Procuracy explains to Taisa Danilevich that teachers can have political convictions

2010 2010-03-03T04:46:52+0200 1970-01-01T03:00:00+0300 en The Human Rights Center “Viasna” The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
The Human Rights Center “Viasna”

M.Plinkevich, acting prosecutor of the Minsk oblast, answered the complain lodged by Natallia Illinich, a teacher from the secondary school in Talka, concerning politically motivated harassment from the side of Taisa Danilevich, Chairperson of the Minsk oblast education bureau.

In his answer the prosecutor confirms that teachers were summonsed to T.Danilevich for ‘conversations’, but states that ‘Danilevich T.I. didn’t demand from You and other teachers and defectologist to leave the party or dismiss from work and didn’t give any orders’.

At the same time, the official states that ‘T.Danilevich was summonsed to the prosecutor’s office with the aim to prevent violations of the present legislation and the constitutional and labor rights of citizens of citizens were explained to her, including the right to opinion and the right to association in the form of political parties.’

This is followed by an unexpected conclusion: as far as no violations of the present legislations were found in the actions of the duty officials of the education bureau of the Minsk city executive committee, there are no reasons to take any measures of prosecutorial reaction. On one side, the procuracy held a prophylactic talk with Taisa Danilevich, whereas on the other one she allegedly didn’t commit any abuses for which she could be punished.

A similar answer was given by the prosecutor’s office by Ales Yazvinski, one of the six teachers who had been summoned for a talk with T.Danilevich on 15 January 2010. All of them were members of political parties and she demanded that they either quit or leave the parties.

Human rights defender Valiantsin Stefanovich believes that the prosecutorial check-up was superficial and the procuracy didn’t take into consideration all peculiarities of Natallia Illinich’s complaint that were important for giving a legal evaluation of the duty officials of the education bureau of the Minsk oblast executive committee.

For instance, from decision of the procuracy it follows that only T.Danilevich and her deputies A.Semianchuk and L.Malets were questioned within the frames of the check-up, whereas N.Illinich and other teachers who had been summoned to the talk were not. Besides, nobody questioned the heads of the district education departments who escorted the teachers to Danilevich’s office. These people were also present during the conversation, but officers of the procuracy ‘forgot’ to take their explanations.

Moreover, the procuracy states that the reason for summoning the teachers by Danilevich was ‘insufficient level of work’, saying nothing about the party affiliation of the summoned people. All these circumstances witness the superficial approach of the procuracy to the check-up.

That’s why a complaint to the General Procuracy was prepared. The authors demand that the decision of the Minsk oblast procuracy of 19 February 2010 be abolished, appropriate measures of prosecutorial reaction be taken and the people guilty of violating the constitutional rights of Natallia Iliinich be brought to legal account.