ICCPR Case Digest


Submission: 2014.02.10

View Adopted: 2021.07.23

Sazonov v Belarus

A man’s freedom of expression was violated following his having displayed posters in public as a form of protest.

Substantive Issues
  • Freedom of association
  • Freedom of expression
Relevant Articles
  • Article 14.1
  • Article 26
Full Text

    A PHP Error was encountered

    Severity: Warning

    Message: foreach() argument must be of type array|object, string given

    Filename: page/specific_decision.php

    Line Number: 93


    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/application/views/page/specific_decision.php
    Line: 93
    Function: _error_handler

    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/application/views/template/page.php
    Line: 184
    Function: view

    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/application/controllers/Page.php
    Line: 750
    Function: view

    File: /home/clients/641f76aad230025e6bdb2354aa60f8fe/sites/ccprcentre-main-website/index.php
    Line: 315
    Function: require_once


Author is a Belarussian national. On the 64th anniversary of the UDHR, he and others displayed portraits of Ales Belyatsky in the city of Grodno. Photos of the author and others holding the portraits were uploaded online. The author was arrested for and convicted of organising an unlicensed public event. No witnesses other than police were called at the trial, and the police did not witness the events. Author complains of violations of articles 2(1) and (3), 14(1), 19, and 26 of the Convention.


The Committee recognised that the author failed to substantiate claims under articles 14(1) in conjunction with article 2(1) and (3) and article 26. This aspect of the communication was thus deemed inadmissible. Nonetheless, the committee deemed the claim under article 19 to be substantiated and thus admissible.


The Committee found that the State Party failed to invoke any grounds under which they were authorised to restrict the freedom of expression, as required by article 19 (3). Further, the State Party failed to demonstrate that the restrictions were proportionate and the minimum restrictions required to achieve a permitted objective. As such, a violation of the author’s rights under article 19 occurred.


​The State party is obligated, inter alia, to provide the author with adequate compensation, including to reimburse the fine and any legal costs incurred by the author in relation to the domestic proceedings. 

The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future, in particular by reviewing its national legislation on public events and the implementation thereof in order to make it compatible with its obligations under article 2 (2) to adopt measures able to give effect to the rights recognized by article 19.

The State Party is to communicate with the Committee within 180 days concerning the measures it has taken following the Committee’s decision.

By Justin Golden

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese