62 EDUCATION RIGHTS Ten thousand copies of the textbook had been published for use in schools.83 The complainants pointed to examples in the text that they alleged incited ethnic hatred: the book says that the Jews forced Pontius Pilate to crucify Jesus because ‘they thought only about power over other peoples and earthly wealth’, and asks students to consider why the Jews crucified Christ and cannot accept the kingdom of heaven. The book allegedly also attacks other religions, refers to non-Orthodox Russians as ‘guests’ and accuses them of ‘not always behaving nobly in the traditionally Orthodox state’.84 In December 2002, the Meshchansky District Court ruled that the prosecutor’s refusal to open a criminal investigation was illegal. However, the prosecutors again refused to launch an investigation, and the court upheld that second refusal on 24 March 2003. In May 2003, a Moscow city court struck down this decision and ordered that it be reconsidered.86 Both sides of this debate argued on the basis of human rights principles. Representatives of the Orthodox religion and the Coordination Council argued that: ‘If an Orthodox child thinks that only his faith is true, the Jewish child will consider that for his people only his faith is true … the school should give each of them the right to an education in the spirit of those convictions that his family shares, and this right is recognized by international legislation’.87 MHR argued that ‘schools [should] teach children respect for both their own faith and the faith of their neighbours’,88 and that the textbook could incite anti-Semitism.89 Although in theory the teaching of this text was to be voluntary, it was reportedly introduced as a compulsory text for all children in some regions.90 The MHR strategy of bringing a criminal case for incitement to racial hatred, rather than following an administrative procedure or an advocacy campaign, was intended to ensure that the issue attracted a lot of attention.91 The aim was to ensure ‘that an expert analysis be conducted’ of the textbook.92 The result was reportedly an out-of-court offer to remove the offending paragraphs from the textbook, and a political commitment to ensure that a second edition, called Fundamentals of World Religions, would include chapters commissioned by the various faiths.93 The final outcome remains to be seen, although some districts will indeed use the text book on a voluntary course.94 Notes 1 Tomasevski, K., Human Rights Obligations: Making Education Available, Accessible, Acceptable and Adaptable, Right to Education Primer 3, Raoul Wallenberg Institute, 2001. Available at www.right-to-education.org. 2 See CRC, Art. 24(e) and (f) on the right to health.