JPTi Engagement on Estonia’s UPR: Side Event and Monitoring of the State Review
- May 6
- 29 min read
Updated: May 7
On 5 May 2026, Justice pour Tous Internationale (JPTi) carried out a full day of advocacy in Geneva in connection with the review of Estonia at the 52nd session of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) Working Group. JPTi’s activities included an NGO side event held from 12:30 to 14:00 in Room IX of the Palais des Nations, followed by the monitoring of Estonia’s formal UPR review before the Working Group from 14:30 to 18:00.
The side event, entitled “Information Meeting on Estonia’s UPR Process”, was convened jointly with Public Organization “Public Advocacy”, an NGO in consultative status with ECOSOC to examine key human rights developments and challenges in Estonia within the framework of the Universal Periodic Review. The discussion focused on freedom of religion or belief, minority rights, freedom of expression, fair trial guarantees, language and education, civic space, and the use of national security reasoning in areas traditionally protected by fundamental rights.
In his opening statement, Mr Sharof Azizov, Executive Director of JPTi, emphasized that the purpose of the meeting was constructive and that JPTi’s engagement formed part of a broader and methodologically consistent approach to the 52nd UPR session. JPTi prepared briefing notes and recommendations for delegations on all States under review during the session, including Estonia. Mr Azizov underlined that the central message of the event was that security must not erode human rights, and that a democratic society is strongest when national security, constitutional safeguards, and fundamental freedoms reinforce one another.
A central focus of the side event was the situation of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, including measures affecting its leadership, canonical identity, clergy, internal governance, and spiritual continuity. JPTi stressed that these issues affect not only an institution, but also the collective ability of believers to exercise freedom of religion or belief. Particular attention was given to the situation of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii, whose safe return was framed as a matter of religious autonomy, minority protection, and confidence-building.
The side event also acknowledged the constitutional significance of President Alar Karis’s decision not to promulgate the contested amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act and to refer them to the Supreme Court for constitutional review. JPTi described this as an important constitutional act demonstrating the role of the President as a guarantor of constitutional rights and freedoms, and expressed the hope that the Supreme Court’s review would fully reflect Estonia’s obligations under international human rights law, including Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The panel brought together speakers with distinct professional and personal perspectives. Professor George Katrougalos, United Nations Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order, delivered a video statement addressing the issue through the lens of the United Nations Special Procedures statement, Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the autonomy of religious communities, constitutional review, and democratic checks and balances. He emphasized that national security cannot be used as a general justification for interference in the internal religious life of a community, and that the forum internum enjoys absolute protection under international human rights law.
Mr Hugues Noumbissie brought the perspective of long-standing experience within the United Nations system, including human rights, peacekeeping, administration, and multilateral cooperation, as well as his current work in Catholic education. His contribution focused on the principle that there can be no sustainable security without human rights, and that social cohesion depends on dialogue, institutional trust, education, and respect for religious and cultural communities.
Professor Mehmet Şükrü Güzel, Founder and President of the Center for Peace and Reconciliation Studies in Geneva, addressed the historical and reconciliation dimension. He placed the Estonian situation within a broader historical context, warning that security narratives, if framed too broadly, may lead to alienation, stigmatization, and the treatment of dissent, minority identity, language, or religion as disloyalty.
Mr Alexander Peske, Swiss journalist, publisher, and public activist, delivered a video statement focusing on freedom of expression, journalism, public debate, minority voices, and the chilling effect that may arise when security language is applied too broadly. He emphasized that democracies must distinguish between unlawful conduct and lawful speech, between violence and dissent, and between concrete threats and minority communities expressing their identity.
Mr Vakhtang Kavzharadze, Vice President of JPTi, spoke from the perspective of Orthodox Christian identity, Georgian cultural heritage, diplomacy, and dialogue with affected communities. He emphasized that, for Orthodox Christians, the Church is not merely a registered legal entity, but a spiritual home, a living tradition, a pastoral community, and a historical memory transmitted across generations. His statement underlined the need to avoid reducing Orthodox identity to geopolitical suspicion and to protect the religious life of communities through consultation, trust, and proportionality.
Following the side event, JPTi monitored the formal review of Estonia before the UPR Working Group and produced a focused monitoring report identifying statements and recommendations directly relevant to JPTi’s advocacy on freedom of religion or belief and on the compliance of Estonia’s relevant national security measures with its international human rights obligations. The report also noted that the distribution of the report on Estonia was scheduled for 8 May during the morning session, and that the adoption of reports, including the report on Estonia, was scheduled for 15 May during the afternoon session.
During the review, H.E. Mr Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, addressed the relationship between security and human rights, stating that the two are historically and intimately linked, that advancing Estonia’s security must take place within the boundaries of international law, and that progress on human rights depends on a functioning international order. Estonia also responded to advance questions submitted by the United Kingdom concerning freedom of religion or belief, stating that the legal measures under consideration would not restrict worship, limit religious practice, or interfere with the forum internum.
Several delegations raised recommendations and concerns directly connected to JPTi’s advocacy. The United Kingdom recommended that Estonia ensure that measures adopted on national security grounds remain consistent with its human rights obligations, including freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association, and the rule of law. Brazil encouraged Estonia to ensure that all measures concerning religious organizations are fully consistent with international human rights law, particularly with the right to freedom of religion and the protection of minority rights. Cuba recommended that Estonia prevent and eliminate the systematic marginalization of minorities in politics, education, and religion, and adopt legal and administrative measures prohibiting discrimination in all fields, including on the basis of religion or faith.
Chile addressed the need for national security measures to comply with human rights and civil liberties. India and Indonesia raised recommendations concerning religious minorities and the protection of their rights. Switzerland, Pakistan, and Sweden addressed the need to strengthen anti-discrimination protection, including protection against discrimination on the basis of religion, by extending safeguards beyond the employment or professional sphere.
JPTi considers these interventions important for the continued international monitoring of Estonia’s human rights obligations. They reflect a growing recognition that freedom of religion or belief, religious minority protection, non-discrimination, and the relationship between national security and human rights are central issues in Estonia’s UPR process.
JPTi will continue to follow the outcome of the review, including the distribution and adoption of the UPR report, the treatment of recommendations by Estonia, and the pending constitutional review of the Churches and Congregations Act before the Supreme Court of Estonia. The organization will also continue to advocate for the protection of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, the autonomy of religious communities, safeguards for minority rights, and the safe return of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii.
Through its side event, written materials, diplomatic engagement, and monitoring of the UPR review, JPTi sought to contribute to a constructive, balanced, and evidence-based process. The organization reiterates that recommendations concerning Estonia should not be viewed as hostile to the State, but as supportive of Estonia’s democratic capacity, constitutional safeguards, and international human rights commitments. A State is not weakened when it protects minorities; security is strengthened when all people trust the law, the courts, and public institutions.
Opening Statement by Sharof Azizov
Executive Director, Justice pour Tous Internationale
Side Event on the UPR of Estonia
52nd Session of the UPR Working Group, Geneva
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 12:30–14:00
Venue: Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Distinguished delegates, Excellencies, Dear colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen,
It is my honour to welcome you to this side event on Estonia’s Universal Periodic Review, convened on the margins of the 52nd session of the UPR Working Group. On behalf of Justice pour Tous Internationale, I thank all delegations, experts, civil society representatives, and colleagues present today.
The purpose of this meeting is constructive. JPTi does not seek to politicise Estonia’s review or to single out one State. Our engagement forms part of a broader UPR effort, including briefing notes and recommendations prepared for delegations on all States under review during this session. At the same time, Estonia’s review raises important concerns relating to freedom of religion or belief, minority rights, freedom of expression, education, fair trial guarantees, civic space, and the use of national security reasoning in areas protected by fundamental rights.
Our central message today is simple: security must not erode human rights. A democratic society is strongest when national security, constitutional safeguards, and fundamental freedoms reinforce one another.
A central issue is the situation of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church. Measures affecting its leadership, canonical identity, clergy, internal governance, and spiritual continuity affect not only an institution, but the collective ability of believers to exercise freedom of religion or belief. In this context, the safe return of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii should be understood as a matter of religious autonomy, minority protection, and confidence-building.
We also wish to acknowledge and commend President Alar Karis’s decision not to promulgate the contested amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act and to refer them to the Supreme Court for constitutional review. This was an important constitutional act and demonstrates the role of the President as a guarantor of constitutional rights and freedoms. We hope that the Supreme Court’s review will fully reflect Estonia’s obligations under international human rights law, including Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The final decision is due in June 2026.
Beyond the Church, we will also address broader concerns affecting the Russian-speaking minority, including the ongoing transition to Estonian as the language of instruction, freedom of expression, and national security-related cases involving non-violent political, civic, journalistic, or human rights-related activity.
Today’s speakers will address these issues from complementary perspectives: United Nations Special Procedures and constitutional safeguards; human rights and social cohesion; history and reconciliation; freedom of expression and journalism; and Orthodox Christian identity, cultural heritage, and dialogue with affected communities.
We hope this discussion will assist delegations in formulating constructive recommendations to Estonia, including on religious autonomy, minority-language education, fair trial safeguards, inclusive consultation, and the safe return of Metropolitan Evgenii.
I thank you once again for your presence and look forward to a respectful and constructive discussion.
Video Statement by Professor George Katrougalos
United Nations Independent Expert on the Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order
Side Event on the UPR of Estonia
52nd Session of the UPR Working Group, Geneva
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 12:30–14:00
Venue: Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Statement by Professor Mehmet Şükrü Güzel
Founder and President, Center for Peace and Reconciliation Studies, Geneva
Side Event on the UPR of Estonia
52nd Session of the UPR Working Group, Geneva
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 12:30–14:00
Venue: Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Distinguished delegates, Excellencies, Dear colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen,
It is an honour to participate in this side event on the Universal Periodic Review of Estonia. I thank the organizers for convening this important discussion on freedom of religion or belief, minority rights, national security, and the rule of law.
I speak from the perspective of peace and reconciliation studies, international law, and historical experience. My work has often focused on the consequences of conflict, the legacy of the First World War, decolonisation, and the role of law in preventing communities from being stigmatized, divided, or treated as extensions of political or geopolitical disputes.
History teaches us that security concerns must always be addressed seriously. No State can be expected to ignore genuine threats to its constitutional order, independence, or public safety. However, history also teaches us that democratic values may be eroded when security becomes too broad, too vague, or too closely associated with identity, dissent, language, religion, or minority belonging. The challenge for every democratic State is therefore not to choose between security and human rights, but to ensure that security is pursued through law, proportionality, evidence, and respect for human dignity.
This is particularly important in relation to the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church. The Church is not merely an administrative structure. It is a religious and cultural institution for a significant number of believers, including many members of the Russian-speaking minority. Measures affecting its leadership, canonical identity, internal governance, and spiritual continuity therefore have consequences that go beyond institutional regulation. They affect how a community preserves its faith, transmits its traditions, and maintains its place within society.
From the perspective of reconciliation, religious communities should not be pressured to redefine their identity in response to political circumstances. Coercive approaches may produce formal compliance, but they rarely produce trust. On the contrary, they may deepen alienation and weaken social cohesion. A democratic society is strengthened when all communities, including minorities and religious groups, feel that they are protected by the law and not merely tolerated under suspicion.
International human rights law provides the necessary framework. Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. It protects not only individual belief, but also the collective life of religious communities. The internal dimension of this freedom, the forum internum, is absolute. For this reason, measures affecting doctrine, spiritual allegiance, canonical identity, religious leadership, or internal organization require the most careful scrutiny.
In this context, the situation of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii is of particular importance. The removal or exclusion of a senior religious leader does not affect only one individual. It may also affect the continuity, governance, and pastoral life of an entire community of believers. Enabling his safe return should therefore be examined not only as an administrative or migration matter, but also as an issue connected to freedom of religion or belief, minority protection, and the effective functioning of the Church.
There is also a broader concern. Recent state-security cases in Estonia, including cases involving Aivo Peterson and Sergei Seredenko, have raised difficult questions about the boundary between legitimate protection of sovereignty and the punishment of non-violent political, civic, journalistic, or human rights-related activity. These cases have been described by parts of civil society as involving political imprisonment. Without prejudging domestic judicial findings, they show the need for great caution when non-violent activities are framed as threats to the State.
This point is historically sensitive. In post-Soviet societies, democratic security institutions have a special responsibility to avoid any perception that dissent, minority advocacy, or unpopular political views are being treated through methods reminiscent of earlier systems of political control. Estonia has every interest in ensuring that its institutions are never compared with the repressive practices of the past. The best way to avoid such comparisons is to guarantee transparent proceedings, effective defence rights, independent judicial review, proportionality, and a clear distinction between unlawful conduct and protected expression, belief, or advocacy.
The same principle applies to religious life. A State may address concrete unlawful conduct, but it should not treat religious identity, canonical affiliation, language, or cultural memory as evidence of disloyalty. Where national security is invoked, the response must be precise and individualized. It must not produce collective suspicion against a community.
The pending constitutional review in Estonia is therefore a significant opportunity. It allows national institutions to demonstrate that sensitive issues can be addressed through law, constitutional safeguards, and respect for international human rights standards. It is encouraging that the contested amendments were referred for constitutional review. This shows that Estonia has institutional mechanisms capable of examining serious concerns before they escalate further.
The Universal Periodic Review also has an important role to play. The UPR is not a hostile process. It is a mechanism of constructive dialogue. It allows States to support one another in strengthening compliance with international human rights standards and in preventing security concerns from undermining democratic principles.
I would therefore respectfully encourage delegations to consider recommendations calling on Estonia to ensure that any measures affecting religious communities are lawful, necessary, proportionate, non-discriminatory, and subject to effective judicial review; to guarantee the autonomy of religious communities in matters of doctrine, governance, spiritual allegiance, religious leadership, and internal organization; to ensure full procedural safeguards in national security-related cases, especially where the alleged conduct is non-violent; to engage in inclusive dialogue with the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church and affected communities; and to create conditions for the safe return of Metropolitan Evgenii, enabling him to resume his religious and pastoral functions without discrimination, administrative pressure, or disproportionate restrictions.
These recommendations should be understood as supportive of Estonia’s democratic institutions. They are not directed against the State. Rather, they are intended to strengthen the rule of law, prevent social fragmentation, and ensure that security is pursued together with justice and human rights.
Peace is not achieved only by the absence of violence. It is achieved when communities feel respected, protected, and heard. Reconciliation begins when the State treats all communities not as threats, but as equal participants in a shared civic future.
I thank you for your attention.
Statement by Mr Hugues Noumbissie
Side Event on the UPR of Estonia
52nd Session of the UPR Working Group, Geneva
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 12:30–14:00
Venue: Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Distinguished delegates, Excellencies, Dear colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen,
It is an honour to take part in this discussion on the Universal Periodic Review of Estonia. I would like to thank the organizers for convening this important side event and for creating a space for dialogue on issues that are sensitive, complex, and of direct relevance to the protection of human rights, social cohesion, and the rule of law.
I speak today from the perspective of someone who has spent many years within the United Nations system, including in human rights, peacekeeping, administration, and multilateral cooperation. My professional experience has included work with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the World Health Organization Regional Office for Africa, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations at United Nations Headquarters in New York, peacekeeping missions in Africa, and the United Nations Office at Geneva. In my current work with the International Office of Catholic Education, I remain engaged with questions of education, human dignity, community development, and the effective exercise of freedom, including freedom of education.
This background has taught me one lesson very clearly: security and human rights must not be treated as opposing principles. There can be no sustainable security without human rights. Equally, there can be no durable peace where communities feel that their identity, religious life, language, or cultural belonging are treated as threats rather than as part of the social fabric of the State.
Every State has the right and the duty to protect its population and to respond to genuine national security risks. This is not in question. In today’s international environment, States face serious challenges, including foreign interference, disinformation, polarization, and the misuse of institutions for political purposes. However, the response to such challenges must remain anchored in legality, necessity, proportionality, non-discrimination, and effective oversight. Otherwise, measures adopted in the name of security may unintentionally weaken the very democratic resilience they seek to protect.
This is particularly important when national security arguments enter areas traditionally protected by fundamental rights, such as freedom of religion or belief, minority rights, education, civic participation, and freedom of expression. When security language is applied too broadly, there is a risk that entire communities may be perceived through the lens of suspicion. This can produce exclusion, mistrust, and social fragmentation. From the experience of peacekeeping and conflict prevention, we know that this is dangerous. Security policies that alienate communities rarely produce long-term stability. Security policies that respect rights, dignity, and inclusion are more effective and more legitimate.
In this context, the situation of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church deserves careful and balanced attention. The Church is not merely an administrative structure. It is a religious and cultural institution for a significant number of believers, many of whom belong to the Russian-speaking minority. Measures affecting its leadership, internal governance, canonical identity, or spiritual life therefore have implications that go beyond institutional regulation. They touch upon freedom of religion or belief, minority protection, cultural identity, and the relationship between the State and religious communities.
The concerns discussed today, including those relating to the expulsion of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii and the continuing disruption of the Church’s leadership, should be assessed in this broader human rights framework. The question is not whether Estonia may address legitimate security concerns. The question is whether such concerns are being addressed in a way that fully respects international human rights obligations, including Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The protection of the forum internum, the inner freedom to have, maintain, or change one’s religion or belief, is absolute. It cannot be restricted on grounds of national security. This principle is essential because it protects the deepest sphere of human conscience and identity. Religious communities must also be able to organize their internal affairs, doctrine, governance, and spiritual life without coercive interference, subject only to limitations that are lawful, strictly necessary, proportionate, and consistent with international standards.
From the perspective of education and community life, I would also underline that religious and cultural institutions often serve as places where identity, values, language, and social belonging are transmitted across generations. When such institutions are weakened without adequate safeguards, the consequences may affect not only religious practice but also social trust and inter-community relations. This is why consultation, dialogue, and confidence-building are indispensable.
Estonia has important democratic institutions and a strong tradition of engagement with international mechanisms. It has responded to communications from United Nations Special Procedures, and it has an accredited National Human Rights Institution. These are positive elements. They should be used to strengthen transparency, independent assessment, and follow-up. In sensitive cases involving national security and fundamental freedoms, independent institutions have a special role in ensuring that international human rights standards are fully integrated into national decision-making.
For this reason, I would respectfully encourage the continuation of dialogue between the Estonian authorities, affected religious communities, civil society, the National Human Rights Institution, and United Nations human rights mechanisms. Such dialogue should not be seen as external pressure. It should be seen as a contribution to democratic resilience, institutional credibility, and social peace.
The Universal Periodic Review provides an appropriate and constructive platform for this purpose. The UPR is not a mechanism of condemnation. It is a mechanism of cooperation, peer review, and improvement. It allows States to raise concerns in a respectful manner and to make practical recommendations that help another State strengthen its compliance with international obligations.
In this spirit, I would encourage delegations present today to give careful consideration to the recommendations prepared by Justice pour Tous Internationale. In particular, I would invite delegations to consider recommending that Estonia ensure that national security legislation is applied only in a manner that is strictly necessary, proportionate, and consistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; that Estonia guarantee the autonomy of religious communities in matters of doctrine, governance, and internal organization; and that Estonia create conditions for the safe return of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii, allowing him to resume his religious and pastoral functions without discrimination, administrative pressure, or disproportionate restrictions.
Such recommendations would not weaken Estonia’s security. On the contrary, they would strengthen it by reaffirming that security, rule of law, and human rights must advance together. A society is more secure when all communities feel protected by the law, heard by institutions, and respected in their dignity.
I thank you for your attention.
Statement by Mr Alexander Peske
Swiss Journalist, Publisher, and Public Activist
Side Event on the UPR of Estonia
52nd Session of the UPR Working Group, Geneva
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 12:30–14:00
Venue: Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Statement by Mr Vakhtang Kavzharadze
Vice President, Justice Pour Tous Internationale
Side Event on the UPR of Estonia
52nd Session of the UPR Working Group, Geneva
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 12:30–14:00
Venue: Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Distinguished delegates, Excellencies, Dear colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen,
It is an honour to address this side event on Estonia’s Universal Periodic Review process. I thank all delegations, experts, and civil society representatives present today for their attention to this important discussion.
I speak today as Vice President of Justice Pour Tous Internationale, but also as an Orthodox Christian, as a Georgian, and as someone whose professional life has been closely connected to diplomacy, protocol, public communication, and cultural heritage. These experiences shape the way I understand the issues before us.
For Orthodox Christians, the Church is not only an institution registered under domestic law. It is a spiritual home, a living tradition, a pastoral community, and a historical memory transmitted across generations. The relationship between clergy and believers, the continuity of worship, the preservation of canonical identity, and the internal life of the Church are not merely administrative matters. They are part of how a community lives its faith.
This is why the situation of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church deserves careful and respectful attention. Measures affecting its leadership, clergy, spiritual continuity, and internal organization are felt not only in legal documents, but in parishes, families, liturgy, and the daily religious life of believers. When a Church is placed under pressure to redefine its identity or distance itself from its own canonical tradition, the question is not only institutional. It becomes deeply personal for the faithful.
As a Georgian Orthodox Christian, I also know that Orthodox Churches in different countries have their own histories, identities, wounds, and relationships with State authorities. The Orthodox world cannot be understood through political stereotypes. It is diverse, ancient, and deeply rooted in the cultures of many peoples. To reduce Orthodox identity to geopolitical suspicion would be a serious mistake. A democratic State must distinguish between concrete unlawful conduct and the spiritual, cultural, and canonical life of believers.
My work in diplomacy and protocol in Geneva has taught me another lesson: many conflicts become more serious when communication fails. Sensitive issues affecting religion and identity cannot be handled only through administrative measures or security assessments. They require dialogue, respect, clarity, and confidence-building. Affected communities must be heard before decisions are taken, not only after harm has already been done.
In this respect, the situation of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii is especially important. For an Orthodox community, the removal or exclusion of a hierarch is not a technical matter. It affects pastoral care, ecclesiastical continuity, and the confidence of believers that their Church is able to function freely. Creating conditions for his safe return would be an important confidence-building step and a sign that Estonia is ready to address legitimate concerns without weakening freedom of religion or belief.
I also wish to emphasize the cultural dimension. In my professional work on Georgian cultural heritage, I have seen how religion, architecture, language, memory, and community life are connected. Churches are not only buildings. They are places where people preserve identity, mourn, celebrate, educate children, support one another, and remain connected to their history. When religious heritage is treated with suspicion, the State risks weakening the trust of the very communities it should protect.
The Universal Periodic Review offers a constructive way forward. It allows States to raise concerns respectfully and to make practical recommendations that support national institutions rather than undermine them. In the case of Estonia, recommendations should encourage dialogue, proportionality, and the protection of the religious life of all communities.
I would therefore respectfully encourage delegations to consider recommendations calling on Estonia to engage in genuine consultation with the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church and its believers; to protect the autonomy of religious communities in matters of worship, leadership, pastoral life, and internal organization; to ensure that any security-related measures are precise, lawful, proportionate, and not directed at religious identity as such; and to create conditions for the safe return of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii so that he may resume his religious and pastoral functions without discrimination, administrative pressure, or disproportionate restrictions.
Such recommendations should not be viewed as criticism of Estonia’s statehood or sovereignty. On the contrary, they would support Estonia’s democratic institutions by encouraging them to protect all communities equally. A State is stronger when believers do not feel that their faith is under suspicion. A society is more secure when religious communities are trusted, respected, and included.
I conclude with a simple appeal. Let us ensure that security is never used to divide believers from their Church, communities from their heritage, or citizens from their dignity. The protection of religious freedom is not a concession to any group. It is a measure of the strength and maturity of democracy itself.
I thank you for your attention.
Closing Statement by Sharof Azizov
Executive Director, Justice pour Tous Internationale
Side Event on the UPR of Estonia
52nd Session of the UPR Working Group, Geneva
Date: 5 May 2026
Time: 12:30–14:00
Venue: Room IX, Palais des Nations, Geneva
Distinguished delegates, Excellencies, Dear colleagues, Ladies and gentlemen,
As we bring this side event on the Universal Periodic Review of Estonia to a close, I wish to thank all speakers, delegations, experts, civil society representatives, and colleagues who joined and contributed to this discussion.
Our purpose today has been constructive. Justice pour Tous Internationale has not sought to politicize Estonia’s review or to single out one State in isolation. Our engagement with the 52nd UPR session has been broader and methodologically consistent, including the preparation of briefing notes and recommendations for delegations on all States under review during this session. Our objective has been to support balanced, comparative, and evidence-based recommendations grounded in international human rights standards.
Today’s discussion has focused on several issues of concern in Estonia, including freedom of religion or belief, minority rights, freedom of expression, fair trial guarantees, language and education, civic space, and the use of national security reasoning in areas traditionally protected by fundamental rights. Across all these issues, one message has remained central: security must not erode human rights. There can be no sustainable security where communities feel that their religion, language, identity, or peaceful civic participation are treated as threats.
We fully recognize that every State has the right and duty to protect its constitutional order, public safety, and sovereignty. At the same time, international human rights law requires that security-related measures be lawful, necessary, proportionate, non-discriminatory, and subject to effective judicial and institutional oversight. Security must not become a broad formula for restricting religious life, minority identity, public debate, or peaceful advocacy.
A central issue addressed today was the situation of the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church. This Church is not merely an administrative body; it is a religious, cultural, and spiritual institution for a significant community of believers, many of whom belong to the Russian-speaking minority. Measures affecting its leadership, canonical identity, clergy, internal governance, and spiritual continuity therefore affect not only an institution, but the collective ability of believers to exercise freedom of religion or belief.
In this context, the situation of His Eminence Metropolitan Evgenii remains particularly important. The disruption of the Church’s leadership following his expulsion has practical and symbolic consequences for the effective functioning of the Church. Enabling his safe return should therefore be understood not only as an administrative or migration issue, but as a matter connected to freedom of religion or belief, religious autonomy, minority protection, and social trust.
We also acknowledged an important positive constitutional development. President Alar Karis’s decision not to promulgate the contested amendments to the Churches and Congregations Act and to refer them to the Supreme Court for constitutional review demonstrates the existence of democratic safeguards and checks and balances in Estonia. This was a significant constitutional act and an opportunity to ensure that domestic constitutional analysis fully reflects Estonia’s obligations under international human rights law, including Article 18 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 22.
The situation of the Church must also be viewed within a broader context of securitisation affecting minority life. This includes language policy, education reform, political participation, civic space, and national security-related prosecutions. In education, the ongoing transition to Estonian as the language of instruction, established following the Act adopted by the Riigikogu on 12 December 2022, raises serious questions regarding safeguards for minority-language education and cultural identity. The concern is not the promotion of the Estonian language as such, but whether the reform, as currently implemented, provides adequate consultation, proportionality, and protection for Russian-speaking children and other pupils whose mother tongue is not Estonian.
We also discussed freedom of expression and civic space, including the need for particular caution where national security provisions are applied to non-violent political, civic, journalistic, or human rights-related activity. Cases such as those of Aivo Peterson and Sergei Seredenko raise difficult questions about the boundary between legitimate protection of sovereignty and the punishment of dissenting or unpopular non-violent activity. Without prejudging domestic judicial findings, such cases underline the need for fair trial guarantees, transparency, access to evidence, proportionality, and a clear distinction between unlawful conduct and protected expression or advocacy.
The contributions of today’s speakers have shown that these concerns are interconnected. From the perspective of United Nations Special Procedures, peace and human rights, historical reconciliation, journalism, Orthodox Christian identity, cultural heritage, and diplomatic engagement, we heard one coherent message: Estonia’s democratic institutions should be supported in ensuring that national security, freedom of religion or belief, minority rights, education, freedom of expression, and the rule of law reinforce one another rather than stand in tension.
In the context of the UPR, we respectfully hope that delegations will consider recommendations encouraging Estonia to ensure that national security legislation is applied only in conformity with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; to guarantee the autonomy of religious communities in matters of doctrine, governance, spiritual allegiance, leadership, and internal organization; to ensure that the constitutional review of the Churches and Congregations Act fully reflects applicable international human rights standards; to engage in genuine and inclusive consultation with the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church and affected communities; to protect minority-language education and cultural identity with adequate safeguards; to ensure full fair trial guarantees in national security-related cases; and to create conditions for the safe return of Metropolitan Evgenii, enabling him to resume his religious and pastoral functions without discrimination, administrative pressure, or disproportionate restrictions.
These recommendations are not directed against Estonia. They are intended to support Estonia’s own democratic capacity, constitutional safeguards, and international human rights commitments. A State is not weakened when it protects minorities. A society is not made safer when communities are placed under suspicion. Security is strengthened when all people trust the law, the courts, and public institutions.
I thank you once again for your participation and for the spirit of constructive engagement. We look forward to continued dialogue during Estonia’s Universal Periodic Review and to recommendations that will strengthen human rights, democratic safeguards, and social trust for all communities in Estonia.
Review of Estonia at the 52nd Session of the UPR Working Group
Key Statements and Recommendations Relevant to JPTi’s Advocacy on Freedom of Religion or Belief and the Compliance of Estonia’s Relevant National Security Measures with Its International Human Rights Obligations
6 May 2026
UN Web TV recording: https://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1w/k1w4d2r9kx
On 5 May 2026, Estonia was reviewed by the UPR Working Group from 14:30 to 18:00. On 8 May, the distribution of the report on Estonia is scheduled to take place during the morning session, from 9:00 to 12:30. On 15 May, the adoption of reports, including the report on Estonia, is scheduled to take place during the afternoon session, from 14:30 to 18:00. The official UN Web TV transcript could not be accessed at the time of review. Time references and wording are therefore based on manual monitoring of the UN Web TV recording and should be checked against the official transcript or the UPR outcome matrix once available.
During the review of Estonia on 5 May 2026 at the 52nd session of the UPR Working Group, several statements and recommendations were directly relevant to JPTi’s advocacy on freedom of religion or belief and on ensuring that relevant national security measures comply with international human rights obligations. At the outset, H.E. Mr Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, addressed the relationship between security and human rights, stating that the two are historically and intimately linked, that advancing Estonia’s security must take place within the boundaries of international law, and that progress on human rights depends on a functioning international order. Estonia later responded to advance questions submitted by the United Kingdom concerning freedom of religion or belief. In that response, Estonia specifically stated that the legal measures currently under consideration would not restrict worship, limit religious practice, or interfere with the forum internum.
During the interactive dialogue, the United Kingdom recommended that Estonia ensure that measures adopted on national security grounds remain consistent with its human rights obligations, including freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association, and the rule of law. Brazil encouraged Estonia to ensure that all measures concerning religious organizations are fully consistent with international human rights law, particularly with the right to freedom of religion and the protection of minority rights. Cuba recommended that Estonia prevent and eliminate the systematic marginalization of minorities, including in matters of religion, and adopt legal and administrative measures to ban discrimination in all fields, including religion and faith. Chile addressed the need for national security measures to comply with human rights and civil liberties. India recommended measures concerning, inter alia, religious minorities, and Indonesia made a similar recommendation concerning the protection of the religious rights of minorities. Switzerland, Pakistan, and Sweden addressed the need to strengthen anti-discrimination protection, including protection against discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of religion, by extending relevant safeguards beyond the employment or professional sphere.
Time reference | Delegation / Speaker | Issue raised | Relevance to JPTi advocacy |
12:09 | Estonia, H.E. Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs | Stated that security and human rights are historically and intimately linked; that advancing Estonia’s security must take place within the boundaries of international law; and that progress on human rights depends on a functioning international order | Significant alignment with JPTi’s central message that security must not erode human rights and must remain within international law |
12:54 | Estonia, responding to advance questions by the United Kingdom | Response concerning freedom of religion or belief; stated that the legal measures currently under consideration in Estonia would not restrict worship, limit religious practice, or interfere with the forum internum | Directly relevant to JPTi’s advocacy on the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, Article 18 ICCPR, and the absolute protection of forum internum; relevant to the constitutional and international limits applicable to the contested law under Supreme Court review |
22:19 | United Kingdom | Recommendation that measures adopted on national security grounds remain consistent with human rights obligations, including freedom of religion or belief, freedom of association, and the rule of law | Closely aligned with JPTi’s central position that security must not erode human rights |
40:45 | Brazil | Encouraged that all measures concerning religious organizations are fully consistent with international human rights law, particularly with the right to freedom of religion and the protection of minority rights | Directly relevant to JPTi’s advocacy on the Estonian Christian Orthodox Church, Article 18 ICCPR, freedom of religion or belief, and minority rights |
48:23 | Chile | Statement that national security measures should comply with human rights and civil liberties | Supports JPTi’s argument on legality, proportionality, and human rights safeguards in the use of security frameworks |
54:04 | Cuba | Recommendation to prevent and eliminate the systematic marginalization of minorities in politics, education, and religion, and to adopt legal and administrative measures prohibiting discrimination in all fields, including on the basis of religion or faith. | Relevant to JPTi’s advocacy on minority protection, anti-discrimination legislation, religious freedom, education, and the broader prevention of marginalization |
1:17:09 | Estonia, Mr. Joosep Kaasik, Undersecretary for Internal Security, Ministry of the Interior | Response to concerns relating to national security measures | Relevant to assessing Estonia’s official justification and the adequacy of its response during the review |
1:39:18 | India | Recommendation concerning religious minorities | Relevant to JPTi’s advocacy on minority protection and freedom of religion or belief |
1:40:11 | Indonesia | Recommendation similar to India’s, concerning protection of the religious rights of minorities | Reinforces the importance of religious minority protection during Estonia’s UPR review |
2:29:31 | Switzerland | Recommendation to extend the application of equal treatment legislation beyond the professional sphere to strengthen protection against discrimination, including religious discrimination. | Directly relevant to JPTi’s broader equality and non-discrimination advocacy, including protection against religious discrimination |
2:35:14 | Pakistan | Recommendation to strengthen Estonia’s anti-discrimination legislation to prohibit discrimination, inter alia, on the basis of religion. | Closely aligned with JPTi’s advocacy for comprehensive equality legislation and stronger protection against religious discrimination |
2:56:33 | Sweden | Recommendation similar to those made by Switzerland and Pakistan, concerning the extension of protection against discrimination, inter alia on the basis of religion, to all spheres of life, rather than limiting such protection to employment. | Strongly aligned with JPTi’s advocacy for comprehensive equality legislation covering religion or belief across all areas of public life |
SPEAKERS
Mr. Marcelo Vázquez Bermúdez, Vice-President of the Human Rights Council (Opening) | Ms. Riia Salsa-Audiffren, Permanent Representative of Estonia to the United Nations Office in Geneva | H.E. Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs |
Togo, Ms. Hassana Titikpina | Tunisia, Ms. Refka Khleifa | Türkiye, Mr. Ahmed Zengin |
Ukraine, Mr. Yevhenii Tsymbaliuk | United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Mr. Charles Kent | Uruguay, Ms. Emilia Eyheralde |
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), Mr. Yeferson Forero Prada | Viet Nam, Mr. Khanh Toan Nguyen | Zambia, Ms. Musonda Ulaya |
Albania, Ms. Vasilika Hysi | Algeria, Ms. Oumnia Mammeri | Armenia, Ms. Sofya Margaryan |
Australia, Mr. William Baitup | Azerbaijan, Mr. Marat Kangarlinski | Bahrain, Ms. Innas Al Atawi |
Bangladesh, Mr. Abdullah Bin Mahabub | Belarus, Ms. Alisa Ivanova | Belgium, Mr. Christophe Payot |
Bhutan, Mr. Lhapchu K. Wangchuk | Botswana, Ms. Nthisana Motsete-Phillipps | Brazil, Mr. Thiago Menezes |
Bulgaria, Ms. Boyana Trifonova | Burundi, Mr. Jean-Bosco Ndinduruvugo | Cabo Verde, Mr. Pedro Graciano Gomes de Carvalho |
Cameroon, Mr. Paul Serges Ntamack Epoh | Canada, Ms. Waleska Rivera | Chile, Ms. María Paz Florenzano |
China, Ms. Zihua Zhong | Colombia, Ms. Carolina Solano | Costa Rica, Ms. Natalia Bolaños Espinoza |
Croatia, Ms. Andrea Javor | Cuba, Mr. Roberto Cabañas | Cyprus, Ms. Olympia Neocleous |
Czechia, Ms. Gabriela Boiteux Pilná | Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Mr. Ho Tong Hyok | Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia (Answers and comments) |
Ms. Hanna Vseviov, Deputy Secretary General on Social Policy, Ministry of Social Affairs, Estonia | Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia | Ms. Ulla Saar, Deputy Secretary General for Labour and Equality Policies, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Estonia |
Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Estonia | Mr. Joosep Kaasik, Undersecretary for Internal Security, Ministry of the Interior, Estonia | Djibouti, Mr. Houmed-Gaba Maki Houmed-Gaba |
Dominican Republic, Ms. Liyana Pavón Lugo | Ecuador, Mr. Walter Schuldt | Egypt, Mr. Shady Hesham |
El Salvador, Ms. Rosibel Menéndez | Eritrea, Ms. Nadja Micael | Eswatini, Ms. Nolwazi Dlamini |
Ethiopia, Mr. Andualem Tessema | Finland, Ms. Heidi Schroderus-Fox | France, Mr. Pierre Martinez |
Gambia, Mr. Omar Samba | Georgia, Mr. Irakli Jgenti | Germany, Ms. Marie Rambach |
Greece, Mr. Ioannis Ghikas | Iceland, Ms. Rebekka Karlsdóttir | India, Mr. Sargeet Kajla |
Indonesia, Mr. Achsanul Habib | Iran (Islamic Republic of), Ms. Farzaneh Bani Asad Azad | Iraq, Mr. Jaffer Ali |
Ireland, Ms. Juliet Rouse | Italy, Ms. Annalisa Ciampi | Jordan, Mr. Mohammad Al Aqeel |
Kazakhstan, Mr. Azat Matenov | Lao People's Democratic Republic, Ms. Oudavanh Narkkhavong | Latvia, Mr. Ivars Pundurs |
Lebanon, Ms. Rana El Khoury | Libya, Mr. Nasser Algheita | Liechtenstein, Mr. Frank Büchel |
Lithuania, Mr. Edvard Vickun | Luxembourg, Ms. Sandra Merens | Malaysia, Mr. Muhammad Azhari Bin Azmi |
Maldives, Ms. Salma Rasheed | Malta, Mr. Randolph De Battista | Mauritius, Mr. Brian Glover |
Mexico, Ms. Francisca Méndez Escobar | H.E. Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia (Answers and comments) | Ms. Heddi Lutterus, Deputy Secretary General, Legislative Policy Department, Ministry of Justice, Estonia |
H.E. Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia | Ms. Triin Laasi-Õige, Secretary-General, Ministry of Education and Research, Estonia | H.E. Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia |
Ms. Anne-Ly Reimaa, Adviser of the Cultural Diversity Department, Ministry of Culture, Estonia | Montenegro, Ms. Slavica Milacic | Morocco, Mr. Abdessalam El Ouazzani |
Nepal, Mr. Shree Krishna Silwal | Switzerland, Mr. Antoine Perriard | Nigeria, Ms. Odunola Yetunde Oduwaiye |
North Macedonia, Mr. Dusko Uzunovski | Norway, Mr. Martin Torbergsen | Oman, Mr. Mohammed Al Bulushi |
Pakistan, Mr. Muneeb Ahmed | Panama, Mr. Juan Alberto Castillero Correa | Peru, Mr. Walter Moscoso Rio |
Philippines, Mr. Eric Gerardo Tamayo | Poland, Mr. Łukasz Róźycki | Portugal, Mr. João António Da Costa Mira Gomes |
Qatar, Mr. Abdulla Bahzad | Republic of Korea, Mr. Jongjin Kim | Republic of Moldova, Mr. Vladimir Cuc |
Romania, Ms. Sorana Popa | Russian Federation, Mr. Ruslan Stroganov | Rwanda, Ms. Betty Dusenge |
Serbia, Ms. Majda Krsikapa | Seychelles, Ms. Cillia Mangroo | Sierra Leone, Mr. Robert Koroma |
Slovenia, Ms. Petra Trkov | Spain, Mr. Marcos Gómez Martínez | Sri Lanka, Mr. Thanuja Meegahawatta |
Sweden, Mr. Oscar Ekéus | Netherlands (Kingdom of the), Ms. Erica Schouten | Tajikistan, Mr. Firdavs Sharifzoda |
Thailand, Ms. Usana Berananda | H.E. Mr. Jonatan Vseviov, Secretary General of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia (Final Remarks) |
|
#JPTi #JusticePourTousInternationale #UniversalPeriodicReview #UPR52 #EstoniaUPR #HumanRights #FreedomOfReligionOrBelief #ReligiousFreedom #MinorityRights #NonDiscrimination #RuleOfLaw #NationalSecurityAndHumanRights #CivicSpace #FreedomOfExpression #FairTrial #ICCPR #Article18 #UNHumanRights #HumanRightsCouncil #PalaisDesNations #Geneva #EstonianChristianOrthodoxChurch #MetropolitanEvgenii
