Communication
3173/2018
Submission: 2017.12.29
View Adopted: 2024.03.21
The authors of the communications are six nationals of Belarus. The authors of communications No. 3140/2018, 3151/2018 and 3173/2018 participated in an unauthorized peaceful demonstration to protest a Presidential Decree on Prevention of Social Dependency. They were apprehended by police, spent a night in pre-trial detention, and were found guilty of administrative offences and sanctioned to fines between 230 and 460 roubles. According to the national statistics agency, the fines amount to approximately 35-70% of the average monthly salary in the State party. The authors of communications No. 3147/2018, 3169/2018, and 3170/2018 likewise participated in an unauthorized peaceful demonstration, spent two nights in pre-trial detention, were found guilty of administrative offences, and were sanctioned to fines in the amount of 345 roubles each. The authors’ appeals were unsuccessful.
All authors claim that the State party has violated their rights under articles 19 and 21, read in conjunction with article 2 (2) and (3), of the Covenant by imposing unnecessary limitations on their freedoms of expression and assembly. In addition, all authors claim that the domestic courts were not impartial and fair while adjudicating their cases, and failed to apply provisions of the Covenant, in violation of article 14 (1), read in conjunction with article 2 (2) and (3), of the Covenant.
The Committee considered that the authors’ claims under articles 19 and 21 were admissible because they were sufficiently substantiated. However, because the authors had already alleged a violation of their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, the Committee did not consider an examination of whether the State party had violated its general obligations under article 2 (2), read in conjunction with articles 19 and 21, to be distinct from its examination of the violation of the authors’ rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. The authors claims under articles 14 (1), 19 and 21 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (2), were therefore inadmissible. The Committee considered that the authors’ claims under articles 14 (1), 19 and 21 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), were inadmissible because the authors had failed to substantiate those claims for the purposes of admissibility.
The Committee considered that the restrictions and sanctions imposed on the authors, although based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Sentencing the authors to heavy administrative fines for participation in peaceful meetings with an expressive purpose raised serious doubts as to the necessity and proportionality of the restrictions on the authors’ rights under article 19 of the Covenant. The State party also failed to demonstrate that the measures selected were the least intrusive in nature or proportionate to the interest being protected. As a result, the Committee concluded that the authors’ rights under article 19 had been violated.
The Committee concluded that the State party’s domestic courts did not provide any justification or explanation as to how, in practice, the authors’ participation in such peaceful assemblies had violated the interests of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. The State party also did not provide any justification for restricting the authors’ rights under article 21 in its submissions before the Committee. Therefore, the Committee concluded that the State party had violated the authors’ rights under article 21 of the Covenant.
The State party should, inter alia:
Deadline for implementation: 21 September 2024
