming moot as hospitals can “provide high-quality care that does not involve a blood transfusion” (“Cherish God’s Gift of Life,” 2023, cit., 23). On their official website, Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to various medical studies showing that “patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions.” When Jehovah’s Witnesses wish to receive assistance in finding doctors who can provide bloodless treatment, they can seek the help of Hospital Liaison Committees, which have been established for this very purpose.
In most democratic countries, courts—including the European Court of Human Rights in 2010 (“Jehovah’s Witnesses of Moscow and Others v. Russia,” June 10) and 2022 (“Taganrog LRO and Others v. Russia,” November 22), and the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation in 2020 (3rd Civil Session, decision of 4–23 December 2020, no. 29469)—have ruled that adult patients have a right to refuse any medical treatment and protected the right of the Jehovah’s Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions. In several jurisdictions, this also applies to “mature minors.”
As for minors who are not “mature,” in the rare cases when doctors believe a blood transfusion is absolutely necessary, and parents or guardians would not authorize it, that dispute can be resolved by a court. In such a case, a parent who is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses will respect the decision made by the court. In Lithuania, this has never been an issue throughout the many years Jehovah’s Witnesses have existed, as confirmed by the January 3, 2022, letter of the Ministry of Health and the January 10, 2022, letter of the State Office for Protection of Children’s Rights and Adoption, both of which confirm there have been no such cases.
Courts in democratic countries have also recommended that such measures are adopted only exceptionally. As stated in the Canadian appeal court decision of “M. (J.) v. Alberta (Director of Child Welfare)” (2004 ABQB 512, para. 43), the State “must be careful not to presume that the doctor has always recommended the only acceptable treatment and that Jehovah’s Witness parents are always wrong in denying their consent for treatment by way of blood products. Such a paternalistic attitude impairs the parents’ [constitutional] rights…” In Italy, one of the countries with the largest per capita population of Jehovah’s Witnesses, courts have held that by choosing medical alternatives to blood transfusions, parents who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are not displaying “parental inadequacy,” but are instead conscientiously exercising constitutional rights afforded to all parents (Minors Court of Genoa, no. 1109/19, 6 May 2019; Minors Court of Milan, no. 1110/2014, 15 January 2014).
Surely, the Lithuanian government cannot tell the Jehovah’s Witnesses how they should interpret the passages of the Bible about the prohibition of blood without grossly violating domestic-constitutional and international legal provision on freedom of religion or belief.
Jehovah’s Witnesses have existed in Lithuania for one hundred years and have been registered for thirty years. As good and law-abiding citizens, as many Lithuanian MPs describe them, they deserve an attitude of respect, dialogue, and cooperation, not the hostility and discrimination of the kind prevailing in nearby Russia.
Headquarters of the Lithuanian Jehovah’s Witnesses in Kaunas.
Further reading about FORB in Lithuania on HRWF website