ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/138/D/2579/2015-3234-2018

Communication

2579/2015-3234-2018

Submission: 2014.08.20

View Adopted: 2023.07.07

Andrey Strizhak et al. v. Belarus

Refusal of local authorities to organize peaceful authorities in Belarus

Substantive Issues
  • Freedom of expression
  • Right of peaceful assembly
Relevant Articles
  • Article 19
  • Article 2 - OP1
  • Article 2.2
  • Article 2.3
  • Article 21
  • Article 5.2 (b) - OP1
Full Text

Facts

The authors of the communications are nationals of Belarus who filed applications with their respective authorities for organizing peaceful assemblies in the cities of Rechisa and Gosmel. However, all their applications were rejected by the local authorities and the appeals before various courts were also unsuccessful. The reason for the rejection was cited to be non-adherence with the Public Events Act and previous decisions of the Executive Committee.

The authors have filed the present communication claiming the violation of their rights under articles 19 and 21 read in conjunction with articles 2 (2) and (3) of the Covenant. They submit that neither the local authorities nor the courts assessed whether the limitations imposed on their rights by the previous decisions of the Executive committee were justified on the grounds of national security, public safety, and public order. They also contend that those decisions which confine all mass events to a few remote locations in the two cities unduly restrict their exercise of rights under articles 19 and 21.

Admissibility

Contrary to the argument by the State party on the non-exhaustion of local remedies by the author, the Committee was of the view that there were no effective remedies left for the authors to avail and therefore they had exhausted their domestic remedies. However, the Committee found the authors’ claims incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant and thus inadmissible. The Committee on the other hand found the parts of the communication claiming violation under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant to be sufficiently substantiated for admissibility.

Merits

The Committee was of the view that the executive committee’s previous decisions did not justify and demonstrate how peaceful events held in the locations proposed by the authors would jeopardize national security, public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. It noted that the de facto prohibition imposed by those decisions of holding an assembly in any public location in the entire city, with the exception of two remote locations in Rechitsa and three remote locations in Gomel, unduly limits the right of assembly and the freedom of expression. In conclusion, the Committee held that the State party violated the authors’ rights under articles 19 and 21.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated to:

a) Provide the authors with adequate compensation for the violation suffered;

b) Prevent similar violations from occurring in the future and revise its normative framework, in particular, its Public Events Act, consistent with its obligation under article 2 (2), to ensure that the rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant may be fully enjoyed in the State party

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 7 January 2024

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese