Court in Homel evades consideration of police abuse complaint

2014 2014-07-22T14:41:15+0300 2014-07-22T14:41:15+0300 en The Human Rights Center “Viasna” The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
Yury Rubtsou. Photo by Radio Liberty’s Belarus service.

Yury Rubtsou. Photo by Radio Liberty’s Belarus service.

Yury Rubtsou, an opposition activist of Homel, received by mail a ruling by the Maskouski District Court. In his complaint, the activist asked to prosecute the police officers, who on April 26 took his shirt and then brought him to court topless, as well as to oblige the law enforcement to return him his T-shirt reading “Lukashenka, Resign!” and “Arrest me! Why? I am against Lukashenka”. The applicant also requested the court to cancel the food expenses payment he was charged following his release from the detention center in Minsk’s Akrestsin Street – 1.65 million rubles, as the activist was then on hunger strike. “On the first day of my stay in the detention center, I filed an application to the prison head saying that I declared a hunger strike, I did not take food before the expiration of my arrest, respectively, I view the bill as a sign of mockery by the police,” writes Yury Rubtsou in his complaint.

The activist was detained in Minsk on April 26, during the Chernobyl Way protest. The court sentenced him to an arrest of 25 days, during which the activist was on hunger strike. Upon returning home to Homel, he was once again detained by police, and sentenced to another 5 days of prison. After his release, the activist was admitted to hospital in a critical condition.

Defending his rights, the activist earlier appealed to the chief of Minsk’s detention center concerning the bill presented to him. “You were provided with food, which is sufficient for maintaining health and strength to standards established by the Government of Belarus,” said the prison chief.

The response from the Court of Minsk’s Maskouski district says that “this dispute is not within the jurisdiction of the court, in connection with which the applicant should be refused a right to initiate proceedings due to lack of the right to appeal to the court”.