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."
