Violation of freedom of expression following the unjustified State refusal to hold a single-person picket

Facts

The author is a national of Belarus who sought permission from local authorities to hold a picket in Baranovichi to “mark the sixty-sixth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights”. The author’s request was rejected on the basis that the author had not fulfilled the requirements for making medical and cleaning arrangements for the event. The author submitted that he had fulfilled all the mentioned requirements and had annexed the contracts with the service providers. The author then challenged the refusal decision in courts up to the Supreme Court and filed supervisory review appeals with the Prosecutor General’s Office. However, all his complaints were dismissed. The author claimed that the State party had violated his rights under article 19 (freedom of expression) and article 21 (freedom of assembly) of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee noted that the author had exhausted all available domestic remedies, including those that constituted supervisory review proceedings. Accordingly, the claims under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant were admissible.

Merits

The Committee noted that neither the local authorities nor the domestic courts had provided any justification or explanation as to how the author’s picket would have violated the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set out in article 21 of the Covenant. The State party also failed to show that any alternative measures were taken to facilitate the exercise of the author’s rights under article 21.

The Committee further noted that neither the State party nor the national courts provided any explanation as to why the restriction imposed was necessary for a legitimate purpose, the least intrusive among the measures that might achieve the relevant protective function and proportionate to the interest being protected. The Committee considered that the restrictions imposed on the author, although based on domestic law, were not justified for the purposes of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Therefore, there was a violation of the author’s rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.

Recommendations

The State party should:

(a) take appropriate steps to provide the author with adequate compensation;

(b) take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future;

(c) 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.

Implementation

Deadline: 27 January 2023

By: Anna Gorodetskaya