The statement on the recognition of 15 people as political prisoners

Joint statement of the human rights coalition

June 19, 2024

We, representatives of the human rights community of Belarus, note:

- the authorities abuse criminal law and apply excessively harsh measures of responsibility to protesters and dissidents for committing actions that did not entail serious consequences, often having obvious features of being provoked artificially. In particular, categorizing of actions as terrorism initially does not correspond to the content, in accordance with international standards, of this concept in accordance with the Statement of the human rights community of October 18, 2022. At the same time, violations of the principles of fair justice, including the presumption of innocence and the right to protection, guarantees specified in international law for minors and persons against whom detention is used, worsen the arbitrary nature of persecution

- detention in the absence of sufficient grounds for the application of a preventive measure restricting personal freedom contrary to the position of the UN Human Rights Committee based on the norms of international law, which has become a common practice in modern Belarus; in accordance with the Statement of the human rights community of September 6, 2021, this factor is the basis for the requirement to review the procedural decisions and measures taken against them while respecting the right to a fair trial;

- all or part of the public may be excluded from a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the proceedings should be open to the general public, including representatives of the media; even in cases where the public is denied access to the trial, the court decision, including the main conclusions, evidence, and legal arguments, should be made public. Violation of this rule, in accordance with the position set out in the Statement of the human rights community dated December 22, 2021, gives grounds to demand a review of the verdict while eliminating the factors that influenced it;

- criminal charges for incitement of "other social hatred or discord" (Article 130 of the Criminal Code) has been selectively and discriminatorily applied by both the investigators and courts exclusively to protect the institutions of power. Moreover, it seems unreasonable to label representatives of the authorities, police officers, civil servants, military personnel, etc. as separate social groups falling under protection in this context;

- the description of Article 356 of the Criminal Code (treason to the state) is formulated vaguely, and it allows for a broad interpretation, which from 2020 in practice entails arbitrary conviction of citizens who did not threaten national security in the sense attached to this concept in democratic states; in this regard, the state has the obligation to prove the public danger of the act with strict compliance with procedural guarantees;

- disproportionate brutal actions of the police aimed at suppressing peaceful assemblies cannot be considered as a legitimate activity for the protection and preservation of public order, and in cases of violence used by protesters who were provoked by the same police officers, these actions should be considered based on the severity of the injury and intent to cause such harm, as well as seen as justifiable or necessary defense carried out to protect oneself from clearly unlawful actions of law enforcement officers who had followed unlawful orders (necessary defense, extreme necessity).

In this regard, it should be recalled that any permissible limitations imposed on fundamental rights and freedoms must be "necessary in a democratic society". Therefore, restrictions must be necessary and proportionate in a society based on democracy, the rule of law, political pluralism, and human rights. They must also be the least restrictive of those that could provide an appropriate protective function. Otherwise, state intervention, including in the form of criminal prosecution for violations of national law, would constitute a violation of human rights.

Thus, human rights defenders are aware of the conviction of:

Aliaksei Navahrodski in a closed court session on the territory of a correctional institution under Part 1 of Article 356 of the Criminal Code (treason to the state) to imprisonment in a penal colony;

Yauhen Hurynovich in a closed court session on the territory of a correctional institution under Articles 361-1 (creation of an extremist formation or participation in it), Article 130 (incitement of hatred or hostility), Article 356 (treason to the state), Article 352 (unlawful possession of computer information), Article 203-1 (illegal actions with respect to information about private life and personal data), Articles 361-4 of the Criminal Code (promotion of extremist activities) to imprisonment in a penal colony;

Yauhen Blakhinski under Part 1 of Article 293 of the Criminal Code (organization of mass riots), Article 342 (organization and preparation of actions grossly violating public order), Article 368 (insulting Lukashenka), Article 130 of the Criminal Code (inciting hatred or hostility) for comments on the Internet to seven years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Andrei Kobel in a closed court session under Part 1 of Article 356 of the Criminal Code (treason to the state) to nine years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Tomasz Biaroza, a citizen of the Republic of Poland, in a closed court session under Articles 358 (espionage), 358-1 of the Criminal Code (agent activity) to imprisonment in a penal colony;

Dzianis Zhaliazko in a closed court session under Part 1 of Article 130 (incitement of other social hatred or hostility), Article 188 (defamation), Part 3 of Article 203-1 (illegal actions with respect to information about private life and personal data); Part 1 of Article 342 (organization and preparation of actions grossly violating public order, or active participation in them); Part 1 and Part 2 of Articles 361-4 (assistance to extremist activities); Part 2 of Article 367 (slander against Lukashenka), Part 1 of Article 368 (insulting Lukashenka); Article 369 (insulting a representative of the government); Article 369-1 of the Criminal Code (discrediting the Republic of Belarus);

Alena Ramanauskiene in a closed court session under Article 358-1 of the Criminal Code (agent activity) to six years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Anatol Kireichyk in a closed court session under Article 188 (slander), Article 369 of the Criminal Code (insulting a representative of authorities), Article 391 (insulting a judge or a people's assessor), and Part 2 of Article 295 of the Criminal Code (for illegal possession of ammunition) to three years and six months of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Artur Radzivanovich under Part 1 of Article 13 and Part 1 of Article 361-3 of the Criminal Code (participation in an armed formation or armed conflict on the territory of a foreign state, military operations, recruitment or training of persons for such participation) for intending to join a Belarusian volunteer unit as part of the Armed Forces of Ukraine; he was sentenced to two years and 6 months of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Andrei Shulhanau under Article 368 (insulting Lukashenka), Article 130 of the Criminal Code (incitement to hatred or hostility) to two years and 6 months of imprisonment in a penal colony;

as well as the prolonged detention of Eduard Kashetsian, Uladzimir Alisievich, Andrei Valakhanovich under Part 3 of Article 130 (incitement to hatred or hostility), Article 369-1 (discrediting the Republic of Belarus), Part 3 of Article 130-1 (rehabilitation of Nazism), Part 1 of Article 342 of the Criminal Code (organization and preparation of actions grossly violating public order, or active participation in them), Part 1 of Article 368 (insulting Lukashenka).

It is also known about the conviction of Yahor Ibrahimau under Article 364 (violence or threat of violence against an employee of the internal affairs bodies), Article 342 of the Criminal Code (organization and preparation of actions grossly violating public order, or active participation in them) for participating in peaceful protests and resisting their brutal dispersal by law enforcement agencies; he was sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony;

Dzmitry Kushalevich under Part 1 of Article 366 (violence or threat of violence against an official performing official duties, another person performing a public duty), Part 2 of Article 367 (slander against Lukashenka), Part 2 of Article 368 of the Criminal Code (insulting Lukashenka) for critical comments on the Internet; he was sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony.

Court proceedings against all the accused were held with gross violations of the principles of fair trial and the procedural rights of the defendants: the court failed to ensure impartiality and independence; the court ignored the defendants’ allegations of violations, torture, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment; the court was unable to secure the adversarial proceedings and impartial assessment of the evidence.

In evaluating all of these criminal prosecution cases, we see a political motive in the prosecution of the defendants. We believe that the procedural measures and court decisions were made for political reasons in violation of the fundamental principles of fair justice.

We emphasize once again that the nature of the acts of the accused was the outcome of numerous and widespread human rights violations by the authorities, the lack of freedom of expression, and caused by the lack of investigation of crimes against peaceful protesters and other victims of cruel treatment and torture, disappointment with the authorities’ reluctance to use the force of law to protect citizens’ violated rights, lack of a fair trial and conditions for a democratic and constitutional change of government in fair elections.

We once again remind that hearing politically motivated criminal cases in closed or effectively closed court sessions, in the absence of the public, observers, and independent press, in an environment of intolerance towards the activities of human rights organizations, defenders, and independent journalists, grossly violates the procedural rights of the accused and critically undermines the assessment of the authenticity, sufficiency, and admissibility of any evidence of the accusation. The gross violation of the presumption of innocence also discredits the judicial process.

According to the Guidelines on the Definition of Political Prisoners, a person deprived of liberty is to be regarded as a political prisoner, if at least one of the following criteria is observed:

1. a) the detention has been imposed in violation of the right to a fair trial, other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

2. d) the person has been detained in a discriminatory manner as compared to other persons.

We, representatives of the Belarusian human rights community, declare the recognition of Aliaksei Navahrodski, Yauhen Hurynovich, Yauhen Blakhinski, Andrei Kobel, Tomasz Biaroza, Dzianis Zhaliazko, Alena Ramanauskiene, Anatol Kireichyk, Artur Radzivanovich, Andrei Shulhanau, Eduard Kashetsian, Uladzimir Alisievich, Andrei Valakhanovich, Yahor Ibrahimau, Dzmitry Kushalevich as political prisoners. We demand from the Belarusian authorities:

• review the sentences passed against the mentioned political prisoners while exercising the right to a fair trial and eliminating the factors that affected the categorizing of actions, the type and severity of punishment;

• release the mentioned political prisoners by taking other measures to ensure their appearance in court;

• immediately release all political prisoners, review politically motivated preventive measures and sentences, and end political repression against citizens.

Human Rights Center Viasna;

Office for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;

PEN Belarus;

Legal initiative.