Leonid Svetik v. Belarus

The author of the communication is Mr. Leonid Svetik, a Belarusian national born in 1965. He claims to be a victim of violations by Belarus of his rights under articles 14, paragraph 3 (g), and 19, of the Covenant. The author is not represented by counsel.

The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 30 December 1992.

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Human Rights Committee must, in accordance with rule 87 of its rules of procedure, decide whether or not the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant. 6.2 The Committee notes that the same matter is not being examined under any other international procedure and that available domestic remedies have been exhausted. The conditions set forth in paragraphs 2 (a) and (b) of article 5 of the Optional Protocol are therefore satisfied. The Committee has noted the author’s claim under article 14, paragraph 3 (g), of the Covenant, relating to the alleged psychological pressure by the District Court judge to have him confess. The Committee notes the State party’s explanation that its competent authorities proceeded to a verification which concluded that the judge exercised no pressure. The author contends that he was unaware of this verification, and provides a written statement of a co-accused affirming that the author was threatened by the District Court judge to confess guilt. However, the Committee notes from the submissions before it that, when examining the author’s appeal arguments, the regional court concluded that the author’s guilt was proven not only on the basis of his confession in court, but also on the basis of his deposition made to the prosecution, and since his name and title appeared in the newspaper’s article. Consequently, the Committee notes that the author’s allegation relates primarily to an evaluation of facts and evidence in the case. It recalls that it is generally for the courts of States parties to the Covenant to review facts and evidence in a particular case, unless it can be shown that the evaluation of evidence was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a denial of justice, or that the court otherwise violated its obligation of independence and impartiality. The information before the Committee does not provide substantiation for a conclusion that decisions of the district and regional courts suffered from such defects. Accordingly, this part of the communication is inadmissible pursuant to article 2 of the Optional Protocol. As far the author’s allegation under article 19, paragraph 2 of the Covenant is concerned, the Committee takes note of the State party’s argument that appropriate changes to the electoral law have been made and that the administrative penalty imposed upon the author entail to no consequences. However, the State party has not refuted the author’s contention that he had to pay the fine in question. Accordingly, neither subsequent modifications to the law nor absence of any legal continuing consequences of the sanction imposed on him deprive him of the status of “victim” in the present case. The Committee considers that this part of the communication has been sufficiently substantiated for purposes of admissibility and decides to proceed to its examination on the merits.

The Human Rights Committee, acting under article 5, paragraph 4, of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 19, paragraph 2, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In accordance with article 2, paragraph 3 (a), of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including compensation amounting to a sum not less than the present value of the fine and any legal costs paid by the author¹⁰. The State party is also under an obligation to prevent similar violations in the future.

10. For the proposed remedy, see Communication No. 780/1997, Laptsevich v. Belarus, Views dated 13 April 2000. ↩

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant or not and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory or subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy in case a violation has been established, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 90 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee's Views. The State party is also requested to publish the Committee's Views. [Done in English, French and Spanish, the English text being the original version. Subsequently to be issued in Arabic, Chinese and Russian as part of the Committee’s annual report to the General Assembly.]