When the Supreme Court weighed faith against mobilisation
A look back at a ruling reported on 1 May 2025 that rejected religious exemptions from military service in wartime, amid other news from the war.
What does a state owe a conscientious objector when it is at war? On 2 May 2025, that question was fresh in Ukraine's public debate, a day after the Supreme Court of Ukraine issued a ruling against religious exemptions from military service in wartime.
The case concerned a member of Jehovah's Witnesses who had refused to go through mobilisation. The court ruled against granting an exemption on religious grounds during wartime. As reported at the time, the decision applied to the circumstances of martial law, and it set out how the judiciary would treat such refusals.
The ruling came against a grim backdrop. On the night before, a Russian drone attack on Odesa killed two people and injured 15 others. According to the Governor of Odesa Oblast, Oleh Kiper, the targets included high-rise apartments, residential homes, a supermarket and a school.
The wider war
Other reports from 30 April and 1 May showed how far the war reached beyond Ukraine's borders. South Korean intelligence claimed that North Korean troops involved in the invasion had suffered around 4,700 casualties, including about 600 deaths among 15,000 soldiers. It also said their combat capability had improved considerably, with growing skill in new weapons such as drones.
On 1 May, North Korea and Russia announced plans for their first road link, a one-kilometre bridge over the Tumen River. It was intended to improve cross-border travel, tourism and the circulation of goods.
Why the ruling mattered
Set beside these reports, the Supreme Court's decision showed a state weighing individual conscience against the demands of defence. The court's answer, as reported, was that wartime did not allow religious exemptions from mobilisation.
