Extremism charges considered a violation of freedom of expression

Facts

The author of the communication is a national of Belarus who shared a link on his social media network profile to an article entitled “Idiocy and fake honor to the victims of war in a capital city gymnasium”. This article caught the attention of the authorities who summoned the author to the police station and charged him with dissemination of informational products included in the State List of Extremist Materials. As a result, the Central District Court found the author guilty and fined him with 230 rubles. The author requested an individual assessment of his case and how it is a potential threat to national security, however, this appeal was rejected. The author has filed the present communication without applying for the supervisory review or the Supreme Court stating that they are not effective remedies.

The author has filed the present communication claiming violation of his rights under articles 2 (2) and 3 read in conjunction with articles 19 (2) and (3) of the Covenant on the grounds that the State party failed to show how in his case the sanction imposed were necessary and in line with the legitimate aims set out as per article 19 (3).

Admissibility

Contrary to the submissions of the State, the Committee was of the opinion that an application for the supervisory review of the Court’s decision depends on the discretion of the judge, which is not an effective remedy and therefore considered the communication admissible. However, the claim under article 2 (2) was rendered inadmissible as a communication under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim. On the other hand, the Committee found the claims under article 19 to be sufficiently substantiated for the purpose of admissibility.

Merits

The Committee noted that the court decisions made no individualized assessment of the author’s case and did not provide any explanation as to why the conviction and fine imposed on him were necessary and the least intrusive among the measures which might achieve the relevant protective function. It therefore considered the author’s right to freedom of expression under article 19 (2) of the Covenant has been violated.

Recommendations

Recommendations:

a) State party to reimburse the fine and any legal costs incurred by the author;

b) To prevent any further similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 10 April 2024