Broad restrictions on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly

Facts

The author of the communication is a national of Belarus. In December 2010, the author participated in a peaceful demonstration of solidarity with fellow citizens who had earlier been arrested during the protest action in Minsk against the results of the 2010 presidential election. According to the author, he and the other participants were taken to a detention center by police officers where they were charged with holding an unauthorized mass event in violation of the domestic Code of Administrative Offences. The author was presented before the District Court 69 hours after his detention, where he was sentenced to 10-day administrative detention. Thereafter, the author lodged a request for a supervisory review with the Supreme Court of Belarus, which annulled the lower court’s decision and remanded the case back to the District Court. The District Court once again found the author in violation of the Code and sentenced him to another 10-day detention.

The author submitted the present communication claiming violation of his rights under articles 9 (3), 10, 14 (1), 19 and 21 of the Covenant the grounds that the conditions that he was kept in were inhumane, the authorities failed to justify such excessive period of detention and the domestic court was impartial in reviewing his case.

Admissibility

The Committee found the author’s claims under articles 9 (3), 19 and 21 were duly substantiated. It observed the State party did not provide any information on the effectiveness of the domestic remedy available and that the 10-day detention penalty was aimed at sanctioning the author for his actions and serving as a deterrent for future similar offences – objectives analogous to the general goal of criminal law.

Merits

The Committee found that the domestic courts did not provide any justification as to how the author’s participation in the peaceful assembly had violated the interests of national security or public safety, and public order. Neither did the State provide information to show that the sanction imposed was the least intrusive one or proportionate, hence violating article 21 on the right to peaceful assembly. Regarding article 19 on the limitation on the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly being broad and disproportionate, the Committee observed that the State party failed to contest the author’s assertion that his actions did not harm the rights or reputations of others, disclose State secrets or infringe upon public order or health. Finally, concerning article 9 (3) violations, the Committee held that 48 hours is ordinarily sufficient to prepare an individual for the judicial hearing and any delay must remain exceptional and be justified under the circumstances. The Committee further noted that the State party also did not even provide any information on the existence of exceptional circumstances in the present case to justify a delay. In conclusion, the Committee found the State party in violation of articles 9 (3), 19 and 21.

Recommendations

The State party was directed to: a) Provide the author with adequate compensation including reimbursement of any legal costs incurred by the author; b) To prevent any further similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 24 April 2024