Violation of the rights of a women fined for participating in an unsanctioned peaceful meeting

Facts

The author of the communication is N. Shchukina, a Belarussian national. She was brought before court, charged with administrative fines for participating in peaceful rallies, and convicted for the organization of a meeting in relation to two separate incidents. The author claims a violation of her rights under articles 19 and 21, read in conjunction with articles 2 (2) and 2 (3) of the Covenant, on the grounds that the authorities failed to explain why the restrictions imposed on her right to hold peaceful rallies were necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, protection of public health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others, as required under article 19 (3) and the second line of article 21 of the Covenant. She also claims that she was unlawfully detained for 44 hours while exercising her rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, in violation of her rights under article 9 of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol on exhaustion of domestic remedies from examining the communication in relation to the author’s claims under articles 19 and 21, read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant. Concerning the alleged violations of article 9 of the Covenant, the Committee notes that the materials on file do not demonstrate that the author has raised these claims in any of the domestic proceedings against her and considers this part of the author’s claim inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol. Lastly, the Committee does not consider the examination of whether the State party has also violated its general obligations under article 2 (2), read in conjunction with articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, to be distinct from the examination of the violation of the author’s rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.

Merits

The State authorities failed to explain why the restrictions imposed on the author’s rights for participating in rallies were necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health, morals or the rights and freedoms of others. The Committee considers that the restrictions imposed on the author, although based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant and thus constitutes a violation of such right. The Committee also notes that the domestic courts did not provide any justification or explanation as to how the author’s protests violated the interests of national security or public safety as set out in article 21 of the Covenant. The Committee concludes that the State party has violated the author’s rights under article 21 of the Covenant.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to provide the author with adequate compensation, including reimbursing the fines and any legal costs incurred by the author, at both the domestic and international levels. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In that connection, the Committee notes that it has dealt with similar cases in respect of the same laws and practices of the State party in a number of earlier communications and thus the State party should revise its normative framework on public events, consistent with its obligation under article 2 (2), with a view to ensuring that the rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant may be fully enjoyed in the State party.

By: Irene Aparicio 

Implementation

Deadline: 24 October 2022