Content uploaded by Yurii Sheliazhenko
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Yurii Sheliazhenko on May 26, 2023
Content may be subject to copyright.
Supreme Court ()
Case No 344/7666/22
Presiding judge Vyacheslav Nastavny
Amicus curiae brief for the Supreme Court
(Ukraine) in the cassation proceedings in
criminal case of Vitaliy Alexeienko, in
support of the defendant
Contents
Interest of the amicus curiae ................................................................................. 2
Background to the hearing in this case ................................................................. 4
Summary of argument .......................................................................................... 6
Argument .............................................................................................................. 8
................................................ 8
................................. 9
-
............................................................................................................... 13
innocence and forum internum ........................................................ 16
Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 19
Signatories ........................................................................................................... 19
2
Interest of the
amicus curiae
Signatories of this amicus curiae
undamental
is the
1
non-g
He the
He is also co-
2.
Nicola Canestrini Master's
Degree in L
yer he
1 ---
--12--
2 Br
-
3
crimes against humanity.3
4.
Foivos Iatrellis
-
Human Ri
. He studied
.
Yurii Sheliazhenko master’s degree in aster’s degree in
; s a ng
in the (Ukraine).
Yurii is a council
6s
Alexeienko78Mykhailo
9.
3 -canestrini
4
---- ;
–
-ukraine-una-missione--difendere-il--di--alla-
--
6 – -
7 (
8 Hennadii Tomniuk
9 orsky (
4
pro bono publico,
Background to the hearing in this case
is 46-year-
- and
summoned to June . He declared that he could not
requests to
ignored formal
a that
certain registered faiths ha
Alexeienko
found guilty -
- and sentenced to a one-
dict of -. He
-
his sentence. He lodged a further ca.
11 12 instances
Alexeienko’s case alleged that he has no right to
.
11 -f in the U
12 Judgment of the -t of
(Non-
human rights e
-s the
in his on right to freedom of
religion13 (
the Netherlands-
.
Ministry of Defense of Ukraine
-Military)
at all the
f Ukraine Dmytro
to
14.
and
16.
in
Bi
conscience 17 Dietmar
13
-
-Maksym-----
14 ---
--12--
-
16
-
17
-
6
at the same hearing 18
19.
of Reco during idUN
High Commissioner for Human Rights
called iy Alexeienko.
Summary of argument
ular
-
so in
defendant and release him immediately.
the
of ma
challenging circumstances the
18 Streaming of hearings in i-
----
19
-
stands--at-the-un-for---in-ukraine-and-refers-the-cases-of--alexeenko-hennadii-
tomniuk-and-andrii-
7
.
-
In Teliatnikov v Lithuania and Adyan and others v
Armenia
-
he Charter of
hat
and
8
that d
forum internum .
forum internum. I
-of 27
Argument
law, so in public interest and to uphold rule of law the court must take into account
this amicus curiae brief.
21
decision-
21 -12 March
9
democracy.
nal human
the of the Criminal
guilthe right to defence the right to
22.
23 and
24.
A
.
22 -17 # Te x t
23 -
24 UNTC
derogate from their
A
26
27
In c
28 t
case of Atasoy and Sarku29.
and in ) Ukraine
has co-31nce (e.g. Human Rights
;
religious adherence.
-
etc-
32
High Commissioner for Human Rights session of the Human Rights Council (24 June–
26 -
---and--rights
27 concerning the case
No.1642--
28
29
-
-sixth session
“
31 . of Human Rights Council co-authored and
32 ---
--12--
11
enforced only in 16; only one of them (Türkiye) has not yet recognised the right to
has ruled that the safeguardof the
religion)
and an
-held religious or other
ncluding and other cases.
The Court also decided that mere reference to the “necessity of defending the
.33
inter alia, that e
; i
-34
i
According to cle 64
36
33
34 -
36
12
the
ng
.37 T
Ukraine
and freedoms of a
--
rights
38
in case No.
4-
of A and of
39
of the
Art.
and Art. 9
37 the -
19
38 D
t amendments
39 Judgment - of (in Ukrainian)
-22#Text
-
---
13
3)
-
crime; tdangerous acts or
41.
contradicts
iminal Code of Ukraine human
rights.
42
43
is necessary
nt or recklessness.
that
44
41 -
42
43
44
14
The term “ethe
s consequences.
since it directly or indirectly endangers a sacred right to life.
conscience. In Teliatnikov v Lithuania 46 and Adyan and others v Armenia
47
of a
conscience.
non-military)
.
Mental stance of a
if they are regula
that
46
-
47
-177429
Ukrregarding the crime of
.) are
48 T
not innocence
criminal intent
-
49.
rights
It
freedom of though
(1993) on the right to freedom of .
not a crime.
48
49 --
of the armed forces (A
Ukraine co- ;
--se-dec-stat Human Rights
Council “
16
4)
innocence and forum internum approach
in its
stressed
to all co
-
- according to
and 11 and to
t also demands
and must
-.
non-religious or non-
liefs. As stressed Human Rights
a
Acle 18 (1) of the
Rights forum
internum
forum internum
-
-12#Text
17
forum externum
C rotected regardless of
for reasons of non-
in
to tr
and also taking into
account case-
according
(forum internum)
(forum internum) is an
f the
and
forum internum
.
h
Judgment - of (in Ukrainian)
-22#Text
18
-
A
yond
forum internum
.
-
ma
in the of
current
-
reference to the instandards of higher
legal force.
to quash the
and to order his immediate release from
to grant him
-
19
Conclusion
We ask
Ukraine
Code of Ukraine.
conscience
an
.
Signatories