Detention and fines for participation in unauthorized peaceful protests

Facts

Compilation of 21 Belarus cases concerning freedom of expression and peaceful assembly between 2019 and 2021. 

The authors are nationals of Belarus and participated in, or called for participation in, unauthorized peaceful protests between 2016 and 2020. They were apprehended and charged with an administrative offence, and were sentenced by district courts to administrative fines or short-term detention ranging from 5 to 15 days. Their appeals to higher courts were unsuccessful. The authors have not attempted to lodge further supervisory review appeals.

All authors contend that the State party has violated their rights under articles 19 (freedom of expression) and 21 (right of peaceful assembly) of the Covenant. The authors of communications No. 3690/2019, No. 3831/2020, No. 3839/2020, No. 3840/2020, No. 3841/2020, No. 3897/2021, No. 3898/2021, No. 3935/2021, No. 3946/2021, No. 3974/2021, No. 3979/2021 and No. 4054/2021 also 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. In his comments to the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits, the author of communication 3974/2021 raised a new claim under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, alleging arbitrary deprivation of liberty for participation in a peaceful protest. Finally, the authors of communications No. 3690/2019, No. 3831/2020, No. 3840/2020 and No. 3841/2020 claim that the State party has violated their rights under article 14 (1), on the right to fair trial and equality before the courts, read in conjunction with article 2 (2) and (3), of the Covenant.

Admissibility

The Committee considered that the claims of all authors under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant are admissible. Contrary to the State party’s argument that the authors had failed to seek a supervisory review, the Committee recalled its jurisprudence that such review constitutes an extraordinary remedy, and the State party must show that there was a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy. In the absence of new information from the State party, and recalling prior jurisprudence, the Committee considered that the authors had exhausted all available domestic remedies.

The authors’ claims were inadmissible insofar as they alleged a violation under articles 19 and 21, read in conjunction with article  2 (3), and a violation of article  14 (1), read in conjunction with article  2 (3). In the absence of further information, the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate those claims. In addition, the Committee considered that the authors’ claims alleging a violation of articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article  2 (2), were inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee noted that the authors had alleged a violation of their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, and the Committee does not consider the examination of whether the State party has already violated its general obligations under article 2 (2), read in conjunction with articles 19 and 21, to be distinct from an examination of the violation of the authors’ rights under articles 19 and 21.

Finally, the new claim raised by the author of communication No. 3974/2021 was inadmissible as an abuse of the right of submission under article 3 of the Optional Protocol, because the author has not explained why the new claim could not have been raised in his initial submission.

Merits

The Committee considered that the State party had violated the rights of the authors under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant by sanctioning the authors for their participation in unauthorized peaceful protests. The Committee noted that it has found a violation of articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant in similar cases, in respect of the same laws and practices of the State party. There was nothing in the facts or legal claims of these communications that would lead the Committee to a different view regarding the merits of the authors claims.

Recommendations

The State party should, inter alia:

• (a) make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated;
• (b) take appropriate steps to reimburse the current value of the fines and any legal costs incurred by the authors in relation to the domestic proceedings against them, as well as to compensate the authors who were subject to administrative arrest, the amount commensurate with the time spent in detention;
• (c) take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future; and
• (d) revise its normative framework, in particular the Public Events Act, consistent with its obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, with a view to ensuring that the rights under articles 19 and 21 may be fully enjoyed in the State party.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 7 May 2025