UKRAINE: A second case of conscientious objection reaches the Constitutional Court
HRWF (10.05.2025) – On May 6, 2025, the Constitutional Court of Ukraine opened proceedings in the case of a constitutional complaint filed by Vitalii Vasylovych Alekseenko — a citizen convicted for refusing military service on religious grounds. This is already the second case of a conscientious objector to reach the country’s highest constitutional jurisdiction body, indicating a systemic legal issue that requires immediate and comprehensive response from the state.
The complaint concerns the constitutionality of certain provisions of Article 1 and Article 2 of the Law of Ukraine “On Alternative (Non-Military) Service” No. 1975-XII, as well as Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine. Alekseenko, a Christian believer, argues that being compelled into military service violates his beliefs, which are protected under Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine. He emphasizes that he conscientiously refused to serve with arms and requested to be allowed to perform alternative civilian service, as guaranteed by the Constitution.
Conscientious objectors: three-year prison sentences
The judicial history of this case highlights a troubling trend. After the onset of full-scale military operations in eastern Ukraine, Alekseenko, as an internally displaced person, arrived in Ivano-Frankivsk and was registered for military service. On June 2, 2022, he reported to a military unit in response to a draft notice but refused to serve for religious reasons. Despite having previously performed alternative service during peacetime, both the first-instance and appellate courts found him guilty of “evading conscription” and sentenced him to three years of imprisonment with a suspended sentence of one year and six months. In March 2024, the Supreme Court of Ukraine upheld these verdicts.
Earlier, a complaint was also filed with the Constitutional Court of Ukraine by Dmytro Zelinskyi — a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Church who was sentenced to three years in prison for refusing military service on grounds of conscience. His complaint is aimed not only at defending his own rights but also at protecting the constitutional rights of all conscientious objectors and reviewing the constitutionality of legal provisions regulating the right to alternative service under conditions of mobilization and martial law. Zelinskyi emphasizes that Part 4 of Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine provides for the right to alternative service as a substitute for any form of military obligation — not only compulsory conscription, which is not implemented during wartime.
Proceedings on Dmytro Zelinskyi’s complaint were opened by the Constitutional Court on October 23, 2024, and have been ongoing for more than 7 months, despite the law stipulating a six-month term for delivering a decision.
Thus, both the Alekseenko and Zelinskyi cases point to a legal vacuum that results in systemic violations of constitutional and internationally recognized human rights.
On March 18, 2025, the Venice Commission issued its opinion at the request of the Constitutional Court of Ukraine. It emphasized that the right to refuse military service on grounds of conscience is part of the freedom of religion, protected by international treaties to which Ukraine is a party, including Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The state is therefore obliged to ensure a real opportunity to perform alternative service, including under martial law.
Nevertheless, criminal prosecution of dozens of citizens who have refused to perform military service based on their beliefs continues in Ukraine. This undermines the fundamental principles of the rule of law and violates Ukraine’s international obligations.
A call to the Constitutional Court
Human Rights Without Frontiers urges the Constitutional Court of Ukraine to consider the cases of Dmytro Zelinskyi and Vitalii Alekseenko as a signal of the urgent need for legal response and a long-overdue systemic legal reform. This reform must guarantee every citizen the direct application of the norms of the Constitution of Ukraine and a real opportunity to refuse military service on grounds of conscience, including under martial law. Without this, it is impossible to speak of the observance of human rights, the rule of law, and true freedom of conscience in Ukraine.
