Violation of the right to freedom of assembly by imposing a fine for breaching the procedure for a public event

Facts

The author of the communication is a Belarusian national and the deputy head of the Conservative Christian Party. In 2014, the Party requested the Minsk City authorities to authorize holding demonstrations and a rally on 2 November and 9 November. All the events were authorized and the event organizers were to coordinate on issues relating to public order during the events and to pay for the relevant services. The author claimed that this did not include information on the procedure for contracts with relevant authorities, and therefore did not take measures to conclude contracts. In a meeting with the authorities, he verbally discussed public safety measures. After the events were conducted,  after requesting for information on payment for the public security services, the author was charged with a breach of the established procedure for conducting public events and was ordered to pay fines up to 4.5 million and 3.75 million rubles. The author claims that the State party violated his rights under article 21 (right to peaceful assembly) of the Covenant by imposing these administrative sanctions on him.

Admissibility

The State party submitted that the author had not exhausted all available domestic remedies as he did not appeal against the decision, while the author claimed that the supervisory review procedure was not an effective remedy as it depended solely on the discretion of the judge and was done in the absence of the party concerned. The Committee noted that as the supervisory review depended on discretion, the State party had to show a reasonable prospect for it to be an effective remedy. As the State party did not provide information on this, it noted that it was not precluded from addressing the communication. It however rejected the author’s claim that the courts were not independent and impartial due to lack of information. It considered the remaining claim sufficiently substantiated and admissible.

Merits

The Committee noted that in its General Comment 37 on the right to peaceful assembly, restrictions were allowed only if imposed in conformity with the law and were necessary in a democratic society In the interests of national security or public safety, public order, protection of public health, morals or rights and freedoms of others. States were required to facilitate the right rather than seek unnecessary, disproportionate limitations. Requirements for organizers to contribute towards the cost of policing or security was not compatible with article 21. The Committee noted that the security measures were discussed in detail. The State party had not provided any justification on whether the sanctions were necessary and proportionate to its aims under article 21. Therefore, it concluded that the State party had violated the author’s rights under article 21.

Recommendations

The State Party, in furtherance of its obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, is obligated, inter alia:

(a) To provide adequate compensation to the author, including reimbursement of fines and legal costs incurred;

(b) To prevent similar violations from occurring in the future; and

(c) To revise its normative framework on public events, consistent with article 2(2) of the Covenant, with a view to ensuring the rights under article 21 are enjoyed fully.

Implementation

Deadline: 8 January 2023

By: Smrithi Ramakrishnan