The article examines, at a general theoretical level, some features of judicial evidence of sincere religious beliefs (faith) on the basis of which a person conscientiously refuses to carry or use weapons in conditions of martial law in Ukraine. Based on an analysis of the Constitution of Ukraine, the Decree of the President of Ukraine “On the Introduction of Martial Law” dated 24 February 2022 No. 64/2022, the Law of Ukraine “On Alternative (Non-Military) Service in Ukraine”, and the Law of Ukraine “On Mobilisation Preparation and Mobilisation”, it has been found that the right to alternative service, which is enjoyed by citizens of Ukraine who belong to religious organisations whose beliefs do not allow the use of weapons and service in the Armed Forces of Ukraine (Part 4 of Article 35 of the Constitution of Ukraine), cannot be exercised under martial law in Ukraine, as the current legislation does not provide for a mechanism for alternative (non-military) service during mobilisation under martial law. Such gaps in the legislation have led to a significant number of court proceedings in Ukrainian courts to bring to justice persons who refuse to carry or use weapons because of their religious beliefs. Based on the research conducted, conclusions have been drawn that the subject of proof in such cases should include the fact of a person’s religious beliefs (faith); the sincerity of such religious beliefs (faith); and the emergence (formation) of sincere religious beliefs in the period prior to the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Such circumstances of the subject matter of proof may be established within the framework of criminal, administrative or civil proceedings using the entire list of procedural sources of evidence, which, regardless of the type of national proceedings, tend towards unification. A list of relevant and admissible evidence (documents from religious communities, testimonies, confirmation of previous activities, etc.) that may confirm conscientious refusal to bear or use weapons under martial law in Ukraine has been outlined. It has been established that courts in this category of cases must establish the existence of sincere belief in a person using the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt” (in criminal and administrative proceedings). In civil proceedings, such circumstances of the case must be established with sufficient certainty.

Authored books

1. Hmyrko V, Dokazuvannia v kryminalnomu protsesi: diialnisna paradyhma. Teoretychnyi analiz. Problematyzatsiia. SMD-reprezentatsiia (AMSU 2010) (in Ukrainian). Journal articles

2. Chepa M-L, ‘Pro predmet i ob’iekt sudovo-psykholohichnoi ekspertyzy’ [2007] 3(5) Aktualni problemy navchannia ta vykhovannia liudei z osoblyvymy potrebamy 290–299 (in Ukrainian).

3. Kuznietsov O, ‘Psykholohichnyi analiz fenomenu viry u naukovomu piznanni’ [2017] 1(11) Psykholohiia i osobystist 289 (in Ukrainian).

4. Pohoretskyi M, Mitskan O, ‘Standart dokazuvannia “dostatnia pidstava” u kryminalnomu protsesi Ukrainy’ [2019] 3 Visnyk kryminalnoho sudochynstva 31–42 https://doi. org/10.17721/2413-5372.2019.3/31-42 (in Ukrainian).

5. Rabinovych S, ‘Zamina vykonannia viiskovoho obov’iazku alternatyvnoiu (neviiskovoiu) sluzhboiu yak pozytyvne zobov’iazannia derzhavy v umovakh voiennoho stanu: pro et contra’ [2025] 2 Ukrainskyi chasopys konstytutsiinoho prava 45 https://doi.org/10.30970/ jcl.2.2025.4 (in Ukrainian). Theses

6. Ratushna B, ‘Nalezhne dokazuvannia u sudovomu pravozastosuvanni Ukrainy v svitli praktyky Yevropeiskoho sudu z prav liudyny (zahalnoteoretychne doslidzhennia)’ (dys kand yuryd nauk, 2014) (in Ukrainian). pravoua.com.ua 118 Богдана Ратушна