INTERNATIONAL LAW REGARDS STATEMENTS ABOUT THE "NON-CANONICITY" OF OTHER FAITHS AS LEGITIMATE AND PROTECTS THEM AS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION OF OTHER FAITHS AS LEGITIMATE AND PROTECTS THEM AS FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
Citation - International Law - Norms, Interpretation and Application: "As the Human Rights Committee has noted, various forms of disrespect for a particular faith that do not constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence are not prohibited. The Rabat Plan of Action on the prohibition of advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence provides detailed guidance on distinguishing between those expressions or actions that constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and those that may be critical or even contemptuous but do not constitute incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence". (Human Rights Council Fifty-sixth session 18 June-12 July 2024, Agenda items 2 and 3, "Annual report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and reports of the Office of the High Commissioner and the Secretary-General on the promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development")
Let us take a closer look at this topic in the context of the numerous criminal cases opened against UOC metropolitans and believers for their rhetorical statements in sermons, articles and publications.
This article is almost entirely made up of quotations from international documents of mandatory and recommendatory nature, which are drafted to ensure that state authorities understand how to apply laws against incitement to religious hatred and enmity:
Before criminalising religious speech that appears to be "extremist" (or "inciting"), prosecuting its authors or imposing other restrictions that interfere with the exercise of relevant freedoms, authorities must establish the specific facts with great care. They must assess the expression (speech act) in the light of the international legal doctrine of the "Six Criteria" in order to determine whether such speech incites actual acts of discrimination, hostility or violence (see Stomakhin v. Russia (Application No. 52273/07/07)). Russia (Application no. 52273/07, judgment of 8 October 2018, para. 93). Otherwise, such statements are not punishable, even if they express disrespect towards representatives of other confessions or assert the superiority of one religion (confession) over another (see the UNHRC resolution cited above).
Such criteria are set out in an international document that has been widely endorsed by the international community, the Rabat Plan of Action on the Prohibition of Advocacy of National, Racial or Religious Hatred that Constitutes Incitement to Discrimination, Hostility or Violence. It contains six criteria for determining whether specific statements constitute "incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence" and whether the statements are sufficiently serious to warrant prohibitive legal action. The six criteria relate to context; the author of the speech (in particular, the status and influence of that person or organisation); intent; the content or form of the speech; the publicity of the speech; and the likelihood (and inevitability) of harm.
Having analysed these criteria and applied them to the statements for which metropolitans and believers of the UOC are now being tried, it is not difficult to conclude that the law enforcement system of Ukraine, represented by civil servants who formulated the accusatory documents, had no grounds to consider the rhetoric of the UOC bishops not only criminally punishable, but also illegal in principle. In other words, statements about representatives of another confession that they are "non-canonical" or "schismatic" are legitimate criticism, value judgements and are protected by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as freedom of speech.
Thus, from the point of view of international law, only those statements that are intended to incite actual acts of violence can be restricted, much less criminalised.
Moreover, international law has long established specific doctrinal provisions concerning statements about the superiority of a religion or denomination. These doctrinal provisions are also applicable to statements about non-canonicity, non-consistency with the canons of a particular denomination, statements about schism and other similar expressions in the sphere of theology and religious rules. According to these doctrinal legal rules, the above-mentioned statements are not subject to any restriction, even in cases when they humiliate and insult representatives of other confessions or religions, except for the only case - when they are followed by a call for violence or other discriminatory restrictions-actions (taking away property, deprivation of land, etc.).
According to the OSCE Policy Guide: Freedom of Religion or Belief and Security: "Truth claims are inherent in many religious and non-religious belief systems; they may imply the idea that there is only one way or means of realising the truth and living a righteous life in accordance with the requirements of the religion or belief system in question. This may contribute to the perception that one religion or belief system, including its teachings on moral and ethical standards, is superior to another. Such perceptions, in turn, can be a source of conflict and instability in society. As long as these claims do not lead to speech that incites discrimination, hostility or violence against others, they are part of the manifestation of diversity of religions or beliefs and are protected under the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of religion or belief".
And further ibid: "Some OSCE participating States appoint experts and rely on their findings to determine whether particular religious texts should be considered "extremist" (note: or "hate speech"). Given concerns about the use of this term and the lack of consensus in the expert community on approaches to formulating criteria for interpreting religious texts, the conclusions of such experts do not appear to be a sufficiently reliable basis for imposing measures aimed at censoring or banning sacred texts or theological works (note: criminalising speech). Thus, the appointment of state experts authorised to properly evaluate such literature is a questionable step. Freedom of religion or belief includes the right of religious or belief communities to provide their own approved interpretations of relevant sacred texts or theological works (note: And to express their evaluative critical beliefs and opinions about other faiths).
State authorities responsible for evaluating religious literature should take these interpretations into serious consideration and not automatically prioritise expert opinions on the same texts.
Thus, the application of international law to the criminal cases opened against UOC metropolitans and other believers in connection with their rhetorical statements proves that the state authorities of Ukraine had no grounds for opening such criminal proceedings, and that in fact in these proceedings people are being tried for freedom of speech and expression of their beliefs. It is highly probable that after the change of political power in the country, state officials may be held personally liable for opening such criminal proceedings and issuing unjust court verdicts.
Oleg Denisov,
head of a human rights organisation
Public Advocacy, a human rights organisation in consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council.
Geneva, 56th session of the UN Human Rights Council