Claims that do not relate to any private or administrative rights are not admissible under article 14

Facts

The author is a citizen of Belarus and a member of the United Civic Party (an opposition political party in Belarus). In 2014, he stood as a candidate for election to the Regional Council of Deputies for which he had to produce campaign leaflets. The leaflet contained information about his political strategy, criticism of the State party’s authorities and calls to disrupt and cancel the elections. As a result, the printing shop refused to print the leaflet as it contradicted the relevant provisions of the Electoral Code. The author filed a complaint to the Regional Executive Committee which responded by indicating that the content on the leaflet was against the Electoral Code and that this decision could be challenged. The author challenged this decision before the District Court which dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction and found that article 49 – 1 (1) of the Electoral Code was applicable in the author’s case and that there exists a separate complaints procedure for such violations. On appeal to the Regional Court, the decision of the District Court was upheld. Finally, the author’s complaint before the Chair of the Regional Court and the supervisory review were also rejected.

In the present communication, the author is claiming the violation of his rights under articles 14 (1), 19(2), 25 and 26 read in conjunction with articles 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant as the State party failed in its obligation to provide him with access to a competent court.

Admissibility

The Committee was of the view that the claims under article 14 (1) is inadmissible ratione materaie, while referring to its General Comment No. 32, it held that the same cannot be considered as constituting a “suit of law” since they relate to an electoral process and not any private or administrative rights or obligations of the author. Further, while also rejecting the admissibility under articles 19, 25 and 26, the Committee held that the author failed to indicate the complaints procedure established by the Electoral Code was ineffective. Therefore, it was decided that the communication was inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol.