The UN Committee recognized violations of the rights of 13 people by the Belarusian state
On July 17, 2024, the UN Human Rights Committee decided on the 21st communication submitted by 13 citizens of the Republic of Belarus for examination under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The complaints were prepared by both the victims themselves and their representatives — Belarusian human rights defenders — before the denunciation of the Optional Protocol by the Belarusian state entered into force on February 8, 2024. One of the decisions was made on communication No. 3826/2020, submitted by human rights defender Aleh Matskevich on behalf of citizen of the Republic of Belarus Aliaksandr Abramovich.
All the considered communications relate to the violation by the Belarusian State of the right of citizens to peaceful assembly and freedom of opinion. The complaints were sent to the Human Rights Committee (HRC) with reference to Articles 2, 19, and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
"In accordance with the rules of procedure and practice, the committee decided to combine all communications for a joint decision. Such decisions can be made in a simplified way and relate to complaints that are united by similar facts and claims, and the HRC has developed a consistent methodology for consideration of such complaints," Aleh Matskevich explains the decision.
What did Belarusians write complaints about?
According to the data received by the HRC, between 2016 and 2020, the authors of the communications participated or publicly called for participation in unauthorized peaceful protests in different cities of Belarus. Subsequently, all of them were detained by the police and accused of violating Article 23.34 of the Administrative Code, which stipulates responsibility for violating the established procedure for holding mass events (the previous Administrative Code was in force from 03/01/2007 to 03/01/2021).
The authors were fined and detained for a period of five to ten days. The complaints filed against the decisions of the courts of original jurisdiction did not bring results.
"Supervisory complaints were not filed by anyone due to the ineffectiveness of this remedy, which the complainants pointed out in their communications to the UN Human Rights Committee," the human rights defender says.
According to Aleh Matskevich, in communication with the HRC, the Republic of Belarus denied the validity of the submitted communication, referring to the norms of the Constitution and legislation on mass events. It also objected to the authors' claim that it was impossible to effectively protect violated rights through the use of a supervisory complaints mechanism, but, as follows from the text of the decisions, in no way supported its remarks with specific facts.
What decision did the Committee make?
Before deciding on the complaints, the committee examined their admissibility. The HRC noted that, according to its practice, a supervisory complaint filed with the Chairperson of the court or the prosecutor constitutes an extraordinary remedy, therefore the state must prove that there is a reasonable prospect that such a mechanism is an effective remedy. In the absence of new information from the state that would allow the Committee to reach a conclusion different from its previous practice, it considers that the authors have exhausted all available effective domestic remedies and there are no obstacles to examining the essence of the communications.
Meanwhile, the Committee recognized the unacceptability of those parts of the communications alleging a violation by the Republic of Belarus of Article 2 (2,3) of the ICCPR. The reasons for this were the lack of additional information on the case and the fact that the examination of communications on violations of rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR should take place separately without reference to a violation of the general obligations of the State under Article 2 of the Covenant.
Based on the results of its consideration of the communications, the Committee noted that it had repeatedly previously found a violation by the State of Belarus of the rights stipulated in Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, previously in similar circumstances and with respect to the same laws and practices. In the context or in the legal requirements of the complaints examined, the HRC found nothing that could lead it to a different conclusion on their essence. The Committee therefore considered that the punishment of the authors for participating in peaceful protests, although unauthorized, was a violation of their rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.
What should the Belarusian state do now?
The Committee decided that Belarus should provide the authors with effective remedies in the form of full compensation to persons whose rights had been violated. Accordingly, the Republic of Belarus is obliged to take appropriate measures to reimburse the cost of fines and any legal costs incurred by the authors in connection with the proceedings against them. In addition, the Republic of Belarus must take all necessary measures to prevent such violations in the future. To this end, the Committee recommends that the national regulatory framework be reviewed in accordance with Article 2 (2) of the ICCPR so that the rights enshrined in Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant can be exercised fully.
At the same time, the committee noted that it would like to receive information from the Republic of Belarus within 180 days on the measures taken to fulfill the Committee's Opinions. The Republic of Belarus is also invited to publish Opinions and ensure their wide dissemination in the official languages of the state.
