Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians regrets over Belarusian Parliament's formal replies on disappearances of Hanchar and Krasouski

At its 134th session held in Geneva on 4-7 July, the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians of the Inter-Parliamentary Union adopted a decision on the case of Viktar Hanchar's disappearance, reiterating its wish to ascertain the views and response of the authorities on a number of questions.

Considering the letter from the Chairman of the Committee on National Security, dated 23 June 2011, the Committee notes that "apart from the fact that the investigation has been extended to 24 September 2011, the letter contains no new information, in particular no response or observation on the specific questions and considerations raised in the Governing Council’s resolution of April 2011 and previous decisions and resolutions, and only reiterates that various lines of investigation have been pursued, that no details regarding the investigation may be disclosed before the closure of the investigation, that the House  of  Representatives  does  not  have  supervisory authority  over  the  Prosecutor  General’s  Office, which precludes any possibility of studying the case material under investigation by that Office."

In its decision, the Committee "thanks the Chairperson of the Standing Committees on National Security for his letter; deeply regrets, however, that it is merely a formal reply and does not in any way take into account the IPU’s considerations and requests for information", including the following questions:
    (i)  Why does  parliament not question President Lukashenko about the statements he made regarding the reasons behind the disappearance of Mr. Gonchar and
Mr. Krasvosky, as it would be entitled to do?  
    (ii)  How  could  information  released  by  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  lead  to  an  undue disclosure of information?  By shrouding the investigation in secrecy, isthere not a risk of fuelling suspicion that the authorities are unwilling to establish the truth?
    (iv)  Why  has  the  Prosecutor  General’s  Office  so  far  failed  to  respond  to Mr. Lebedko’s  application  for  an  investigation  of  the  allegations  made  in  the
Russian documentary “Krestny Batka” on disappearances in Belarus?  
    (v)  Why are no documents or other evidence produced to sustain the assertion of the  authorities  that  they  have  convincingly  refuted  the  Pourgourides  report,
which is based on information provided by the Belarusian authorities initially in charge of investigating the disappearance;

The Committee "sincerely  hopes  that  the  authorities  will  finally  seriously  take  into  account  its considerations  and  requests  for  information  so  as  to facilitate  more  substantive dialogue and cooperation;

It also decided  "to  continue  examining  this  case  at  its  next  session,  to  be  held  during  the 125th IPU  Assembly  (October  2011),  when  it  hopes  to  meet  with  the  Belarusian delegation."