Violation of the freedom of assembly and expression by imposing a fine for participating in an unsanctioned peaceful meeting

Facts

The author of the communication is a Belarusian national. In May 2016, he participated in an unauthorized protest voicing his discontent on the city’s refusal to provide a venue for a trade union meeting. A police record was later filed against him for violating the procedure to organize and conduct a public meeting. After the Court’s ruling, the author was ordered to pay a fine of 6,300,000 roubles. The author claims a violation of his rights under articles 19 (right to freedom of expression) and 21 (right of peaceful assembly) of the Covenant, in conjunction with articles 2(2) and (3) (legal framework and right to an effective remedy) on the ground that the authorities failed to explain why the restrictions imposed were necessary in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, protection of public health or morals, rights or freedoms of others.

Admissibility

The State party submitted that the author had not appealed the decision of the district court under the supervisory procedure and therefore failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies. The author, however, claimed that the supervisory review was a discretionary process and was not an effective remedy. The Committee agreed with the author and stated that the State party must show a reasonable prospect for it to be an effective remedy. Due to absence of explanation by the State party in this regard, it noted that it was not precluded from addressing the communication. While noting that the author’s claims under articles 19 and 21 were sufficiently substantiated and admissible, it noted that it was therefore not necessary to consider a further claim regarding the State party’s general obligations under article 2, or of the aforementioned articles in conjunction with article 2.

Merits

The Committee recalled that no restriction on article 21 was permissible unless imposed in conformity with the law and is necessary, in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, protection of public health or morals, rights or freedoms of others. It noted that the State party did not provide any justification or explanation as to how the protests violated any of the aforementioned criteria. Therefore, it concluded that the State party violated the author’s rights under article 21. The Committee noted that sentencing the author for a peaceful meeting raises serious doubts as to the necessity and proportionality of the restrictions. As the State party failed to invoke specific grounds or demonstrate that it was the least intrusive measure and was proportionate to the protected interest, it concluded that the State party violated article 19 as well.

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 articles 19 and 21 are enjoyed fully.

Implementation

Deadline: 18 April 2023

More information on the case:

Front Line Defenders – Gennady Fedynich and Igor Komlik sentenced

International Trade Union Confederation – Belarus: Two Union Leaders Sentenced Despite Lack of Proof

By: Smrithi Ramakrishnan