Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Belarus violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of Konstantin Chernov, Aleksandr Karankevich, Elena Kisel, Pavel Kraitsev, Denis Kraitsev, and Elena Kren (the petitioners), by imposing administrative fines and detention penalties for participating in unauthorized peaceful demonstrations. Under Article 23.34 of the Belarusian Code of Administrative Offenses, they were punished for participating in unauthorized public events protesting the presidential decree on “prevention of social dependency.” The petitioners argued that the restrictions imposed on their rights were unnecessary and disproportionate, as they did not threaten public order or the rights of third parties. For its part, Belarus argued that the sanctions were justified to maintain public order and were consistent with Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee argued that the State did not justify the sanctions considering it did not provide evidence that the petitioners’ participation in peaceful assemblies violated public order or national security. The Committee also emphasized that failing to notify beforehand that a demonstration will take place does not justify disproportionate sanctions. Thus, the Committee concluded that the restrictions imposed by the State were neither necessary nor proportionate. Finally, it held that Belarus violated Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant and ordered the State to provide adequate compensation to the petitioners and to review its legislation on public acts to bring it into line with international standards.

---

Facts

Konstantin Chernov, Aleksandr Karankevich, Elena Kisel, Pavel Kraitsev, Denis Kraitsev, and Elena Kren, are Belarusian citizens who were convicted for violating Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which punishes organizing and participating in unauthorized public events in Belarus.

Konstantin Chernov, Elena Kisel, and Elena Kren

On 15 March 2017, Chernov, Kisel, and Kren participated in an unauthorized peaceful demonstration in the city of Mogilev, to protest the presidential decree on the “prevention of social dependency,” which imposed fines on unemployed people.

During the demonstration, Chernov, Kisel, and Kren were detained by the police and spent one night in pre-trial detention. The police drew up administrative reports accusing them of violating Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences.

The following day, on 16 March 2017, the Leninsky District Court in Mogilev found them guilty of violating the Code and imposed fines ranging from 230 to 460 Belarusian roubles—around 35% to 70% of the average monthly salary in Belarus. Chernov, Kisel, and Kren appealed the sanctions to the Mogilev Regional Court, but their appeals were dismissed on 13 April and 4 May 2017.

Aleksandr Karankevich, Pavel Kraitsev, and Denis Kraitsev

On 25 March 2017, Karankevich, Kraitsev, and Kraitsev took part in an unauthorized peaceful demonstration in Minsk—again to protest the aforementioned presidential decree. They were detained by the police and spent two nights in pre-trial detention. They too were charged with violating Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences. On 27 March 2017, the Frunzensky District Court in Minsk found them guilty and imposed fines of 345 Belarusian roubles—equivalent to 53% of the average monthly salary in the country.

Karankevich, Kraitsev, and Kraitsev appealed the fines, but their appeals were rejected by the Minsk City Court on 13 and 17 April 2017.

 

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

In December 2017, Chernov, Karankevich, Kisel, Kraitsev, Kraitsev, and Kren, submitted communications to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC or the Committee) alleging that the sanctions imposed by the State of Belarus violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly—as enshrined in Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR or the Covenant). The petitioners also claimed that the fines were disproportionate, as they amounted to a significant part of their monthly income.

Throughout 2018 and 2019, Belarus submitted its observations to each of the communications lodged before the Committee. It argued that the limitations imposed on the petitioners were lawful under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences. The State also argued that the limitations were necessary and proportionate to protect public order.

On 21 March 2024, the UNHRC decided to join the communications submitted “by [the] six different [petitioners] for a joint decision, in view of substantial factual and legal similarity.” [para. 1.3]

---

Decision Overview

On March 21, 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. It had to decide whether the fines and administrative detentions imposed by Belarus on the petitioners, after participating in peaceful public events, violated their rights to freedom of expression and assembly, under articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

The petitioners argued that Belarus “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.” [para. 3.1] They explained that their actions—participating in peaceful demonstrations against a presidential decree—did not threaten national security, public order, public health or morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. They considered that Belarus’ domestic regulations on public events—requiring prior authorization for public assemblies—did not comply with the international recommendations of the UNHRC itself, the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission), and the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The petitioners concluded, “that both the Law ‘On mass events in the Republic of Belarus’ on its own and its application in their specific cases have resulted in violation of their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.” [para. 5.4]

For its part, Belarus argued that the sanctions imposed on the petitioners were lawful under Article 23.34 of the Code on Administrative Offences—which prohibits organizing and participating in unauthorized public events. In addition, the State asserted that the demonstrations organized by the petitioners did not comply with the legal requirements established for such events, and that these rules were necessary to protect national security, public health, and the rights of other citizens. Belarus considered that the claims made by the petitioners, regarding violations of their rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR, were unsubstantiated.

The UNHRC began by analyzing whether the restrictions imposed on the petitioners were justified under Article 21 of the Covenant (right to peaceful assembly). The Committee explained that the right to peaceful assembly is fundamental to the public expression of opinions and views in a democratic society. Citing the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 37 (2020), the UNHRC said that “given that peaceful assemblies often have expressive functions, and that political speech enjoys particular protection as a form of expression, assemblies with a political message should enjoy a heightened level of accommodation and protection.” [para. 7.4]

The Committee went on to state that peaceful assemblies can take various forms—such as demonstrations, protests, vigils, or marches—and that organizers have the right to choose a location where they can be seen and heard. It also held that “no restriction to this right is permissible, unless it: is imposed in conformity with the law; and is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), protection of public health or morals or protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” [para. 7.4]

The UNHRC highlighted that States must justify any limitation to the right to peaceful assembly, and that “failure to notify the authorities of an upcoming assembly, where required, does not render the act of participation in the assembly unlawful, and must not in itself be used as a basis for dispersing the assembly or arresting the participants or organizers, or for imposing undue sanctions, such as charging the participants or organizers with criminal offences.” [para. 7.5]

Next, the Committee noted that Belarus’ authorities imposed significant fines and administrative detentions against the petitioners for participating in public assemblies. Taking this into consideration, the UNHCR found that “the domestic courts did not provide any justification or explanation as to how, in practice, the [petitioners’] participation in such peaceful assemblies had violated the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others, as set out in article 21 of the Covenant.” [para. 7.6]

Moreover, the Committee underscored that “neither [had] the State party provided any justification for restricting the [petitioners’] rights under article 21 in its submissions before the Committee.” [para. 7.6]. For these reasons, the UNHRC concluded that Belarus violated the petitioners’ right to peaceful assembly, as set in Article 21 of the Covenant.

Subsequently, the Committee had to analyze whether the sanctions imposed by Belarus, against the petitioners, violated their right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Covenant. The UNHRC referred to its General Comment 34 (2011) to emphasize that “freedom of expression is essential for any society and constitutes a foundation stone for every free and democratic society.” [para. 7.8] It further clarified that freedom of expression includes the right to disseminate information and ideas. Nonetheless, the Committee held that the right to freedom of expression can be limited, as long as such interference is prescribed by law and is necessary to respect “the rights or reputation of others,” or “for the protection of national security or public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.” [para. 7.8]

Restrictions on freedom of expression, the UNHRC clarified, should not be overly broad; on the contrary, a limitation of this kind “must be the least intrusive among the measures that might achieve the relevant protective function and proportionate to the interest being protected.” [para. 7.8]

Upon analyzing the specific case, the Committee explained that imposing high monetary fines and administrative detentions raised serious doubts about the necessity and proportionality of such restrictions on freedom of expression. The UNHRC held that Belarus failed to show any compelling reason in favor of the necessity of the measures imposed against the petitioners. Furthermore, it emphasized that “the State party […] failed to demonstrate that the measures selected were the least intrusive in nature or proportionate to the interest that it sought to protect.” [para. 7.9]

For all these reasons, the Committee considered that “in the circumstances of the cases before it, the restrictions imposed on the authors and the imposed sanctions, although based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant.” [para. 7.9] Therefore, the UNHRC concluded that Belarus violated the petitioners’ right to freedom of expression, as laid out in Article 19 of the ICCPR.

The Committee ordered Belarus to take all the appropriate measures to provide the petitioners “with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of the fines and any legal costs incurred by them,” [para. 9] and to avoid similar violations in the future. Finally, it requested Belarus to review its domestic legislation to bring it into line with the obligations outlined in Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

---