Statement on the recognition of 15 new political prisoners

Statement by the human rights community of Belarus

January 21, 2024

We, representatives of the human rights community of Belarus, once again note that criminal liability for "incitement of hatred or hostility" under Article 130 of the Criminal Code has been selectively and discriminatorily applied by both the investigators and courts only to protect the state bodies. Moreover, it seems unreasonable to label government officials, police officers, military personnel, etc., as separate social groups under protection in this context.

We insist that it is unacceptable to apply a law aimed to protect government officials, law enforcement officers, and judges from threats in connection with the lawful performance of their duties to punish those citizens who have spoken out in connection with the clear violation of the Constitution and law by state institutions, the involvement of government officials, prosecutors and judges in torture and in creating a climate of impunity for torture and other human rights violations, often showing signs of crimes against humanity.

According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in the determination of any criminal charge against them, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal established by law. 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 to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court 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, and should not, for example, be limited to a certain category of persons. Even in cases where the public is denied access to the hearing, the court decision, including the main conclusions, evidence, and legal arguments, should be made public. The court did not fulfill these requirements in the case of the persons mentioned, which could determine the attitude of human rights defenders to the hearing results.

We are aware of the conviction of:

Viktoryia Veras under articles 130, 342, and 361 of the Criminal Code for inciting other social hatred or hostility, organizing and preparing actions that grossly violate public order, or actively participating in them, and calling for sanctions; she was sentenced to two years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Maksim Chakhouski under Article 130 of the Criminal Code, accused of inciting other social hatred or hostility and sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony;

Henadz Saurytski under Article 130 of the Criminal Code, accused of inciting other social hatred or hostility and sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony;

Aliaksandr Randarenka in a closed session under articles 130 and 130-1 of the Criminal Code, accused of inciting other social hatred or hostility and rehabilitating Nazism for making statements on the Internet; he was sentenced to four years of imprisonment in a penal colony.

We also reiterate our position expressed in the statement of the human rights community that it would be a violation of Paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to refer to treason laws and similar acts concerning national security, professional secrecy, or the fight against subversion, to withhold or conceal from the general public information of legitimate public interest and does not threaten national security, but also to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmentalists, human rights defenders, or others for disseminating such information.

We are aware of the conviction of Aliaksandr Mirski under Article 356 of the Criminal Code in a closed court session on charges of high treason; he was sentenced to seven years and six months of imprisonment in a penal colony.
The authorities unreasonably use detention in the absence of sufficient grounds for using the measure of restraint which restricts personal freedom: as the UN Human Rights Committee notes, "remand in custody on criminal charges must be reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances." “Detention in custody of persons awaiting trial shall be the exception rather than the rule. […] release from such custody may be subject to guarantees of appearance, including appearance for trial, appearance at any other stage of the judicial proceedings and (should occasion arise) appearance for execution of the judgment. This suggestion concerns persons awaiting trial on criminal charges, that is, after the indictment, but a similar requirement, covering the period before the indictment, follows from the prohibition of arbitrary arrest... It should not be the general practice to subject defendants to pretrial detention. Detention should be based on a case-by-case decision that it is justified and necessary, taking into account all the circumstances, for purposes such as preventing escape, interfering with the process of collecting evidence, or recidivism of the crime... The relevant factors should be spelled out in the law and should not contain vague and broad standards such as "public danger"... Pre-trial detention should be applied not on the basis of a possible sentence, but on the basis of determining the need for this measure of restraint."

It is known about the detention of:

Viktoryia Husarava under Article 130 of the Criminal Code on the charge of inciting other social hatred or hostility;

Vitold Shalkevich under articles 391, 130, 342, 369, 368, and 370 of the Criminal Code on charges of insulting a judge, an official, A. Lukashenka, inciting other social hatred or hostility, desecrating state symbols;

Mikalai Yushchanka under articles 368 and 356 of the Criminal Code, accused of high treason and insulting A. Lukashenka;

Pavel Vabishchevich and Aliaksandr Zinenka under articles 289, 365, and 309 of the Criminal Code, accused of an attempted terrorist act, high treason, intentionally damaging communication lines, and illegal actions related to ammunition (the case is being handled in a closed session);

Dzmitry Udovin, Andrei Daroshka, Viachaslau Ilyich, Ihar Kisliak, and Vital Paprotski under articles 130 and 361 of the Criminal Code, accused of inciting other social hatred or hostility and calls for sanctions.

According to the Guidelines on the Definition of Political Prisoners, violence that was provoked by the initial disproportionate use of physical force, means of restraint, and if there was no intent to cause non-symbolic material damage or harm to anyone in the actions of the accused, does not prevent these individuals from being considered political prisoners.

Having studied these criminal prosecution cases, we concluded that all of them are politically motivated.

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:

• 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;

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

We, representatives of the Belarusian human rights community, declare that the further imprisonment of Viktoryia Veras, Maksim Chakhouski, Henadz Saurytski, Aliaksandr Randarenka, Aliaksandr Mirski, Viktoryia Husarava, Vitold Shalkevich, Mikalai Yushchanka, Pavel Vabishchevich, Aliaksandr Zinenka, Dzmitry Udovin, Andrei Daroshka, Viachaslau Ilyich, Ihar Kisliak, Vital Paprotski is politically motivated, and they are political prisoners.

We demand from the Belarusian authorities:

• review the sentences passed against the mentioned political prisoners and the measures of restraint applied while exercising the right to a fair trial and eliminating the factors that affected the labeling 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 sentences, and end political repression against citizens.

Human Rights Center Viasna;

Legal Initiative;

Lawtrend.