UOJ appeals to international human rights organizations over website blocking

The UOJ is seeking international assistance. Photo: UOJ

In January 2025, UOJ lawyers sent notifications to several international human rights organizations regarding the violation of freedom of speech in Ukraine due to the blocking of the Union of Orthodox Journalists website, as well as other Ukrainian media outlets covering the life of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

The document outlines in detail the Ukrainian and international laws that representatives of the Ukrainian authorities have violated.

Below is the full text of the letter:

On the Violation of the Right to Freedom of Speech
through Internet Blocking

In July 2024, a company named "TEAM OF THE ORTHODOX JOURNALISTS (TOJ) LTD" was registered in the European Union.

The primary activity of this company is publishing journalistic articles on its website, which highlight the activities of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.

In particular, the articles address issues of protecting the rights of believers to freely practice their religion, perform religious rites and rituals without hindrance, and engage in religious activities.

The articles also shed light on the violations of the rights of believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church in Ukraine, such as the violent seizures of church buildings by representatives of other religious denominations and radicals, as well as the inaction of law enforcement agencies in response to crimes committed against believers.

The website operated by "TEAM OF THE ORTHODOX JOURNALISTS (TOJ) LTD" is popular among a large number of readers residing in Ukraine.

At the same time, Ukrainian state authorities have been imposing disproportionate restrictions on freedom of religion and belief.

In particular, on September 12, 2024, the National Center for Operational and Technical Management of Telecommunications Networks issued Directive No. 769/2574, restricting (blocking) access in Ukraine to the domains https://spzh.live/ru/ and https://spzh.live/ua/, which are used by the company.

Subsequent directives were issued on November 15, 2024 (No. 920/2725) and January 10, 2025 (No. 10/2811), further restricting (blocking) access in Ukraine to the domains https://spzh.life/ru/ and https://spzh.eu, also used by the company.

The basis for these actions appears to be the suppression of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and the persecution of Orthodox journalists. In this context, it should be noted that, in addition to "TEAM OF THE ORTHODOX JOURNALISTS (TOJ) LTD", the official website of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, as well as other resources covering UOC-related activities, such as "Dialog.tut," "Pravlife," and "Raskolam.net," have also been blocked in Ukraine.

Such arbitrary interference with journalistic activities contradicts both Ukrainian national legislation and international law.

According to Article 34 of the Constitution of Ukraine, “Everyone shall be guaranteed the right to freedom of thought and speech and free expression of his/her views and beliefs. Everyone shall have the right to freely collect, store, use, and disseminate information by oral, written, or other means at his/her discretion.”

In accordance with Article 15 of the Constitution of Ukraine, “Social life in Ukraine shall be based on the principles of political, economic, and ideological diversity. No ideology shall be recognized as mandatory by the State. Censorship shall be prohibited.”

According to Article 4 of the Law of Ukraine "On Media,"
activities in the media sphere are based on the principles of freedom of expression and belief, freedom to disseminate, exchange, and receive information, freedom of activity for entities in the media sphere, including the free determination of content, freedom of economic activity in the media sphere, the guaranteed right to information, openness and accessibility of information, accuracy and completeness of information, the lawful acquisition, use, dissemination, storage, and protection of information, and the protection of individuals from interference in their personal and family life. Censorship is prohibited. Unlawful interference in the activities of media entities by state bodies, local self-government authorities, public associations, political parties, owners of the relevant entities, or any other individuals and legal entities is not allowed.

According to Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine, “Everyone shall have the right to freedom of personal philosophy and religion. This right shall include the freedom to profess any religion or profess no religion, to freely practice religious rites and ceremonial rituals, alone or collectively, and to pursue religious activities. The Church and religious organizations in Ukraine shall be separated from the State. No religion shall be recognized by the State as mandatory.”

According to Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”

According to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan), in cases involving interference with the right to freedom of expression, it is necessary to determine whether such interference was necessary in a democratic society.

The Court must assess whether the reasons provided by national authorities to justify the interference were "relevant and sufficient" and whether the measure taken was "proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued." In doing so, the Court must ensure that national authorities, relying on an acceptable assessment of the relevant facts, applied standards consistent with the principles enshrined in Article 10 of the Convention (Chauvy and Others v. France).

As indicated by the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan, Handyside v. the United Kingdom), in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 10 of the Convention, freedom of expression applies not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favorably received or considered inoffensive or neutral but also to those that offend, shock, or disturb the state or any segment of the population. Such are the demands of pluralism, tolerance, and broad-mindedness, without which there is no "democratic society."

In a democratic society, it is important that debates on issues of public interest can take place freely (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan).

The Court must exercise maximum caution if the measures or sanctions imposed by national authorities hinder the press from participating in discussions on matters of legitimate public concern (Fatullayev v. Azerbaijan).

A violation of the right to freedom of expression occurs when journalists are prohibited from covering issues of general interest (Mahmudov and Agazade v. Azerbaijan). The boundaries of permissible criticism are broader concerning the government than they are for a private individual or even a politician. In a democratic system, the actions or inactions of the government must be subject to close scrutiny, not only by the legislative and judicial branches but also by public opinion. Furthermore, the dominant position of the government obliges it to exercise restraint in resorting to criminal liability, even in response to unjustified attacks and criticism from its opponents, particularly when alternative remedies are available (Incal v. Turkey).

The preamble of the Declaration of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on Human Rights and the Rule of Law in the Information Society recognizes that limited or no access to information and communication technologies can deprive individuals of the opportunity to fully exercise their human rights.

The first chapter of the Declaration states that freedom of expression, information, and communication must be respected in both digital and non-digital environments and should not be subject to restrictions.

In the preamble of the Declaration on Freedom of Communication on the Internet, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on May 28, 2003, it is noted that prior control of communication on the Internet, regardless of borders, should remain an exception, and barriers to individual access to the Internet should be removed.

The Declaration stipulates that public authorities should not, through measures of general blocking or filtering, deprive society of access to information on the Internet, regardless of borders.

In Recommendation 2008/2160(INI), adopted by the European Parliament on March 26, 2009, it is explicitly stated that states must strive to create electronic democracy based on full access to the Internet. Accordingly, the Parliament recommended that member states condemn government-imposed censorship of content available on Internet sites and called on them to ensure that freedom of expression is not subject to arbitrary restrictions by the state, avoiding any legislative or administrative measures that could have a restrictive effect on all aspects of freedom of speech.

The UN Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment No. 34 on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, emphasized that it is unacceptable to prohibit a website or information distribution system from publishing materials on the grounds that they may contain criticism of the government or the political or social system supported by the government.

In light of the above, we kindly request that you take appropriate measures within your purview to restore the violated rights.

The letter has been forwarded to:

• UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
• OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media
• Amnesty International
• Human Rights Watch
• Human Rights House Foundation
• Freedom House
• The Netherlands Helsinki Committee
• International Bar Association
• The American Society of International Law
• ARTICLE 19
• The International Federation of Journalists (IFJ)
• Access Now
• Committee to Protect Journalists
• International Media Support
• International Partnership for Human Rights
• PEN International
• Reporters Without Borders
• IFEX International Freedom of Expression Exchange
• International Center for Journalists
• The Electronic Frontier Foundation
• The European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)
• Free Press Unlimited
• The International Press Institute (IPI)
• Advox (a project of Global Voices)
• The Independent Journalism Center (IJC)
• Index on Censorship
• The World Association of News Publishers
• Sociedad Interamericana de Prensa
• Open Media
• U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom
• World Council of Churches
• The International Association for Religious Freedom
• International Christian Concern
• Open Doors
• The Christian Institute
• ADF International
• Christian Solidarity Worldwide
• In Defense of Christians
• Religious Freedom Institute

💳 Donation card numbers for UOJ legal assistance

Monobank: 4441 1111 2797 9692
PrivatBank: 5168 7521 3340 5277

🔗 Monobank Fundraising Jar
🔗 PrivatBank Fundraising Jar
🔗 For donations in EUR: Link

Previously, the UOJ reported that it had filed a lawsuit against the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) over the illegal blocking of its website.

Read also