DESS responds to statements by UOC lawyers

Viktor Yelensky. Photo: DESS

The State Service of Ukraine for Ethnic Policy and Freedom of Conscience (DESS) has issued a strongly worded response to statements made by lawyers representing the Kyiv Metropolia of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Earlier, the UOC’s legal team described as groundless DESS head Viktor Yelensky’s claim that “all lawsuits filed by the Kyiv Metropolia, the work of its lawyers, and its international legal advocacy are carried out solely to enable it to remain part of the Russian Orthodox Church.”

DESS insists that this is indeed the case and maintains that the agency “consistently defends freedom of religion in all its activities.”

In support of its position, Yelensky’s office stated that it takes seriously requests from UOC faithful seeking to participate in the proceedings as third parties. At the same time, however, it claimed that parishioners are unfamiliar with the demands DESS has made of the Kyiv Metropolia.

“There are sufficient grounds to believe that the contents of the directive are not merely being concealed from the faithful but are being distorted beyond recognition,” DESS said.

The agency did not specify which parishioners officials had spoken with or explain why they believed UOC faithful were unable to read the documents that DESS itself had published.

DESS also criticized the UOC’s international legal counsel, Robert Amsterdam. According to the agency, he has “spared no effort to undermine international assistance to Ukraine, discredit its leadership, and distort the religious situation in Ukraine.”

Referring to Amsterdam’s interview with Tucker Carlson, DESS claimed that it was “a concentration of disinformation portraying bloodthirsty Ukrainians who dehumanize Russians and refuse to make peace with these nice people.” The agency did not provide any quotations from the interview to support that characterization.

DESS made a similar allegation against UOC Protodeacon Vadym Novynskyi, claiming that he “places full responsibility for Russia’s armed aggression on Ukraine.”

Earlier, the UOJ reported that the UOC’s legal team had accused Yelensky of discrediting the fundamental right to judicial protection.

Read also