The authors of the communications are Oleg Matskevich, Alla Romanchik, Natalya Shchukina, Pavel Levinov, Vladimir Sekerko, Valery Klimov, Viktor Kozlov, Sergei Kosobutski, Aleksandr Protsko, Tatyana Noskova, Leonid Sudalenko, Andrei Strizhak, Vadim Kolodenko, Vasily Kovtun, Andrei Smolenchuk, and Elena Maslyukova, all of whom are nationals of Belarus. They claim that the State party has violated their rights under articles 2, 19 and 21 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 30 December 1992. The authors of communications No. 3172/2018, No. 3295/2019, No. 3299/2019, No. 3675/2019, No. 3760/2020, and No. 3777/2020 are represented by counsel, whereas the others are not represented.
The communications were submitted for consideration before the State party’s denunciation of the Optional Protocol became effective, on 8 February 2023. In accordance with article 12 (2) of the Optional Protocol and the Committee’s previous jurisprudence, the State party continues to be subject to the application of the Optional Protocol with regard to the communications considered herein.4
- For example, Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/72/D/818/1998), para. 10; Lobban v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/80/D/797/1998), para. 11; and Shchiryakova et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/137/D/2911/2016, 3081/2017, 3137/2018 and 3150/2018). ↩
On 17 July 2024, the Committee, pursuant to rule 97 (3) of its rules of procedure and the strategy it adopted at its 140th session aimed at addressing the high number of communications pending consideration,5 decided to join 16 communications (see annex) for consideration and the issuance of a joint decision thereon. Pursuant to the strategy, such decisions, to be adopted in a simplified format, relate to communications in which similar factual elements and claims are raised and for which the Committee has identified the structural nature and policy underlying the violations and has developed consistent jurisprudence over the years.
- A/79/40, para. 22. ↩
Factual background
Between 2014 and 2018, the authors applied to the local executive authorities with requests to hold public events in various cities in Belarus. The author of communication No. 3231/2018 requested permission to hold a one-person picket. Their applications were rejected on the grounds that other events were taking place in the same location at the same time, or because the conditions for organizing public events, established in respective decisions of the local executive authorities, were not met. In particular, the proposed locations were not among those designated in the respective administrative decisions and/or the organizers failed to conclude contracts concerning security services, medical services, and/or cleaning services as required by the Public Events Act. The authors unsuccessfully appealed the decisions of the executive authorities to courts. The authors in communications No. 3128/2018, No. 3295/2019, No. 3299/2019, 3675/2019, No. 3677/2019, No. 3680/2019, No. 3683/2019, and No. 3687/2019, lodged supervisory review appeals with the judicial and/or prosecutorial authorities.6 The authors who had not attempted to file supervisory review appeals refer to the ineffectiveness of those remedies, citing the Committee’s established jurisprudence, as their reason for not doing so.7
Complaint
The author of communication No. 3231/2018 claims that the State party has violated his rights under article 19 read in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and 5 (1) of the Covenant. All other 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.
State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
The State party notes, in all communications, that domestic legislation provides for the possibility to appeal a court ruling concerning an administrative offence to the Chair of a higher court or a prosecutor through a supervisory review procedure. The State party rejects the authors’ assertion that the procedure of supervisory appeal in administrative cases should be considered an ineffective remedy. In cases were the authors appealed to the Chair of a higher court or a prosecutor through a supervisory review procedure, the State party submits, that there is a further possibility to file a supervisory review appeal to the Chair of the Supreme Court and the Prosecutor General, as well as to their deputies.
The State party submits that the provisions guaranteeing freedom of opinion and expression and freedom of assembly, when the exercise of those freedoms does not violate law and order and the rights of other citizens of Belarus, are enshrined in articles 33 and 35 of the Constitution. The organization and holding of public events are regulated by the Public Events Act, which includes provisions setting out the conditions for the exercise of the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens when such events are held in public places, with a view to ensuring public safety and order. Therefore, the State party concludes that the allegations put forward by the authors concerning violations of their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant are unsubstantiated.
Authors’ comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
The authors reject the State party’s assertion about the effectiveness of supervisory review appeals lodged before judicial and prosecutorial authorities. They note that such appeals depend on the discretionary power of a judge or prosecutor and cannot be considered an effective remedy for the purposes of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as recognized by the Committee in its jurisprudence.
The authors reiterate their claims that their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant have been violated. They also note that the State party has not complied with the Committee’s recommendations to bring the Public Events Act into compliance with the State’s obligations under international law.8
- Reference is made, among others, to communications Kirsanov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/110/D/1864/2009), Evzrezov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/114/D/1988/2010), Sudalenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/113/D/1992/2010) and Shumilin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1784/2008). ↩
Issues and proceedings before the Committee
Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communications are admissible under the Optional Protocol. The Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that the authors have failed to seek a supervisory review by the prosecutorial and judicial authorities of the impugned decisions. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which a petition for supervisory review submitted to the chairperson of a court directed against court decisions that have entered into force,9 or to a prosecutor’s office requesting a review of court decisions that have taken effect,10 constitutes an extraordinary remedy and that the State party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case. In the absence of any new information from the State party that would allow the Committee to reach a different conclusion, and given its previous jurisprudence, the Committee considers that for the relevant communications (see para. 2 above), the authors have exhausted all available effective domestic remedies and that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communications.
- Koreshkov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/121/D/2168/2012), para. 7.3. ↩
- Gryk v. Belarus (CCPR/C/136/D/2961/2017), para. 6.3; Tolchin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/135/D/3241/2018), para. 6.3; Shchukina v. Belarus (CCPR/C/134/D/3242/2018), para. 6.3; and Vasilevich et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/137/D/2693/2015, 2898/2016, 3002/2017 and 3084/2017), para. 6.3. ↩
The Committee notes that the authors claim that the State party has violated their rights under articles 19 and 21, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, however, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate those claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares those claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol.
The Committee takes note of the claims made by the same authors that the State party has violated their rights under articles 19 (communication No. 3231/2018), in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and 5 (1), and under articles 19 and 21, read in conjunction with article 2 (2), of the Covenant. The Committee notes that the authors have alleged a violation of their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant resulting from the interpretation and application of the existing laws of the State party. The Committee does not consider the examination of whether the State party has also violated its general obligations under article 2 (2), read in conjunction with articles 19 and 21, and articles 2 (1) and 5 (1) read in conjunction with article 19 (communication No. 3231/2018) of the Covenant to be distinct from an examination of the violation of the authors’ rights under articles 19 and 21,11 and considers that the authors’ claims in this regard are incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant and therefore inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol.
- See for example Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 7.4; Zhukovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/127/D/2724/2016), para. 6.4; and Vasilevich et al. v. Belarus, para. 6.4. ↩
The Committee finds the claims of all the authors under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant to have been sufficiently substantiated, and it proceeds with its consideration of the merits.
The Committee has considered the communications in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee notes 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 in several earlier communications.12 After a careful examination of the factual background and the legal claims of the sixteen communications under consideration, and after considering all of the information made available to it by the parties, the Committee concludes that its previous jurisprudence on the subject is fully applicable to the merits of these claims. In particular, the Committee considers that by refusing to authorize the authors to hold peaceful public events, without assessing the necessity and proportionality of the restrictive measures under the relevant provisions of the Covenant, the State party has violated their rights under article 19 for the author of communication No. 3231/2018, and articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant for the remaining authors.
- Evzrezov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/117/D/2101/2011), para. 8.5, Poliakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/111/D/2030/2011), para. 8.3, Statkevich and Matskevich v. Belarus (CCPR/C/115/D/2133/2011), paras. 9.5 and 9.6. ↩
Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to 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 (see annex). The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. The Committee therefore recommends that the State party ensures that its normative framework, in particular the Public Events Act and the local administrative decisions on organization of public events, as well as their application are 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.
On becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there had been a violation of the Covenant. The communications considered in the present Views were submitted for consideration before the State party’s denunciation of the Optional Protocol became effective, on 8 February 2023. Given that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party.