UN Report on violation of UOC believers’ rights: Will it make a difference?
The UN OHCHR has published a report in which it acknowledged the threat to freedom of religion in Ukraine. Will this impact the situation?
On 31 December 2024, the UN Human Rights Office published a report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, covering the period from 1 September to 30 November 2024. The document was prepared by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR). One page out of the thirty-one is dedicated to the situation in the religious sphere.
Report’s content
The first paragraph of the relevant section of the report mentions the Law on UOC ban, which came into effect on 23 September 2024: "On 23 September 2024, legal amendments related to religious organisations entered into force. The law introducing these amendments invoked ‘national (or public) security’ as a ground for restrictions on the freedom of religion or belief and the freedom of religious associations; however, neither the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) nor the European Convention on Human Rights include ‘national security’ among the permissible grounds for such a restriction. The amendments also established disproportionate restrictions on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief."
It is important to note that even in the first paragraph, the main argument of those persecuting the Church in Ukraine is refuted: the violation of religious freedoms in relation to UOC believers is supposedly acceptable if justified by national security concerns. Apart from the fact that the wording is vague and allows for broad interpretation, which in turn opens the door to abuse, the UN officials point out:
National security concerns cannot justify restrictions on religious rights according to international human rights instruments binding on Ukraine.
In a certain sense, this creates a basis for UOC believers to defend their rights in the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and other international bodies. Many human rights lawyers predict that there will be mass petitions to these bodies if the UOC ban law is indeed enforced in Ukraine.
It is important to note that the OHCHR document clearly states that the Law on UOC ban "established disproportionate restrictions on the freedom to manifest one’s religion or belief". These restrictions are objectively present in the text of the law, even though it does not specifically mention the Ukrainian Orthodox Church.
Further, much of the section on religious freedoms is devoted to this law. In particular, the OHCHR emphasizes: "Ukraine has not demonstrated the necessity and proportionality of this measure (UOC ban – Ed.), such as by showing why less restrictive measures, such as measures restricted specifically to individuals responsible for wrongdoing, would not be satisfactory and sufficient."
Celebration of the Kazan Icon – an argument for the ban?
This refutes yet another argument of the UOC's opponents – the need to ban the organisation due to isolated instances where some clergy have supported Russia's aggression against Ukraine. UN officials highlight the vagueness of the wording in the law. Specifically, under the Law on UOC ban, the religious organisations can be dissolved if their "authorised persons" spread the ideology of the "Russian world" (which could, for example, include the celebration of the Kazan Icon of the Mother of God or St. Alexander Nevsky), or commit acts that, in the opinion of law enforcement bodies, may pose a threat to national security.
"… vague terms that do not give fair notice of what the law requires These provisions can result in entire religious communities being held responsible for the conduct of specific individuals," the document stresses. It should be noted that this opens wide opportunities for abuse of power by individual officials and creates conditions for corruption at various levels.
UOC ban – a ban on the tight to practise one's faith
Another important point is the recognition that the ban on the UOC is not only an administrative prohibition of one Orthodox jurisdiction but also a violation of the right to practise a particular religion. "The dissolution of a religious organisation is a severe restriction that affects the ability of individuals to practise their religion or belief together with others and threatens the viability of the community as a whole," the report says. This refutes yet another argument often made by the UOC's opponents: that since Orthodoxy is also practised by the OCU, the UOC ban does not violate the rights of Orthodox believers, as they can freely practise Orthodoxy within the OCU. The UN report refutes this:
The UOC ban is not just a restriction on the ability to belong to a familiar jurisdiction, but on the possibility to practise one’s religion as such.
The document also draws attention to the restrictive measure of cancelling rental agreements for religious buildings based on an administrative decision, prior to a court ruling. This can result in the loss of access to historic church buildings, "a situation which, particularly in communities with few churches, may limit exercise of freedom of worship and contribute to social tensions". This is precisely what is happening on a large scale in Ukraine right now – communities are being deprived of their churches, which they restored from ruins with their own funds.
This law is not about banning the UOC? Really?
Opponents of the UOC argue that the Law on its ban is not actually about banning this religious organisation, since it is not specifically mentioned. However, the UN report shows that such misinformation does not work on the international stage. It is clear that in Ukraine, it is the UOC that is being persecuted, and it is specifically the UOC that is intended to be banned.
"The amendments prohibit the activities of ‘foreign religious organisations based in a state responsible for armed aggression against Ukraine or occupation of its territory’, and specifically prohibit the activities of the Russian Orthodox Church. Furthermore, if a court finds that a Ukrainian religious organisation is affiliated with a prohibited foreign religious organization, it could order the Ukrainian religious organisation’s dissolution. There is concern that once this provision is implemented, it may impact the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC)," the document reads.
On the clash in Cherkasy
The final point of the UN report is dedicated to a specific incident – violent clashes in Cherkasy, which resulted in the seizure of St Michael’s Cathedral of the UOC.
"On 17 October 2024, OHCHR documented three successive incidents of violence between supporters, clergy and parishioners of different Orthodox communities in Cherkasy city. The series of events was initiated by a group of unidentified individuals wearing camouflage without insignia who forcefully evicted UOC clergy and parishioners from UOC premises around 4 a.m. According to the UOC, at least 10 men and four women among their followers were injured and required medical treatment. Law enforcement officers present on the site in at least two of these incidents did not appear to effectively separate supporters of different communities until late morning. Police reported opening a criminal investigation for hooliganism in relation to the event. OHCHR continues to monitor the authorities’ reaction to the incident."
Here, it is clearly established that the UOC believers are victims, not perpetrators, as many Ukrainian politicians and media outlets have claimed.
Reaction of Ukrainian authorities to the UN Report
The reaction was predictably negative. The Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) issued its own commentary on the OHCHR Report, titled: "Comment by the MFA on the UN's false accusations about the alleged restrictions on freedom of religion in Ukraine." In it, the MFA states, in particular: "We reject the UN’s conclusions on the amendments to the Law of Ukraine ‘On the Protection of the Constitutional Order in the Field of Activities of Religious Organizations’ as a distortion of reality."
It is worth noting the use of words such as "alleged," "false," and " a distortion of reality". For diplomatic language, these are very harsh terms, in which the Ukrainian government is actually accusing the UN of lying.
Further in the MFA's comment, all the arguments that were already refuted in the UN report are repeated. For example, the MFA reiterated that the law "does not provide for the prohibition of any of the churches that exist in Ukraine". This is a very strange claim, given that numerous members of parliament, when voting for the law, openly stated that it was specifically aimed at the UOC. Ukrainian diplomats quoted provisions from the law, which in the UN report were cited as examples of vague formulations. The MFA again repeated the mantra that the law "does not impose a burden on the conscience of believers, but only relieves them from the pressure exerted by the Russian Orthodox Church".
In its statement, the Ukrainian MFA drew attention to Russia's actions in Ukraine and urged the OHCHR to focus its reports on these crimes rather than on Ukraine's actions. "We expect that the UN Human Rights Monitoring Mission will continue to provide objective assessments of the actual situation on freedom of religion in Ukraine in its reports and will persist in documenting Russian crimes against Ukrainian believers, religious communities and leaders, as well as church property," the comment states.
The average person might think that the UN report is indeed one-sided and ignores human rights violations by the Russian Federation. However, upon reviewing the full text of the document, it becomes clear that criticism of Russia's actions is included. The fifth section of the report is dedicated to the human rights situation in the areas occupied by Russia, while the sixth addresses the situation in Ukrainian-controlled territories. For example, on page 16, the report says: "During the reporting period, Russian authorities continued to restrict the exercise of freedom of religion or belief in violation of their obligations under IHL and IHRL. 'Anti-extremist' legislation was used as a tool for targeting members of certain religious communities." This is followed by descriptions of specific cases of religious freedom violations.
The question arises: did the Ukrainian MFA officials fail to read the full report, or are they deliberately manipulating public opinion, counting on the fact that most people will not read the document themselves?
Previous UN reports and other documents
When comparing the current UN Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine with previous reports and other similar documents, it is evident that earlier reports included more instances of violations of the rights of UOC believers with relevant examples.
For example, in the OHCHR report on the human rights situation in Ukraine from 1 February to 30 April 2023, published in June 2023, there were descriptions of violations of the rights of believers under the following categories:
• criminal prosecution of the clergy;
• expulsion of monks from the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra;
• UOC bans by local authorities;
• discrimination against UOC believers by the government;
• hate speech against the UOC in the media and social networks;
• inaction of law enforcement in cases of violations of UOC believers’ rights.
A more detailed discussion of the previous OHCHR report can be found in the article "UN Reports Discrimination against UOC: a Signal from Western Partners?"
The same is observed in the US State Department’s 2023 Human Rights Report for Ukraine. It discusses the following violations of religious rights:
• a detailed analysis of Bill 8371 on UOC ban;
• seizures of UOC churches;
• local-level bans on the UOC;
• instances of criminal prosecution of UOC hierarchs;
• cases of interference with pilgrims and their intimidation;
• the situation with the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra.
More detailed information on this report can be found in the article "U.S. Department of State sees persecution of UOC."
All these violations continue today, but the current UN Report only addresses the Law on UOC ban and the seizure of the cathedral in Cherkasy.
The Ukrainian authorities’ reactions to previous human rights reports on Ukraine have also been negative, and at times quite harsh. For example, in response to the aforementioned OHCHR report, the advisor to the President's Office, Mykhailo Podoliak, called the UN a "corrupt organisation" whose reports should not be taken seriously.
"The UN is not a platform that regulates conflicts between states. Rather, it is a place where UN bureaucracy makes a good living from various conflicts, consciously receiving large grants from Russia," said the Ukrainian official.
A similar reaction was given by the spokesperson of the Orthodox Church of Ukraine (OCU), Yevstratiy Zoria, who stated that the UN has lost its credibility and is "being used by our enemies." In both cases with Podoliak and Zoria, the logic is very simple and predictable – if the UN says something they don’t like, it has become corrupt and hostile.
Conclusions
1. Over recent years, neither the UN, nor the US State Department, nor other international human rights organisations have released documents stating that the situation with the rights of believers in Ukraine is favourable. This reflects a clear and consolidated international stance: Ukraine is a country where fundamental human rights are being massively and systematically violated.
2. The current UN Report only covers the Law on UOC ban and the seizure of the cathedral in Cherkasy, without mentioning other examples of violations of the freedom of religion during the reported period. This may be due to a lack of thorough work by the UN staff or the habituation effect, when recurring violations year after year are perceived as commonplace.
3. The criticism of the Law on UOC ban is presented thoroughly and convincingly. The report refutes all arguments made by opponents of the UOC who attempt to present the law as compliant with the Ukrainian Constitution and its international obligations. It seems that the Report's authors are familiar with documents prepared by lawyer and human rights defender Robert Amsterdam regarding this law. This means that Robert Amsterdam’s conclusions and his arguments are perceived internationally as serious and well-founded. These are listened to and used in international politics, and it is likely that this influence will only grow.
4. The sharply negative and even rude reaction of the Ukrainian authorities shows that they continue to create a negative image of Ukraine on the international stage. The consequences of such a policy for the country are clear.
5. The UN Report on its own cannot change the situation or provide significant assistance to the UOC. However, it provides additional arguments, for example, to the new US President and his team to criticise the Ukrainian authorities. This report will be cited as additional evidence of human rights violations in Ukraine.
Instead of consolidating Ukrainian society within the country and presenting Ukraine as a legal democratic state in the international arena, the current Ukrainian authorities are acting in the opposite way. Everyone can assess the reasons for this policy for themselves.
