AZERBAIJAN: PARLIAMENT PASSES AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BAKU 000405 SENSITIVE SIPDIS DEPT FOR EUR/CARC, DRL E.O.12958: N/A TAGS: PREL PHUM PGOV KDEM AJ SUBJECT: AZERBAIJAN: PARLIAMENT PASSES AMENDMENTS TO THE LAW ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM ¶1. (U) Sensitive But Unclassified. Not for Internet distribution. ¶2. (SBU)Summary. On May 8 the Milli Majlis (Parliament) passed an amended Law on Freedom of Religion. According to the latest available text of the amendments to the Law, some of the amendments contradict international human rights standards agreed by Azerbaijan. Members of parliament debated the changes, but do not seem to have improved upon the original draft delivered to parliament from the presidential administration. A number of religious activists and international NGOs have publicly condemned the changes, which appear to make it more difficult for religious communities to register with the GOAJ and easier for the GOAJ to close a community. End summary. ¶3. (SBU) On May 6 the Parliament's Committee on Human Rights discussed the amendments to the Law on Religious Freedom, which was given to the committee on May 4 by the Presidential Apparat. Some reports state that the committee made significant change's to the original draft, but that information has not been confirmed as no copy of the final version is publicly available. Before the Law was put to a vote in the full parliament on May 8, the head of the Human Rights Committee Rabiyyat Aslanova made a report. In approximately 30-minute speech Aslanova stated a need for amendments to the Law on Religious Freedom as it was originally adopted in 1992. Since the 18 March referendum approved a number of changes to the Constitution, those changes should be reflected in the Law too, Aslanova said. Aslanova named amended articles 18 on Religion and State, and 48 on Freedom of Conscience, and proposed the Parliament adopts all changes made to the Law. According to Aslanova there are 1750 mosques and 533 religious communities which passed the state registration. ¶4. (SBU) There is still no copy of these amendments that is publicly available. According to a version obtained from an MP, which seems to be the original version given to parliament from the presidential administration, some of the amendments contradict international human rights standards agreed by Azerbaijan. Examples include making a community's legal status dependent on this community fulfilling highly intrusive registration requirements, including unspecified doctrinal tests. Government officials are also given many reasons for refusing to register or ban organizations, including such formulations as "violating social order or social rules." Among 30 amended articles, article 12 on State registration of religious organization has been one of the focal point of changes. A part of the changed article says "The religious organization can act only in the juridical address defined in the information presented for state registration." ¶5. (SBU) During the discussions ruling party MP Siyavush Novruzov made harsh statements about the Caucasus Muslim Board (CMB). Novruzov criticized the Board's work, saying it had been mostly involved in the collection of money from worship places and mourning ceremonies. The MP also raised his dissatisfaction with people without religious training being allowed to lead religious activities, for which he believes the CMB bears responsibility. Another ruling party MP Mubariz Gurbanly objected to a proposed amendment which allows the possibility of reflecting religious affiliation on official documents, meaning ID cards. According to Gurbanly such a law would cause religious discrimination. Opposition MP Panah Huseyn raised an objection to proposed changes to article ¶12. Huseyn stated the new requirement that an organization function only at the address of legal registration would mean imposing limitations on activities of religious structures. Despite these objections, the bill was passed and awaits the President's signature. Reaction from opposition and civil society -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Before the Law was put on vote at the parliament, some members of civil society criticized the proposed amendments. On May 7, during the training for journalists writing on religion, the head of the Center for Freedom of Religion and Conscience Ilgar Ibrahimoglu said the amendments to the Law would put freedom of religion under the same attacks as freedom of speech is. Ibrahimoglu continued saying the new Law would incite radicalism in society, and the registration process already resembles the one of the Soviet period. ¶7. (SBU) In meetings with Embassy officials, several other members of civil society criticized the new law. Opposition MP Nasib Nasibli told Emboff that the amended Law imposed limits on religious communities, and might cause religious radicalism. Religious expert Elshad Miri, speaking to the Embassy staff said that new amendments BAKU 00000405 002 OF 002 would require any religious community to have its own temple/mosque before registration, even though the community might be small having only 11 people. Another religious expert Elshan Mustafayev said that the requirement to have a temple before registration is contradictory. He stated that according to amendments any construction of a temple would require having a community under its auspices. At the same time any community wishing of getting registered shall have its temple already. This creates a contradictory situation. Mustafayev also said that changes to article 12 would limit activities of a religious community to the physical address of legal registration only. ¶8. (SBU) Comment: The new amendments to the Law on Religious Freedom will create more obstacles for religious communities to receive registration from the GOAJ, a process which is already long and complicated. In addition, it will now be easier for the government to impose doctrinal control over religious communities, and to close communities that do not meet its criteria. The quick adoption of the Law (only four days lapsed between its release from the presidential administration to its passage in parliament) indicates a desire from authorities to limit public debate on the meaning of these amendments. End comment.