UN reports discrimination against UOC: a signal from Western partners?
UN Update on human rights in Ukraine speaks of attacks on the UOC and the authorities’ inaction. Can the international community's voice impact the religious situation?
In late June 2023, the UN published the Update by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the human rights situation in Ukraine. The report covers the period from February 1 to April 30, 2023.
Persecution of the Church is addressed in a section of the report titled "Situation of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church", The title itself is quite noteworthy since no other religious denomination's rights are infringed upon in Ukraine, as acknowledged by the UN. The section begins with the following words: "During the reporting period, the Government and local authorities took several measures targeting the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC)." These "several measures" can be singled out and analyzed as separate points.
Criminal persecution
In the report, it is discussed in a neutral tone, specifically stating: "Authorities notably searched places of worship and other UOC facilities,12 issued notices of suspicions against clergymen, and placed several of them under house arrest, including one of the UOC’s main hierarchs."
This hierarch is Metropolitan Pavel of Vyshhorod, the abbot of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, who was placed under 24/7 house arrest for 2 months by the court, and then the arrest was extended for the same period. This extension may indicate that the investigation is facing difficulties in gathering evidence to proceed with the case in court and is buying time to find a way out of the situation.
Similarly, Metropolitan Theodosiy of Cherkasy, who is accused of "creating a website for the eparchy based on the ROC template" (and this is not a joke), had his house arrest extended.
At first glance, the OHCHR's statement appears neutral, simply stating the facts of searches and the delivery of suspicion notes. There are no words indicating whether these actions are unfounded or illegal. However, if the OHCHR did not see human rights violations in these actions, they would not have included this information in their report, did it? Therefore, this message indicates that the UN sees a violation of human rights in such actions by the authorities. Of course, it is premature to classify these actions as repression until court decisions are reached in these cases.
Situation of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra
A quote from the OHCHR Update: "The Ministry of Culture terminated early the rental agreement with the UOC of the State-owned Kyiv Pechersk Lavra. Following UN advocacy, authorities refrained from taking actions that risked violence and did not forcibly evict the UOC from the Lavra on the stated deadline for leaving the premises of 29 March."
Here, the neutral tone is replaced by a moderately accusatory tone. It turns out that the UN "advocated" the situation with the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. In diplomatic language, this can imply that
the UN made it clear to the Ukrainian authorities that the forcible eviction of monks from the Lavra would show the international community that Ukraine is still far from adhering to human rights standards accepted in the civilized world and that it could negatively impact Ukraine's aspirations to join the EU and NATO.
Furthermore, it is important to pay attention to the word "early" when mentioning the termination of the rental agreement by the Ministry of Culture with the UOC. The thing is, early termination of a rental agreement is only possible in cases provided for by Ukrainian laws and the rental agreement itself. In the case of the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, the Ministry of Culture failed to justify the termination of the rental agreement based on the provisions of the law or the agreement. This may indicate that the UN understands that the unilateral termination of the rental agreement is illegal, and such a decision can be challenged in court.
Bans on the UOC at the local level
A quote from the OHCHR Update: "During the month of April 2023, the city and regional councils in Khmelnytskyi, Rivne, and Volyn banned the “activities of the UOC” in their respective areas, after the regional councils in Lviv, Zhytomyr, Vinnytsia and Ternopil had done the same, even though such bans were beyond their authority. Many local councils also sought to terminate municipal property rental agreements with the UOC."
Here, the OHCHR points out two types of decisions made by local councils.
The first is the "ban" on the activities of the UOC in their territories. The report lists 7 regions that imposed such a ban.
For example, in the Decision of the Khmelnytskyi Regional Council dated April 4, 2023, this ban is stated as follows: "To ban the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (officially registered as the Kyiv Metropolis of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church) in the territory of the Khmelnytskyi region." The texts in the decisions of other regional councils are similar.
The OHCHR rightly noted that such decisions are beyond the authority of local councils. Moreover, the report suggests that the local councils were aware in advance that their decision was illegal. Firstly, the Law of Ukraine "On Local Self-Government" does not provide for such powers, and secondly, Article 16 "Termination of the activities of a religious organisation" of the Law of Ukraine "On Freedom of Conscience and Religious Organizations" clearly states that such activities can only be terminated by a decision of the religious organisation itself or by a court. Article 16 also provides an exhaustive list of circumstances under which a court can decide to terminate the activities.
Therefore, the actions of the regional council deputies who banned the UOC are not only illegal but can also be qualified under Article 161 "Violation of equality of citizens depending on their race, national affiliation, religious beliefs, disability, and other grounds" and Article 180 "Obstruction of religious rites".
The decisions to terminate rental agreements are also unlawful since termination is only possible in cases specified by law or the agreement. More details on this matter can be found in the article "The Church Has Its Land Taken Away: What Does the Law Say?"
Discrimination
A quote from the Update: "HRMMU is concerned that the cumulative impact of Government actions targeting the UOC could be discriminatory."
Let no one be confused by the words "could be" – this is nothing more than a diplomatic expression aimed at indicating to the Ukrainian government that it still has the opportunity to rectify the situation. But if the UN has spoken about discrimination, it means that there is already a significant amount of evidence of violations of the rights of UOC-MP believers, and the UN simply cannot ignore them. And it can be assured that besides the UN, other international human rights organisations, including European ones, will not be able to brush off such facts.
Hate speech
A quote from the Update: "Moreover, HRMMU documented a surge in hate speech and several incidents of violence against UOC members in April 2023. Public officials, bloggers and opinion leaders used discriminatory and inflammatory rhetoric and openly incited violence against clergymen and supporters of the UOC."
If the previous section mentioned discrimination with the reservation "could be", here the corresponding rhetoric is directly labelled as discriminatory and inflammatory. Moreover, it is not only bloggers and opinion leaders who use it, but also government officials. Calls for violence against clergymen and believers of the UOC have also been recorded, which are already criminal offences. The UN merely forgot to mention that it is not opponents but rather supporters of the UOC, and even its hierarchs, such as Metropolitan Longin, who are being targeted for criminal liability due to discriminatory rhetoric. This is also evidence of persecution against the UOC.
Inaction of law enforcement agencies
A quote from the Update: "The Government and law enforcement authorities did not effectively address the incidents of hate speech during the reporting period."
Once again, we see a softening of the wording. During numerous seizures of UOC churches, law enforcement agencies not only remained inactive but sometimes directly facilitated these unlawful takeovers. However, the UN report does not mention this. It is noteworthy that the UN did not observe cases where law enforcement agencies and courts protected the rights of UOC believers. Otherwise, it would have certainly been mentioned.
Constitution Day
On June 28, Ukraine celebrated Constitution Day. Festive events were held, and the country's top officials delivered beautiful and correct speeches. However, respect for the Constitution should be demonstrated not just in words but in actions. Unfortunately, in our case, it seems to be the opposite: we claim to respect the Constitution in words but violate it in practice, and we even refuse to acknowledge what is written in it. And among other things, the following is written there (it is useful to remember):
"Article 1. Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, and rule-of-law state."
Then why do state authorities allow unlawful actions against the UOC?!
"Article 8. The principle of the rule of law is recognized and operates in Ukraine." The same comment applies.
"Article 19. State authorities and bodies of local self-government, as well as their officials, must act only on the basis of and within the limits of authority and in the manner provided by the Constitution and laws of Ukraine." So why do local authorities allow such blatant abuse of power in relation to the UOC that it has already been pointed out by the UN?!
"Article 24. Citizens have equal constitutional rights and freedoms and are equal before the law." Why are the rights of UOC believers violated, often in favour of other religious organisations?
"Article 35. Everyone has the right to freedom of personal philosophy and religion. This right includes the freedom to profess or not to profess any religion, to perform alone or collectively and without constraint religious rites and ceremonial rituals, and to conduct religious activity."
So why do local councils directly prohibit Ukrainian citizens from engaging in religious activities?!
Other articles of the Constitution could also be cited, but it would be good for politicians and government officials to at least remember the mentioned ones.
Conclusions
Firstly, the acknowledgement of the violations of the rights of UOC believers by the UN is important. This means that the situation has reached an international level, and it cannot be silenced. It will not be possible to dismiss it with clichés like there is no religious freedom anywhere else like in Ukraine.
Secondly, it is noteworthy that the UN stated that it has already intervened in the situation of persecution against the UOC, taking certain "advocacy” efforts and that these efforts have been effective: Ukrainian authorities abandoned the idea of forcibly evicting monks from the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra. This instils cautious hope that international human rights institutions will not remain indifferent and will continue to exert pressure on the Ukrainian authorities to ensure the protection of the rights of their own citizens.
Thirdly, the actions of local authorities came under the most serious criticism, explicitly being deemed non-compliant with the law. This may indicate that local authorities are engaged in overt and blatant lawlessness, while the central authorities are trying to convince Western countries that Ukraine adheres to the standards of the civilized world in terms of respecting human rights.
In other words, the local authorities are discrediting the central government and Ukraine as a whole in the eyes of the international community.
While the central authorities also express their opposition to the UOC, they do not engage in blatantly unlawful actions like the local authorities do.
Fourthly, the persecution of the UOC may become a real obstacle on Ukraine's path to the European Union and NATO. Violations of the rights of UOC believers and their clear discrimination cannot go unnoticed in Europe and the world. The international community will have to react in some way. Currently, the reaction is at the level of the UN OHCHR Update, but resolutions from other European and international organizations may soon follow, and eventually, decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. There is cautious hope that common sense will prevail, and those in power will not push our country into a situation where it is accused of violating basic human and civil rights.
Fifthly, UOC believers should, of course, rely not on the UN and other international organisations but on God and His providence. It is important to remember that the most effective way to resist persecution of the UOC is for each individual to remain faithful to Christ and His Church.
