Inputs for OHCHR Conscientious objection to military service in Lithuania

The expansion of conscription in Lithuania undermines the right of Lithuanians to conscientious objection to military service, while Belarusian and Russian conscientious objectors seeking asylum in Lithuania face serious risks with regard to both access to asylum and personal security

January 15, 2026

Brief summary

In recent years, Lithuania has significantly expanded its compulsory military service system and strengthened measures to ensure its enforcement. These changes are taking place against a backdrop of heightened regional security threats, but they have revealed systemic problems in ensuring the right to conscientious objection to military service. Despite formal recognition of this right and the existence of alternative civilian service, in practice there remains a significant gap between the legal framework and its application. The expansion of conscription in Lithuania without adequate strengthening of guarantees for the right to refuse military service increases the risk of disproportionate state interference with freedom of conscience.

Alternative service in Lithuania continues to have a punitive character and, in practice, functions as a deterrent rather than as a genuine accommodation of conscience.¹ Non-religious objectors face particular difficulties in having their convictions recognized, and the practice of repeated administrative penalties leads to disproportionate interference with freedom of thought and belief.²

The situation is particularly acute for Belarusian and Russian conscientious objectors seeking international protection in Lithuania. Despite well-documented risks of persecution and severe criminal penalties in their countries of origin, such individuals are in some cases denied asylum and classified as a “threat to national security.” These practices pose a serious risk of violating the principle of non-refoulement and call into question the compatibility of Lithuania’s policy with its international obligations in the field of human rights and the right to asylum.

I. Recent changes to the compulsory military service system in Lithuania

Since reinstating compulsory military service in 2015, Lithuania has steadily expanded the scope and intensity of conscription.³ This process culminated in the transition to year-round conscription in 2024-2026, primarily affecting young men.⁴ The expansion of conscription was accompanied by tougher enforcement measures, including the active use of administrative and, in some cases, criminal sanctions.

According to official data, in 2023 alone, more than 14,000 administrative fines were imposed for violations related to military service obligations.⁵ Although these figures include repeated sanctions against the same individuals, they demonstrate the scale of the coercive approach. In a number of cases, pre-trial investigations and criminal proceedings have been initiated for alleged evasion of service in Lithuania.

II. Realization of the right to conscientious objection in Lithuania: systemic challenges

Although Lithuanian law formally recognizes alternative civilian service, its practical implementation remains limited and inconsistent. One of the key problems is the lack of a clear and inclusive definition of the convictions that can serve as grounds for refusal. In practice, religious motives are often given preference, while pacifist, moral, ethical, or philosophical convictions are subject to more rigorous and skeptical assessment.

Alternative civilian service is also punitive in nature. Its duration exceeds that of military service, and conditions have in the past been found by the European Court of Human Rights to be insufficiently civilian in nature. In the case of Teliatnikov v. Lithuania, the Court found that alternative service in Lithuania was in fact a form of unarmed military service, which violated Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights.⁶ Despite the legislative changes that have been initiated, there are still concerns that alternative service continues to be used as a means of deterring refusal.

An additional problem is the practice of repeated administrative penalties for the same underlying unwillingness to perform military service. The cumulative effect of such repeated administrative sanctions may result in measures that raise serious concerns as to proportionality in relation to the exercise of freedom of conscience and belief.⁷

III. Conscientious objection and international protection: the precarious situation of Belarusian and Russian objectors in Lithuania

Lithuania has become a destination country for a significant number of Belarusian and Russian citizens who have left their countries because of their refusal to perform military service or their unwillingness to participate in armed conflicts. For many of them, seeking asylum in Lithuania due to conscientious objection in Belarus or Russia is linked to a well-founded fear of criminal prosecution, prolonged imprisonment, or other serious human rights violations in their countries of origin.

Despite this, Lithuanian migration authorities often refuse to grant international protection to such applicants. Applications are often rejected on the grounds that compulsory military service is a general civic duty and does not in itself constitute persecution. This approach appears inconsistent with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted by Resolution 2200 A (XXI) of the General Assembly on 16 December 1966⁸ and fails to take into account the nature and severity of the penalties for refusing to serve in Belarus and Russia, as well as the link between persecution for refusing to serve in the army and protected grounds, including freedom of conscience and political opinion.

Of particular concern is the practice of classifying conscientious objectors as posing a “threat to national security.”⁹ Even in cases where courts conclude that there is no individual threat posed by the applicant and overturn the relevant decisions, state security agencies retain the ability to re-initiate similar assessments within the framework of migration procedures. Documented cases show that such parallel and unsynchronized application of migration and “security” mechanisms can lead to protracted legal disputes without a final resolution of the applicant’s legal status, especially in cases where applicants have previously undergone military service or training. In documented cases, such decisions have been made without transparent criteria or individualized assessment, which can limit access to asylum procedures and effective judicial review.

Furthermore, in practice, access to effective legal remedies is significantly limited by financial barriers, particularly following the restriction of state-funded legal aid after the first appeal stage. Since 2025, free legal aid has been provided by the state to asylum seekers in Lithuania only at the first stage of appeal. If the appeal is rejected, the applicant is left without legal support, and further protection is only possible through paid legal services, which are often inaccessible to citizens of Belarus and Russia due to their high cost.¹⁰

As a result, some conscientious objectors have been detained or faced the risk of being deported to their country of origin, i.e., Belarus or Russia.¹¹ These practices give rise to a serious risk of violation of the principle of non-refoulement, which prohibits the return of individuals to countries where they face persecution, torture, or other serious human rights violations. International standards, including UNHCR guidelines, explicitly recognize conscientious objection to military service as a possible basis for refugee status.

It is important to note that after a final refusal of asylum, the person is obliged to leave Lithuania. If asylum is refused in Lithuania, there are no instruments for legalizing the asylum seeker in any other way. At the same time, in April 2023, Lithuania adopted a law on restrictive measures, after which restrictions were imposed on the issuance of visas and a number of other statuses for citizens of Belarus/Russia. Taken together, this significantly narrows the alternative paths to legal status after the refusal of asylum.¹²

IV. Recommendations

Given the systemic problems and gaps identified between the formal recognition of the right to refuse military service on grounds of conscience and its practical implementation, it seems necessary to take the following measures.

In the area of compulsory military service and conscientious objection:

Ensure full and non-discriminatory recognition of the right to conscientious objection to military service, including objections based on non-religious ethical, philosophical, and pacifist convictions, in accordance with international human rights standards.

Bring alternative civilian service into full compliance with the requirements of Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, ensuring that it is genuinely civilian, non-militarized, and non-violent in nature.

Ensure that alternative civilian service is comparable to military service in terms of duration and conditions, excluding its use as a deterrent or punitive mechanism.

Eliminate the practice of repeated and cumulative administrative penalties for refusal to perform military service, ensuring compliance with the principles of proportionality and legal certainty in Lithuania.

Strengthen procedural guarantees for conscientious objectors, including the right to effective appeal and protection from arbitrary sanctions.

Ensure that public information on the right to conscientious objection, the procedures for exercising it, and the criteria for decision-making is widely available, accessible, and understandable.

In the area of international protection and asylum:

Recognize conscientious objection to military service as a possible and legitimate basis for granting refugee status or subsidiary protection in cases where refusal entails the risk of severe punishment, persecution, or participation in actions contrary to international humanitarian law. This applies in particular to cases where the conscientious objector may face the death penalty in their country of origin (Belarus).

Bring the practice of examining asylum applications into line with UNHCR guidelines, ensuring that each case is assessed individually and substantively.

End the practice of automatically or unjustifiably broad application of “national security” arguments in relation to conscientious objectors, especially in cases where such assessments are based solely on previous military affiliation and there is clear evidence of the conscientious objector’s pacifist and anti-war activities.

Ensure transparency of national security risk assessment criteria and effective judicial review of relevant decisions.

Guarantee strict and unconditional compliance with the principle of non-refoulement in all cases involving conscientious objectors from Belarus and Russia, in accordance with international refugee and human rights law, including by providing them with alternative forms of legalization in Lithuania.

Annex I. Selected individual cases illustrating the risks faced by conscientious objectors

This appendix contains a limited number of documented cases illustrating the practical consequences of Lithuania‘s current approach to conscientious objection and the granting of international protection.^{13 14} The cases cited are illustrative and do not constitute an exhaustive list.

1. Vitaly Dvaryashin (Belarus)

Vitaly Dvaryashin is a Belarusian citizen and conscientious objector who refused military service on grounds of conscience back in 1998. In 2022, he left Belarus for fear of forced conscription and criminal prosecution. Since 2016, Dvaryashin had been living in Lithuania on an economic residence permit.

In June 2023, the Lithuanian migration authorities revoked his residence permit, stating that he posed a “threat to national security,” and attempted to deport him to Belarus. After applying for asylum, Dvaryashin was placed in solitary confinement in a refugee center, and security concerns were used to unjustifiably restrict his freedom.

On June 27, 2023, the Lithuanian Regional Administrative Court overturned the migration authorities’ decision, finding the national security threat arguments unfounded, and reinstated his residence permit. The Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania subsequently upheld this decision.

Despite the court decisions that had entered into force, in January 2024, the migration authorities refused to grant Dvarashinas asylum, and the State Security Department reconfirmed its assessment of the threat to national security. As a result, his legal status remained uncertain and the restrictive measures were continued.¹⁵

This case demonstrates a structural problem whereby judicial review does not ensure the definitive restoration of violated rights. The reuse of the same security agency assessments in related migration procedures effectively nullifies the significance of court decisions, undermines the principle of legal certainty, and deprives the applicant of access to effective legal remedies, creating individual risks and threats to life and health.

2. Nikita Svirid (Belarus)

Nikita Svirid is a Belarusian citizen who had been doing his military service since October 2021. After the full-scale armed conflict started in Ukraine, he was sent to the border and decided that continuing his military service and possibly fighting in a war went against his beliefs. Fearing criminal prosecution for refusal and desertion, he left Belarus in May 2022 and sought international protection in Lithuania.

In November 2023, the Lithuanian migration authorities refused to grant Svirid asylum. His appeals were considered by two courts, which upheld the refusal. The case was heard by the Supreme Administrative Court in written proceedings, without the participation of the applicant or his representative, which significantly limited the opportunity to present arguments on the merits.¹⁶

As a result, Svirid remains without legal status and is at risk of being returned to Belarus, where he faces the risk of severe punishment, including long-term imprisonment and, according to available reports, the potential application of the death penalty for desertion under Article 356 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, “High Treason.”^{17 18}

This case demonstrates a restrictive approach to the consideration of applications from conscientious objectors and deserters, as well as the insufficient effectiveness of judicial remedies in cases involving a risk of serious persecution and a violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

3. Maxim Kuzmin (Russia)

Maksim Kuzmin is a Russian citizen and civil engineer who previously served a short term in the construction units of the Russian armed forces, after which he consciously rejected a military career. Since 2014, he has publicly expressed his anti-war stance, participated in anti-war actions, and condemned Russia’s military actions against Ukraine.

In 2022, Kuzmin legally entered Lithuania. In 2023, the migration authorities refused to issue him a temporary residence permit and a national visa, citing only the conclusion of the State Security Department about an alleged “threat to national security,” after which deportation proceedings were initiated.

In May 2023, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court overturned the relevant decisions of the migration authorities, finding that there had been no individual assessment of the applicant’s circumstances; this decision was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. Despite this, in 2024, the migration authorities again refused to grant Kuzmin asylum and re-initiated deportation measures, which were finally confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court in December 2024.

Kuzmin remains in Lithuania without valid legal status, with regular obligations to report to the migration authorities and without access to employment. If he returns to Russia, he faces mobilization as a reserve officer and criminal prosecution for his anti-war stance. This case illustrates the repeated use of security service assessments in migration procedures, despite judicial review, and the lack of effective legal remedies.

4. Gleb Smirnov (Belarus)

Gleb Smirnov is a Belarusian citizen, conscientious objector, and participant in the 2020 protests. In 2023, his temporary residence permit in Lithuania was revoked on the basis of an unfounded conclusion by the State Security Department about an alleged threat to national security; national courts upheld these decisions without conducting a substantive review of the security services’ conclusions. Smirnov was subsequently denied asylum, despite the risk of persecution in Belarus for participating in protests, refusing military service, and having ties to organizations recognized as extremist there. He remains in Lithuania without stable legal status and without access to effective remedies, creating a risk of violation of the principle of non-refoulement.

5. Anonymized documented case (Belarus): deportation and subsequent imprisonment for “extremism”

XXX is a Belarusian citizen and conscientious objector who left the country due to the risk of persecution related to his refusal to perform military service and his beliefs. He was declared a “threat to national security” for serving in the Belarusian army more than 15 years ago and was deported from Lithuania to Belarus despite the stated risks of persecution.

After returning to Belarus, he was detained at the border and placed in custody/convicted on charges of “extremist activity” (or under articles related to “facilitating extremist activity”/participation in an “extremist group”) and deprived of his liberty. This case illustrates the risk that deporting conscientious objectors can lead to serious consequences in their country of origin, including imprisonment on politically motivated grounds, thereby reinforcing the importance of the principle of non-refoulement.

Note: This appendix is intended to supplement the main presentation and illustrate the systemic issues outlined in the main text.

About The Author

Darko Kalinowski

See author's posts