Fine to Democratic Activist Is Exacted from Her Dole

2006 2006-10-11T10:00:00+0300 1970-01-01T03:00:00+0300 en The Human Rights Center “Viasna” The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
The Human Rights Center “Viasna”

According to

The authorities of Svetlahorsk district are exacting the fine that has been imposed on the local democratic activist Natallia Bordak, from the dole she gets as unemployed. In February 2006 Ms Bordak distributed agitation materials of the candidate to the presidential position Aliaksandr Milinkevich. The chair of the staff department of Svetlahorsk District Executive Committee Uladzimir Kukar wrote a report that while standing out in the street and handing out agitation materials she put near her Milinkevich’s portrait thereby violating the ruling of the executive committee prohibiting to put agitation materials ‘in the places that aren’t set for it’.

In the end of March Svetlahorsk District Court considered this report and ruled to fine the activist 62 000 rubles (about 30 US dollars) for ‘violation of the electoral laws’. On the eve of the trial the administration of the district center of social services made her resign from the position of psychologist. Having under-aged son and daughter student living off her she found no money to pay to the state budget as a fine.

‘The three months since the trial during which one can start exacting a fine are already over. I thought they wouldn’t exact it,’ stated N.Bordak. ‘Then I found at the local employment center where I receive a dole that the fine has been exacted from the dole for three months already. The court marshal explained that the court ruling was directed there in the end of June, several days before the end of the 3-month term. However, I wasn’t informed that the fine was being exacted.’

It is not the first case in Homel regional when the local authorities exact fines secretly. For instance, the public activists A. and K. Tolchyns weren’t even summonsed to the sitting of the administrative committee of Savetski borough of Homel where the administrative case brought against them for ‘violation of the order of distribution of printed editions’ was considered.