“FOR A WITNESS”

To establish that the Moscow ban was unlawful, in December 2004 our lawyers sought relief from the European Court of Human Rights. (See the box “Why a Russian Verdict Is Reviewed in France,” on page 6.) Six years later, on June 10, 2010, the Court handed down a unanimous decision completely exonerating Jehovah’s Witnesses!e The Court took note of all accusations made against us and found them to be totally groundless. It also stated that Russia had a legal obligation to “put an end to the violation found by the Court and to redress as far as possible the effects.”​—See the box “The Court’s Judgment,” on page 8.

The Court’s well-articulated conclusions on how the European Convention on Human Rights protects the practices of Jehovah’s Witnesses are binding not just on Russia but also on the 46 other nations that are members of the Council of Europe. Even more than that, because of the breadth and scope of the analysis of the law and the facts, it will be read with interest by legal scholars, judges, legislators, and human rights specialists around the world. Why is this? In reaching its decision, the Court referred not only to eight decisions it had previously handed down in favor of Jehovah’s Witnesses but also to nine victories earlier won by Jehovah’s Witnesses before the highest courts of Argentina, Canada, Japan, Russia, South Africa, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States. These references and the Court’s robust refutations of the accusations made by the Moscow prosecutor provide the worldwide community of Jehovah’s Witnesses with a powerful tool to use in defense of their faith and practices.

[Box on page 8]

The Court’s Judgment

Here are three brief excerpts from the Court’s judgment.

One charge alleged that Jehovah’s Witnesses break up families. The Court decided otherwise. It stated:

“It is the resistance and unwillingness of non-religious family members to accept and to respect their religious relative’s freedom to manifest and practise his or her religion that is the source of conflict.”​—Par. 111.

The Court also found no evidence to support the charge of “mind control,” stating:

“The Court finds it remarkable that the [Russian] courts did not cite the name of a single individual whose right to freedom of conscience had allegedly been violated by means of those techniques.”​—Par. 129.

Another charge stated that by not accepting blood transfusions, Jehovah’s Witnesses damage the health of believers. The Court ruled to the contrary, stating:

“The freedom to accept or refuse specific medical treatment, or to select an alternative form of treatment, is vital to the principles of self-determination and personal autonomy. A competent adult patient is free to decide, for instance, whether or not to undergo surgery or treatment or, by the same token, to have a blood transfusion.”​—Par. 136.