UKRAINE: How should Govt deal with conscientious objectors in wartime?

UKRAINE: How should government deal with conscientious objectors in wartime?

Forum18 (24.04.2025) – The declaration of martial law after Russia’s full-scale invasion in 2022 cancelled the limited right to alternative service in peacetime. Hundreds of conscientious objectors to mobilisation – on religious and non-religious grounds – have been detained, forced into the army, held illegally (often for months) on military bases, or criminally prosecuted. Requested by Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, a Venice Commission brief reaffirmed states’ obligation to offer alternative service. If Ukraine is to meet international standards, the government should reinstate legal access to alternative civilian service and review criminal convictions.

Since the beginning of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and Ukraine’s immediate declaration of martial law, alternative civilian service has not been available to conscientious objectors in Ukraine. Many conscientious objectors – both on religious and non-religious grounds – have been detained and forced to join the army, held illegally (often for months) on military bases, or criminally prosecuted.

Jehovah’s Witnesses report that about 661 of their believers faced criminal charges of evading mobilisation in 2024. Courts have handed several conscientious objectors – including four Jehovah Witnesses, a Protestant and a Seventh-day Adventist – three-year jail terms for refusing mobilisation. A number have been waiting (occasionally in pre-trial detention) for appeal proceedings. Courts have handed others suspended sentences.

More recently, courts have begun jailing conscientious objectors on charges of “disobedience”, with one taken to prison in January to begin his five-year jail term.

While several international human rights actors have encouraged Ukraine to protect conscientious objectors’ rights, the Ukrainian government has done little to address this problem. Informally, officials explain this reluctance with the risk that men who do not wish to fight will misuse alternative service as a legislative hole.

International standards clearly recognise the right to conscientious objection to military service as an intrinsic part of freedom of religion or belief (see below).

Ukraine’s Constitution specifically mentions the right to opt out of military service, at least on religious-based conscientious grounds. However, the government restricts this right in peacetime to members of only ten registered religious communities, while the law does not recognise the right to alternative civilian service at all in wartime (see below).

The government announced in December 2024 that some religious entities could be allowed to get exemption from mobilisation for up to half their clerics. While some clerics can be qualified as conscientious objectors, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg does not consider alternative civilian service reserved for clerics but not ordinary believers as adequate protection under the European Convention on Human Rights (see below).

At the request of Ukraine’s Constitutional Court, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission produced an amicus curiae brief on alternative (non-military) service in Ukraine in March 2025. This reaffirmed that “States have the positive obligation to set up a system of alternative service which must be separated from the military system, shall not be of a punitive nature and remain within reasonable time limits.” It adds that “under no circumstances may a conscientious objector to military service be obliged to bear or use arms, even in self-defence of the country” (see below).

If Ukraine is to abide by the international standards, the government should reinstate legal access to alternative civilian service to all conscientious objectors and review the criminal convictions of those sentenced for their conscientious objection to mobilisation (see below).

READ MORE…

Table of content/ Forum18