Believers behind bars: Why alternative service is needed during the war and who will be entitled to it

Before the full-scale invasion, believers belonging to ten religious organisations in Ukraine had the right to alternative service when called up for compulsory military service. Their faith does not allow them to take up weapons or swear a military oath.

Since the beginning of the war, this law has ceased to apply because it does not address mobilisation. As a result, despite their right to conscientious objection, believers began to be drafted into the military. For refusing to serve, investigators have initiated criminal proceedings against believers on a large scale under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine, concerning evasion of conscription for military service and failure to appear in response to a “combat” summons.

According to experts, the problem may affect at least 20,000 believers. At present, the largest number of criminal cases have been initiated against members of the religious organisations of Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

At the same time, in its EU Enlargement Report for Ukraine, the European Commission considers such persecution a violation of the right to freedom of religion and indicates the need to establish safeguards to protect believers.

The problem could be resolved by adopting a law on alternative service during mobilisation.

This article examines when such a law may be adopted in Ukraine, what provisions are needed to ensure believers’ right to conscientious objection while preventing abuse of that right, and what this alternative service might look like.

Introducing Alternative Service During Wartime Is an International Obligation of Ukraine

Today, criminal proceedings have been initiated against thousands of believers in Ukraine because they have refused military service on religious grounds. The right to alternative (non-military) service is provided for by Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine. The current law on alternative service applies to compulsory military service in peacetime but does not apply to mobilisation during wartime.

In October 2025, the Supreme Court ruled in case No. 573/838/24 that mobilised citizens may refuse to take up arms for reasons of faith. At the same time, for members of some denominations, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, even wearing a military uniform, taking an oath, or being subordinate to military command is impossible because of their religious beliefs.

In its 2025 Enlargement Report, the European Commission stated that Ukraine needs to establish safeguards protecting people from criminal prosecution when they refuse military service on religious grounds, considering the guidance of the Venice Commission issued in March 2025.

According to the 2025 Report of the European Bureau for Conscientious Objection, at least 110 believers in Ukraine had been imprisoned for refusing military service because of their religious convictions. Thousands of such people are being forcibly held in military units, while the planned legislation guaranteeing the right to conscientious objection during wartime has still not been adopted. The Bureau called for the immediate release of imprisoned believers in Ukraine.

The development and adoption of a law on the right to perform alternative service during martial law is also provided for in the rule-of-law roadmap for Ukraine’s accession to the EU. The document is intended to guarantee the right to conscientious objection to military service on religious grounds. The deadline for implementing this measure was the second quarter of 2026.

Viacheslav Horshkov, head of the Religious Affairs Department of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS), told ZMINA that the Ministry of Economy had been designated as the body responsible for drafting the law on alternative service. At the same time, after the law is adopted, the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience will have to prepare a by-law establishing how a person’s religious convictions are to be verified and what grounds qualify someone for alternative service.

“There is no draft law yet. It is impossible to prepare a by-law before the law itself because the general framework is not known. We are considering this issue, studying international experience and examining different options for implementation so that once the law is adopted, we can quickly submit a high-quality draft of the relevant regulation,” Horshkov explained.

Experts are preparing opinions for the courts on the right to conscientious objection

ZMINA spoke with Serhii Rabinovych, a professor in the Department of Constitutional Law at Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. He is also head of the Human Rights Laboratory of Academician Petro Rabinovych, a structural unit of the Research Institute of State Building and Local Government of the National Academy of Legal Sciences of Ukraine.

In May last year, believers affected by the issue of alternative service approached the Laboratory.

“We began studying the problem and prepared several analytical documents. We prepared amicus curiae opinions – independent expert legal and academic opinions that may be submitted during court proceedings. We submitted such opinions concerning conscientious objection to military service to the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in proceedings that are currently under consideration by these state bodies,” Serhii Rabinovych said.

He added that he had recently personally prepared and submitted an expert opinion to the Constitutional Court of Ukraine in a fourth case concerning this issue. That case is currently being considered by the Constitutional Court and has already been joined with three other similar cases.

In November 2025, an international round table devoted to the issue of alternative service was held in Kyiv under the auspices of the Council of Europe Office in Ukraine.

Later, experts – most of whom had participated in the round table – worked through an online dialogue platform and developed recommendations for changes to legislation and for ensuring the right to refuse military service on religious grounds.

These recommendations were sent to departments within the Ministry of Economy that may be involved in drafting the legislation on alternative service.

The Problem of Alternative Service During Wartime Could Affect Tens of Thousands of Believers

The urgent development and adoption of a law on alternative non-military service is the only way to consistently resolve a serious human rights problem, says Serhii Rabinovych, noting that the courts have involuntarily become “hostages” to the current situation.

In October 2022, the Verkhovna Rada abolished compulsory military service. However, the current law on alternative (non-military) service states that such service is introduced as a replacement for compulsory military service.

“So, the law is effectively hanging in the air. It is still in force, but compulsory military service no longer exists. Therefore, alternative service does not exist either because, according to the law, it is supposed to replace compulsory service. And there is no mention whatsoever in this law of any other type of military service,” one scholar noted.

According to approximate estimates, alternative non-military service could affect more than 20,000 believers. For example, a spokesperson for the Seventh-day Adventist Church said that of the 37,000 members of this religious organisation in Ukraine, approximately 6,000 are liable for military service. The organisation of Jehovah’s Witnesses has around 99,000 believers in Ukraine; approximately 15,000–20,000 of those may be liable for military service. These are the two largest religious groups whose beliefs prohibit them from serving in the military.

“From the summer of 2024 believers began to feel a serious pressure. Jehovah’s Witnesses and Adventists recorded a significant increase in criminal proceedings, convictions and imprisonment. In the spring of 2025, they began seeking possible support from human rights organisations and international bodies,” Rabinovych said.

According to a special report by the European Association of Jehovah’s Witnesses in December 2025, from September 2024 to the present, 1,908 members of this religious organisation had been sent to military units.

In addition, as of today, regarding Jehovah’s Witnesses:

• 967 criminal proceedings initiated under Article 336 of the Criminal Code of Ukraine (evasion of conscription and failure to appear in response to a “combat” summons);
• 345 criminal cases have been referred to court under the same article;
• 47 convictions have been rendered;
• 47 people who refused military service on religious grounds have been found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment;
• 12 persons are serving their sentences in prisons, while 22 persons are being held in the pre-trial detention centres.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church is currently statistically the second religious organisation in Ukraine suffering from the situation of the alternative-service system not functioning. According to the head of its Public Affairs Department, 83 criminal proceedings have currently been initiated against members of this organisation. At least 30 criminal cases are at the trial stage, and one believer is serving a prison sentence. The believers facing criminal prosecution are ministers of the church.

Apart from these two religious organisations, there are several other denominations whose believers cannot take up arms because of their religious convictions. According to the list of organisations whose members may perform alternative service established by the Government Resolution in 1999, these include:

• Reform Adventists Church;
• Evangelical Christian Church;
• Evangelical Christian Baptist Church;
• Pokutnyky;
• Charismatic Christian Churches (and churches equated with them under their registered statutes);
• Christians of Evangelical Faith (and churches equated with them under their registered statutes);
• Christians of Evangelical Faith;
• the International Society for Krishna Consciousness.

However, as Serhii Rabinovych noted, the government list is now outdated because the network of religious organisations in Ukraine has grown hundreds of times since then. He adds that establishing any exhaustive list of religious organisations is contrary to the Constitution:

“The Constitution links the right to replace military duty with alternative service to the fact that a citizen has the relevant religious convictions. Whether that person belongs to a particular religious organisation or not is irrelevant. The right to freedom of religion does not distinguish between believers who belong to certain denominations and other believers. Therefore, it is very important that the draft law on alternative service provide mechanisms to prevent possible abuse by ‘draft evaders.’”

Courts are currently rendering convictions under articles of the Criminal Code of Ukraine that establish liability not only for evading mobilisation but also for military offences, including “disobedience” under Article 402 of the Criminal Code.

According to Serhii Rabinovych, the greatest problem with convictions involving believers whose sincerity was not questioned by the court is the obvious ineffectiveness of criminal punishment. Under the Criminal Code of Ukraine, punishment is intended not only to punish but also to rehabilitate offenders and prevent them from committing new criminal offences.

“However, everyone familiar with the history of the religious communities being discussed knows that these believers have remained faithful to their convictions despite any persecution by the state. From a legal perspective, the purpose of criminal punishment certainly cannot be religious re-education or making a citizen, so to speak, acquire more ‘patriotic’ religious convictions and change their attitude toward military service,” he explained.

Military service for believers depends on the commander’s attitude

Military commanders sometimes show understanding toward believers and try to find them tasks that do not conflict with their conscience — for example, working in the quartermaster service or preparing food — while at the same time not requiring them to take up a firearm. Serhii Rabinovych said:

“Such a practice exists, but the problem is that it is based exclusively on the goodwill of individual commanders. There is currently no legal or military-regulation basis for such a practice. In other words, commanders effectively risk committing service violations when they treat forcibly drafted believers humanely.”

In its rulings, the Supreme Court has determined that during wartime, religious convictions do not exempt a person from mobilization. At the same time, being called up for military service during mobilization does not eliminate the right to conscientious objection to carrying and/or using weapons. However, according to Serhii Rabinovych, the Supreme Court’s legal position by itself does not guarantee that a commander who modifies a believer’s duties will not himself receive disciplinary punishment for violating military regulations.

When believers with religious convictions referred to in Article 35 of the Constitution are drafted to military service, there are effectively two options available to them, Rabinovych explains. The first is to flee or leave the military unit without permission (AWOL). The second is to stay and be consistent with their convictions, refusing under all circumstances to take the military oath or wear a military uniform, let alone handle weapons:

“But what will happen, and how commanders and fellow soldiers will react, is unknown. There have been cases of bullying, forced attempts to put military uniforms on people, intimidation and threats. There are also cases where people are treated with understanding.”

What alternative service during wartime should look like: Experts’ recommendations

According to a document prepared by participants of the interdisciplinary dialogue platform “The Constitutional Duty to Defend the Homeland and Freedom of Religion During Wartime”, which included prominent Ukrainian human rights defenders and legal scholars, alternative service during wartime should take place outside the military unit, Serhii Rabinovych emphasised.

Believers could be involved in rebuilding destroyed homes and civilian infrastructure, helping victims and the wounded. Depending on an individual’s convictions, this could also include demining, monitoring to counter drones and missiles, or assisting employees of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine (SESU).

Some experts believe that alternative service should not be easier than the service performed by military personnel at the front.

“The point is that there should be no special leniency in this regard. This is a matter of fairness under modern wartime conditions. We are at war, and according to the Constitution, every person has obligations toward society,” Rabinovych explained.

The conclusions and recommendations developed by experts participating in the interdisciplinary dialogue platform state that:

“If alternative service is introduced during wartime, provided that the service remains non-military in nature, its other conditions – duration, places of service, risks, etc. – should correspond to the conditions applicable to military personnel and, during martial law, to mobilised persons.”

At the same time, this should not turn into punishment or discrimination against people performing alternative service. The category of citizens entitled to replace military service with alternative service cannot be restricted based on membership in particular religious organisations.

The law should consider the international standards set out in the opinion of the Venice Commission, including:

• citizens must have access to alternative service through fair and transparent mechanisms;
• the alternative-service system must be sufficiently separate from the military system in terms of authority, oversight and rules, as well as the duration of the programme compared with military service;
• any supervision of the organisation and performance of alternative service must be civilian in nature.

The recommendations also state that it would be desirable to establish an independent executive authority responsible for developing and implementing state policy concerning alternative service.

“The evidence required to establish the existence of sincere religious convictions on the basis of which a person conscientiously refuses to carry or use weapons under martial law in Ukraine should include the existence of the person’s religious convictions, their sincerity, and the fact that these convictions were formed before the beginning of the full-scale invasion,” the joint position states.

Such circumstances may be established through administrative, criminal or civil proceedings. Amendments should also be made to the Criminal Code to prevent evasion of alternative service or improper performance of its duties.

Serhii Rabinovych emphasised that alternative service during wartime would make it possible to ensure the state’s defence capability without violating constitutional and international guarantees concerning human dignity, freedom of religion and non-discrimination.

Development and adoption of the law is already overdue

The European Bureau for Conscientious Objection (EBCO) regrets that Ukraine failed to fulfil its commitment in the government’s rule-of-law roadmap to adopt a law on alternative non-military service during wartime in the second quarter of 2026. It also regrets that the commitment was limited to protecting conscientious objectors for religious reasons and did not consider non-religious pacifists.

“We are concerned that a very raw draft law, which was discussed at a closed meeting of officials, without civil society participation, concerning the feasibility of introducing a mechanism for alternative (non-military) service under martial law at the Office of the President of Ukraine on 17 February, 2026, was restrictive and discriminatory. It did not comply with international standards and, ultimately, even in this distorted form, did not reach the stage of approval by the government, let alone adoption by parliament,” the Bureau said in a statement.

The Bureau says it is even more concerned by the reason for the failure to fulfil these commitments: the categorical position of the Ministry of Defence and the General Staff regarding alternative service in non-combat positions within the Armed Forces of Ukraine. At the same time, such a position is deeply contrary to the religious convictions of a significant number of Ukrainian conscientious objectors.

The European Bureau for Conscientious Objection called on Ukraine to adopt legislation guaranteeing a genuinely civilian, non-military alternative service during martial law, in accordance with international standards.

At the beginning of June, Viktor Yelenskyi, Head of the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience, said that the Ministry of Economy had prepared the first draft of the law “On Alternative Service” during martial law. According to him, there are many difficult conceptual issues. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) allows the state to assess the depth and sincerity of the religious convictions of a person seeking alternative service, as well as to use certain mechanisms to prevent abuse. After such a law is adopted, verification would probably be assigned to the State Service for Ethnopolitics and Freedom of Conscience (DESS). Yelenskyi said the commission could include psychologists, religious-studies experts, church representatives and government administrators.

According to the head of the State Service (DESS), it will not be easy to adopt the law:

“Even once it has been prepared, after it goes through interdepartmental approval and public discussion, heated debates will await it at every stage. One might say that the law will concern a relatively small number of people, but the state of human rights is precisely judged by how a minority is treated.”

The Ministry of Economy did not provide ZMINA with information in response to an inquiry concerning the status of the draft law on alternative service during wartime, despite the inquiry having been submitted one month ago.

Need a human-rights perspective on Ukraine’s latest legal developments? Connect with ZMINA on X, Bluesky and LinkedIn for regular policy updates – and let us know what you want to read next in our survey here.