Conscription Commissions in the Udmurt Republic, to the west of the Ural mountains, rejected the applications for alternative civilian service from at least three young men from the same Pentecostal church. This was despite the men's long-held religious beliefs precluding military service and despite the fact that fellow church members had applied successfully for ACS in earlier years. The three then lodged administrative lawsuits challenging the refusals. The courts rejected all suits from the three men. Two of the men are known to have been sent to military units, while the third obtained a medical exemption.

The Military Commissariat stated to the district court in all three cases that the Pentecostal Christians had "failed to substantiate, with sufficient completeness and credibility, the existence of a serious and insurmountable conflict between the obligation to serve in the military and [their] beliefs, which would cause [them] to reject military service" (see below).

The court issued similar conclusions in each: that the autobiographies, character references, and supporting materials each had submitted offered "no evidence that he holds any convictions that would prevent him from performing military service" and "do not indicate that he actually holds firm religious or pacifist convictions that have developed over a long period and are incompatible with military service" (see below).

"No matter how we litigated, no matter what we did, we were told: 'There is no alternative service now, there is martial law in the country'," one of the three Pentecostals told Forum 18. "Although alternative service has not been abolished at the state level and there is no martial law in place. No matter what information and evidence our lawyers presented, the court didn't even listen" (see below).

A Jehovah's Witness in Primorye in the Russian Far East applied repeatedly for alternative civilian service from 2023. Conscription Commissions repeatedly rejected his applications. The individual lodged four administrative lawsuits in 2024 and 2025, challenging both the denials of two of his applications and military authorities' refusal to consider others, and appealed unsuccessfully at both regional court and cassational court levels (see below).

In one lawsuit, the court concluded that the individual's personal file "reveals no indication that the plaintiff held objections to military service prior to the commencement of procedures to enforce his military service obligations; consequently, these objections cannot be regarded as convictions. In effect, the plaintiff's assertions amount to a mere declaration of humanistic views and polemical reflections on the impossibility of serving in the army" (see below).

It took a year and a half – "or three conscription cycles" – for a judge finally to order the Jehovah's Witness' local Conscription Commission to consider his application for alternative civilian service again on its merits. On this occasion, in October 2025, the Commission approved his request (see below).

Forum 18 is not naming the four individuals in Udmurtiya and Primorye for their own security.

Forum 18 wrote to the Military Commissariats of Udmurtiya and Primorye asking:
– why Conscription Commissions refused applications from individuals with clearly articulated and well-evidenced beliefs which prevented them from doing military service;
– why Conscription Commissions refused applications on the basis of missed deadlines, when the Constitutional Court had ruled this was not a sufficient reason for denying ACS;
– and what happened to those individuals who were not allowed to do ACS.
Forum 18 has received no responses from either (see below).

Forum 18's review of court decisions in administrative lawsuits from other conscientious objectors challenging Conscription Commissions' rejection of alternative service applications shows few successful outcomes. Even if a decision is successful, in the majority of cases it merely overturns the Conscription Commission's rejection and calls on it to issue a new decision. Individuals often have to make repeated applications for alternative service and submit repeated administrative lawsuits if they are determined not to serve in the military on grounds of conscience.

A Conscription Commission in Kamchatka Region rejected the ACS application from Council of Churches Baptist Andrey Topchy in 2024. A court rejected his administrative lawsuit challenging denial of alternative civilian service without a hearing on technical grounds. As of January 2026, he was doing military service in Khabarovsk without taking the oath (see below).

Available data on Jehovah's Witnesses for 2025 show that "refusals to grant alternative civilian service were significantly more frequent than positive decisions", Jehovah's Witnesses told Forum 18. (Their communities have been banned since 2017 as "extremist") (see below).

Unlike the individual in Primorye, most young Jehovah's Witness men do not openly declare their religious affiliation when applying for alternative service, Jehovah's Witnesses told Forum 18. They added that, as of the end of 2025, there were reports of four criminal cases initiated against believers for evading military service. "At least one case has already resulted in a guilty sentence. There are also guilty sentences in cases initiated in 2024." Punishments included 360 hours' community service and fines of up to six weeks' average wages (see below).

Denying the right to perform alternative civilian service

Military officials in Russia are continuing to deny many young men the opportunity to perform alternative civilian service (ACS), rather than military service, despite their demonstrating to the military authorities that they hold beliefs which preclude participation in military service.

Conscripts who want to do alternative civilian service can be caught up in a cycle of repeated applications, refusals, and lawsuits which can last years, and may result in their being sent to military units anyway.

If a Conscription Commission turns down a request for ACS and the man does not appear when called up for military service, he is vulnerable to prosecution under Criminal Code Article 328 ("Evasion of conscription into military service in the absence of legal grounds for exemption from this service"). This can incur large fines or – very rarely – up to 2 years' imprisonment.

Human rights observers note that it is becoming ever more difficult to apply successfully for ACS (see below).

"There has been a nationwide rise in arbitrary denials of alternative service", Call to Conscience, a group which helps conscientious objectors, noted in its annual report for 2025. "Conscription commissions rarely provide justifications for their decisions. This practice is unlawful and undermines the constitutional intent behind the rights to freedom of conscience and alternative service; in the context of the war, it serves as a form of pressure against those who openly oppose militarism" (see below).

Most refusals appear to be based on the applicant's supposed failure to "substantiate" his beliefs and demonstrate that they are long-held and "incompatible with military service". While sometimes this is because "the conscript failed to prepare and could not clearly explain his motives, or did not submit the necessary documents", according to Info AGS, a resource portal for conscripts, "conscription commissions most often act with bias and a lack of objectivity, ignoring even your most compelling arguments".

"A legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"

International standards recognise the right not to perform military service on grounds of conscience.

The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) recognises "the right of everyone to have conscientious objection to military service as a legitimate exercise of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion".

The OHCHR has also noted in its Conscientious Objection to Military Service guide that ICCPR Article 18 is "a non-derogable right .. even during times of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation".

Constitutional right to alternative civilian service for conscripts

All Russian men must carry out military service for 12 months between the ages of 18 and 30. After this, they are enrolled in the reserves (and thereby become subject to mobilisation). It is possible to gain exemption on medical grounds, or deferrals for medical or educational reasons and in certain family situations, although these opportunities are narrowing.

Conscripts also have the right, enshrined in the Constitution, "to replace [military service] with Alternative Civilian Service [ACS]", and instead work in a state or municipal institution (for 21 months), or in a civilian role in the armed forces (for 18 months).

Applicants for ACS who are not from Russia's indigenous peoples must demonstrate that military service is contrary to their beliefs. Under the 2002 Law on Alternative Civilian Service, "Citizens who have expressed a desire to replace conscripted military service with Alternative Civilian Service must substantiate [their claim] that military service is contrary to their beliefs or religion", and set out "the reasons and circumstances [prichiny i obstoyatelstva] that prompted [them] to apply for this".

Conscription Commissions

If a Conscription Commission does not accept that a conscript genuinely holds such beliefs, then it can refuse his application for alternative civilian service.

The Conscription Commission may refuse an application if: a) the deadline is missed or the procedure incorrectly followed; b) the submitted documents and other information "are not in accordance with the citizen's arguments that military service is contrary to his beliefs or religion"; c) the submitted information is false; d) the individual has twice failed to appear at meetings of the Conscription Commission; e) an individual has previously been granted ACS and has failed to do it.

If an applicant is unsuccessful, he can either appeal to a higher-level Conscription Commission or file an administrative lawsuit at a district-level court, requesting that the Conscription Commission's decision be ruled unlawful.

Going to court means that the implementation of the Conscription Commission's decision is suspended until the court's decision enters into legal force. If a lawsuit is initially unsuccessful, the plaintiff has one month to appeal, and the decision does not enter legal force before the appeal ruling.

From 1 January 2026, conscription became a year-round process. This means that Conscription Commission meetings, medical examinations, and other procedures can take place all year, rather than only in the previous traditional call-up periods of 1 April–15 July and 1 October–31 December. Deployment to military units and alternative service positions still take place within these dates.

Conscientious objectors must still apply for ACS six months before they are due to be called up, but Conscription Commissions' decisions now remain valid for one year, rather than just the current draft period, thus giving military officials much more time to summon failed ACS applicants for medical examinations and attempt to conscript them.

Russian and international human rights bodies – including the Movement of Conscientious Objectors and the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection – argue that procedures for assessing alternative civilian service applications are often not carried out fairly or independently. Military officials put undue pressure on ACS applicants, and decisions are largely taken by military commissars, despite Conscription Commissions being ostensibly independent bodies chaired by local civilian officials.

(The Justice Ministry added the Movement of Conscientious Objectors to its register of "foreign agents" in June 2023.)

Based on their own monitoring, conscripts' rights groups have noted that Conscription Commissions have become increasingly likely to refuse applications for ACS.
"There has been a nationwide rise in arbitrary denials of alternative service", Call to Conscience noted in its annual report for 2025, published in February 2026.

Available data on Jehovah's Witnesses for 2025 show that "refusals to grant alternative civilian service were significantly more frequent than positive decisions", Jehovah's Witnesses told Forum 18 on 10 July 2026.

Udmurt Republic: "There is no alternative service now, there is martial law in the country"

At least three young men from the same Pentecostal church in Udmurtiya (whose names Forum 18 has changed for their own security) have recently been refused alternative civilian service, despite long-held religious beliefs precluding military service and despite the fact that fellow church members had applied successfully for ACS in earlier years. Two of the men – Sergey and Dmitry – are now known to have been sent to military units, while the third, Mikhail, has obtained a medical exemption.

"No matter how we litigated, no matter what we did, we were told: 'There is no alternative service now, there is martial law in the country'," Mikhail told Forum 18 on 3 July. "Although alternative service has not been abolished at the state level and there is no martial law in place. No matter what information and evidence our lawyers presented, the court didn't even listen."

Mikhail and Sergey unsuccessfully challenged the local Conscription Commission's refusal of their applications for alternative service by means of administrative lawsuits in February 2025. It is unknown whether they subsequently made further unsuccessful applications which they chose not to take to court. Dmitry applied for ACS four times, was refused four times (twice for allegedly missing the deadline), and went to court four times between February 2025 and June 2026.

All three stated that they came from families of believers who had raised them by Biblical principles, were active members of their Pentecostal church (whose pastor had provided supporting statements in their applications), and held "strong personal convictions [which] give rise to a serious and insurmountable objection to military service".

"I demonstrated that military service conflicts with my religious faith and personal convictions", Mikhail wrote in his ultimately unsuccessful appeal to the regional court, seen by Forum 18. He noted that, "to substantiate my claims", he had provided his pastor's contact details in his application. "He can confirm the validity of my statement that military service is incompatible with my faith and my beliefs."

"The Bible is the supreme authority", Sergey stated in the autobiography included in his application for ACS, which a military commissariat representative read out in court in February 2025. "I cannot take an oath or swear an oath, as this contradicts the Bible."

In his first lawsuit, also considered in February 2025, Dmitry expressed his position that any and all forms of military activity are "designed to teach one how to kill people, which contradicts faith in God and God's commandments, as well as [my] religious faith and beliefs".

"One of the commandments given to humanity by God, which is written about in the Bible, is 'Do not kill'," Dmitry insisted. "Weapons are instruments used for killing, including the killing of human beings.. For me, any form of activity, even of a theoretical nature, is unacceptable if it is directed towards, intended for, or directly or indirectly linked to the potential use of weapons or their employment for their intended purpose."

Each of the three young men also stated his willingness to undertake ACS. "I do not shirk the obligation to fulfil my constitutional duty of service to the Fatherland – however, in accordance with current legislation, I request that mandatory military service be replaced with alternative civilian service, which also constitutes a form of defending the Fatherland and a duty and obligation of the citizen," Mikhail wrote in his appeal.

The Military Commissariat stated to the court in all three cases that the Pentecostal Christians' applications demonstrated "a desire to exercise all constitutional rights while rejecting the obligation to fulfil the constitutional duties established for all citizens of the Russian Federation". It added that they had "failed to substantiate, with sufficient completeness and credibility, the existence of a serious and insurmountable conflict between the obligation to serve in the military and [their] beliefs, which would cause [them] to reject military service".

The district court which examined Mikhail, Sergey, and Dmitry's lawsuits issued similar conclusions in each: that the autobiographies, character references, and supporting materials each had submitted offered "no evidence that he holds any convictions that would prevent him from performing military service" and "do not indicate that he actually holds firm religious or pacifist convictions that have developed over a long period and are incompatible with military service".

The judges dismissed evidence of the three men's close involvement with their Pentecostal church as "the doctrine in question does not preclude a believer independently deciding whether to perform military service or alternative service based on their religious convictions".

Dmitry's multiple lawsuits in particular indicate the apparent determination of both the military authorities and the court to disregard supporting testimony as subjective or as insufficient to prove the longevity of beliefs and their incompatibility with military service.

A fellow church member who had known him since childhood stated in court that "[Dmitry's] worldview was formed long ago, even before the witness's own, yet the witness was granted the opportunity to perform alternative service, whereas [Dmitry] was not". He added that their faith "does not permit the bearing of arms".

A teacher from Dmitry's vocational college testified that he had been exempt from participating in military training sessions as a student, "based on a letter citing his church attendance". The judge nevertheless dismissed this, because the teacher was "unable to answer the question of how [Dmitry's] firm faith in God manifests itself in everyday life".

Dmitry included in his application for ACS a statement from a psychologist, who wrote that Dmitry "regards religious doctrine as the foundation for his actions and for defining his moral and ethical norms and values, and is largely guided by religious norms in his behaviour and decision-making in everyday life. Furthermore, [Dmitry's] desire to undertake alternative civilian service instead of mandatory military service in the Russian Armed Forces stems from the fact that military service conflicts with the religious beliefs he consistently upholds in his life".

The court twice decided, however, that "This conclusion does not indicate [Dmitry] holds firmly established convictions against performing military service".

Dmitry had provided photographs of himself at church events, and the testimony of fellow church members and clergy. Despite this, the court repeatedly concluded that "no objective evidence regarding the nature of the administrative plaintiff's participation in church life was presented".

In June 2026, Sergey and Dmitry were both conscripted for military service, Mikhail told Forum 18 on 3 July. "They were told that [to serve] without taking the oath and without weapons, you need to arrange alternative service, and since you're here, you'll have to take [both]", Mikhail explained.

"We've had the same thing happen in our church already," Mikhail added. "Our guys have already been sent for military service, where they refused to take the oath and bear arms, but weapons were registered in their names and signatures acknowledging that they'd sworn the oath were entered on their behalf."

Forum 18 wrote to the Military Commissariat of the Udmurt Republic in Izhevsk on 15 July to ask:
- how many applicants in the region have been denied ACS;
- why Conscription Commissions refused applications from individuals with clearly articulated and well-evidenced beliefs which prevented them from doing military service;
- why Conscription Commissions refused applications on the basis of missed deadlines, when the Constitutional Court had ruled this was not a sufficient reason for denying ACS;
- and what happened to those individuals who were not allowed to do ACS.
Forum 18 had received no response by the end of the working day in Udmurtiya of 28 July.

Military service without weapons

Some conscientious objectors who have been denied alternative civilian service appear to be able to undergo military service without bearing arms and/or without taking the military oath. The Conscription Commission in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky (Kamchatka Region) rejected the ACS application from Council of Churches Baptist Andrey Topchy during the autumn 2024 call-up period.

Topchy lodged an administrative lawsuit challenging this decision, but Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky City Court rejected this without consideration on technical grounds on 2 November 2024, according to court records.

As of January 2026, Topchy was doing military service in Khabarovsk without taking the oath, the Council of Churches posted on its prayer request channel on 23 January.

Two years earlier, the Conscription Commission had also rejected the ACS application from Topchy's older brother Aleksandr. Aleksandr's administrative lawsuit challenging the denial of alternative civilian service was also unsuccessful at the same court, according to court records.

Aleksandr stated in his lawsuit that he "wished to fulfil his duty, but – citing his religious beliefs – requested that his mandatory military service be replaced with alternative civilian service", according to the court decision of 16 November 2022 seen by Forum 18. At the meeting of the Conscription Commission, "he was asked questions that demonstrated he was a believer in God and that his convictions had formed over a long period based on the Bible".

In court, Aleksandr Topchy added that "he is a believer and that, in accordance with the Bible, he cannot swear oaths or kill. However, military service would require him to swear an oath to the state to defend his homeland and subsequently to kill, thereby violating the Word of God. He declared that he would neither take the oath nor bear arms".

Despite this, the judge concluded that "neither to the conscription commission nor during the proceedings of the present administrative case did [Aleksandr] present any evidence demonstrating the existence of firm religious convictions, formed over a significant period, consistent with his lifestyle and social conduct, which create an irreconcilable conflict [with] the obligation to perform military service".

It is unknown whether Aleksandr Topchy was subsequently conscripted or whether he managed to serve without taking the oath or bearing arms.

Primorye: "Three conscription cycles" to get alternative civilian service

Even when a conscript is ultimately successful in obtaining permission for alternative service, it can take a long time, with multiple applications and court cases, before a Conscription Commission grants his request. For Jehovah's Witness Grigory (whose name Forum 18 has changed for his own security), it took a year and a half – "or three conscription cycles" – for a judge finally to order his local Conscription Commission to consider his application again on its merits. On this occasion, in October 2025, the Commission approved his request, Jehovah's Witnesses told Forum 18 on 20 July 2026.

Grigory repeatedly applied for ACS between 2023 and 2025, and was repeatedly refused for various reasons – because he had allegedly missed a deadline, because the Military Commissariat held that a previous refusal was still in force, or because the Conscription Commission decided that he had "failed to demonstrate with sufficient completeness and credibility the existence of a serious and insurmountable personal (internal) conflict between the obligation to serve in the military and his religious beliefs" and "failed to submit evidence to the conscription commission confirming the existence of such deeply rooted religious convictions, which have been formed over a long period of his life and with which military service obligations conflict".

Grigory lodged four administrative lawsuits in 2024 and 2025, challenging both the denials of two of his applications and military authorities' refusal to consider others, and in one case appealed unsuccessfully at both regional court and cassational court levels, according to court records.

According to a district court decision from July 2024, seen by Forum 18, Grigory's application for ACS included "an autobiography noting that he had formed convictions regarding military service starting in 2015 after he began studying the Bible; written explanations from his mother, stating that [Grigory] began studying the Bible during his secondary school years, leading to the formation of his beliefs regarding military service; and character references from [his school and college], indicating that [Grigory] did not participate in military-patriotic events due to his convictions".

Despite this, the Conscription Commission had "concluded that [Grigory] had failed to submit evidence characterising a lifestyle or social behaviour consistent with his claims, or otherwise substantiating the validity of his assertion that military service conflicted with his convictions".

Grigory's mother confirmed his circumstances in court, but the judge viewed her testimony "critically, taking into account that she is the plaintiff's mother, and [concluded] that her testimony does not establish that military service conflicts with [Grigory's] convictions or religious beliefs".

According to a Military Commissariat representative, Grigory's personal file "contained no documents from educational institutions, religious organisations, or relatives – dating from the time of his initial military registration [in 2021] – attesting to religious convictions that would prevent him performing military service".

The Conscription Commission also appears to have used Grigory's religious affiliation as a reason to refuse him ACS.

The court decision cites the Conscription Commission's view: "Given that one of the objectives of the 'Jehovah's Witnesses' organisation – recognised as extremist in the Russian Federation – is to induce citizens to refuse to defend the Fatherland and to decline the performance of military service, the Conscription Commission also took into account the fact that [Grigory] adheres to the religious views of this organisation, which is banned in the Russian Federation."

The court concluded that Grigory's personal file "reveals no indication that the plaintiff held objections to military service prior to the commencement of procedures to enforce his military service obligations; consequently, these objections cannot be regarded as convictions. In effect, the plaintiff's assertions amount to a mere declaration of humanistic views and polemical reflections on the impossibility of serving in the army."

"In effect, the arguments set forth in [Grigory's] application for the substitution of military service with alternative civilian service, along with the accompanying documents, merely demonstrate [his] adherence to a specific religious movement. They do not, however, substantiate his claim that performing military service conflicts with his convictions or religious beliefs."

In July 2025, in a decision seen by Forum 18, a different judge at the same court decided that the Military Commissariat had unlawfully refused to accept Grigory's latest application for alternative civilian service and pass it on to the Conscription Commission. She issued a ruling obliging the commission to consider the application.

During the autumn draft of 2025, the Conscription Commission finally agreed to Grigory's request for ACS.

Forum 18 wrote to Primorye Region's Military Commissariat in Vladivostok on 15 July to ask:
– why Conscription Commissions refused applications from individuals with clearly articulated and well-evidenced beliefs which prevented them from doing military service;
– why Conscription Commissions refused applications on the basis of missed deadlines, when the Constitutional Court had ruled this was not a sufficient reason for denying ACS;
– and what happened to those individuals who were not allowed to do ACS.
Forum 18 had received no response by the end of the working day in Primorye Region of 28 July.

Four criminal cases initiated against Jehovah's Witnesses for evading military service

Russia's Supreme Court liquidated Jehovah's Witness organisations and banned their activities as "extremist" in 2017.

Young Jehovah's Witness men risk prosecution for "continuing the activities of an extremist organisation" if they cite active involvement in their religious communities as evidence of their beliefs. Nevertheless, they "continue to seek alternative civilian service", Jehovah's Witnesses told Forum 18 on 10 July 2026. While "most do not make public their religious affiliation, there are those who have openly (and without significant consequences) declared themselves" to be Jehovah's Witnesses.

The usual reason for denial of applications by their young men for alternative civilian service, as in the case of Grigory in Primorye, is the Conscription Commission's conclusion that "the conscript failed to prove the existence of relevant beliefs", Jehovah's Witnesses noted. "Refusals are almost always appealed in court, but courts in most cases side with the military enlistment offices."

"After the court decision enters into force, the conscript finds himself in a difficult situation: under current rules, the conscription decision remains valid for 1 year (previously – only within the current draft period)," Jehovah's Witnesses told Forum 18.

Jehovah's Witnesses cited cases where young men who failed in court to overturn the refusal of alternative civilian service were detained and sent to military units. "Securing their release after being sent to a unit is extremely difficult," they said. "While in military units, they refuse to take up arms and wear military uniforms, remaining in this situation until they are discharged into the reserve."

Jehovah's Witnesses added that, as of the end of 2025, there were reports of four criminal cases initiated against believers for evading military service. "At least one case has already resulted in a guilty sentence. There are also guilty sentences in cases initiated in 2024". Sentences included 360 hours of compulsory labour, as well as fines of 60,000 and 100,000 Roubles. A fine of 100,000 Roubles represents about six weeks' average wage. (END)

More reports on freedom of thought, conscience and belief in Russia

For background information see Forum 18's Russia religious freedom survey

Forum 18's compilation of Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) freedom of religion or belief commitments

Follow us on Bluesky @Forum18

Follow us on Facebook @Forum18NewsService

Follow us on Telegram @Forum18NewsService

Follow us on WhatsApp Forum 18

Follow us on X/Twitter @Forum_18

All Forum 18 material may be referred to, quoted from, or republished in full, if Forum 18 is credited as the source.

All photographs that are not Forum 18's copyright are attributed to the copyright owner. If you reuse any photographs from Forum 18's website, you must seek permission for any reuse from the copyright owner or abide by the copyright terms the copyright owner has chosen.

© Forum 18 News Service. All rights reserved. ISSN 1504-2855.