Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that Belarus violated the right to freedom of expression of independent journalist Dmitry Lupach by imposing administrative sanctions against him for publishing journalistic content on foreign websites without prior accreditation. Lupach was repeatedly fined between 255 and 480 euros for allegedly violating Article 22.9(2) of the Belarusian Code of Administrative Offenses, which penalizes journalists for working without accreditation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Belarus argued that the imposed restrictions complied with Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Committee reaffirmed its jurisdiction over the case as the communication was submitted before Belarus’ denunciation of the Optional Protocol became effective. Furthermore, given the high number of pending cases concerning similar issues, the Committee consolidated 20 communications into a single decision, recognizing the structural and systemic nature of the violations at hand. Furthermore, the UNHRC explained that the facts of this petition reflected patterns identical to those examined in previous decisions. The Committee concluded that Belarus violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression by sanctioning him for publishing media materials on foreign websites without being accredited in Belarus as a foreign journalist. Consequently, the Committee ruled that Belarus violated Article 19 of the ICCPR. It ordered the State to provide an effective remedy—including the reimbursement of fines and legal costs paid by Lupach. Additionally, the Committee urged Belarus to amend its media legislation to ensure compliance with international human rights standards and prevent future violations of freedom of expression.

Facts

Petitioner Dmitry Lupach is an independent journalist in Belarus. Between 2017 and 2021, he conducted interviews on various topics and published audio and video recordings on different online media platforms. On each occasion, Belarusian national courts found him guilty of illegally producing and distributing media products and of working as a journalist for a foreign media outlet without the required accreditation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs—in violation of Media Law No. 427-Z of July 17, 2008. As a result, he was subjected to multiple fines ranging between 255 and 480 euros.

Lupach unsuccessfully appealed the first-instance court decisions before regional courts, arguing that his right to freedom of expression had been violated.

On November 7, 2018, Dmitry Lupach submitted a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), alleging that Belarus had violated his right to freedom of expression, as protected by Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

Belarus, in turn, argued that the restrictions imposed on freedom of expression complied with Article 19(3) of the ICCPR, as national law requires prior accreditation for journalists working for foreign media outlets.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

The UNHRC determined that it had jurisdiction to examine Lupach’s communication, as it was submitted before Belarus’ denunciation of the Optional Protocol took effect on February 8, 2023. Based on this premise, the Committee concluded that Belarus remained subject to the application of the Optional Protocol concerning the present communication.

On July 17, 2024, given the high number of pending communications, the Committee decided to consolidate 20 communications into a joint and simplified decision, as they ” relate to communications raising similar factual elements and claims, and for which the Committee has identified the underpinning structural and policy nature of the violations and developed a consistent jurisprudence over the years.” [para. 1.3]

According to the UNHRC, these communications, including Lupach’s, denounced recurring patterns of violations of freedom of expression in Belarus—particularly, the imposition of administrative sanctions against independent journalists for operating without State accreditation.

Decision Overview

In its decision of July 17, 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Committee examined whether the sanctions imposed against Dmitry Lupach—for publishing journalistic content on foreign websites without prior State accreditation—violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

The petitioner argued that Belarus violated his right to freedom of expression by fining him for publishing journalistic content on foreign websites without accreditation as a foreign journalist in the country. He claimed that these actions infringed upon his rights under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

Belarus, in turn, contended that the imposed restrictions were prescribed by national law, necessary to protect public order, and in compliance with the requirements outlined in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR. The State asserted that the petitioner’s allegations did not amount to a violation of Article 19 of the Covenant.

The UNHRC held that “it has found a violation of article 19 (2) of the Covenant in similar cases in respect of the same laws and practices of the State party in a number of earlier communications.” [para. 6.2] Furthermore, the Committee noted that the facts of this petition mirrored the patterns previously examined in Shchiryakova et al. v. Belarus (CCPR /C/137/DR/2911/2016)—a case it had previously decided. In Shchiryakova the Committee cited general comment No. 34 (2011) to underline that “general State systems of registration or licensing of journalists are incompatible with article 19 (3) of the Covenant,” except in instances where limited schemes are necessary to grant journalists special access to restricted locations or events. [Shchiryakova et al. v. Belarus, para. 7.4]

Accordingly, the Committee analyzed the case in light of its prior jurisprudence and recalled that it had repeatedly found similar violations of Article 19(2) of the ICCPR due to Belarus’ application of the same laws and practices. [1]

Thus, the UNHRC concluded that “by sanctioning the author for posting media materials on foreign websites without being accredited in Belarus as a foreign journalist, the State party violated his rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant.” [para. 6.2]

As a result, the Committee determined that Belarus violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression under Article 19(2) of the ICCPR. It ordered the State to provide an effective remedy to Lupach—including reimbursement of the fines and legal costs paid by the petitioner—, and to take measures to prevent similar violations in the future. Additionally, the Committee recommended Belarus to review its legal framework (particularly the Media Law) to ensure full compliance with the rights enshrined in Article 19 of the ICCPR.

[1] In these decisions, the Committee concluded that the restrictions imposed by Belarus on freedom of expression did not meet the three-part test, in particular the necessity and proportionality prong. Indeed, in “Shchiryakova” the Committee held: “The Committee considers that the restriction imposed on the authors, which was manifested, on one hand, in the requirement to obtain accreditation from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and, on the other hand, in sanctions imposed on the authors for carrying out their professional activities without such accreditation, was indeed based on domestic law. However, neither the State party nor the domestic courts have provided any explanations as to how such restrictions were justified pursuant to the conditions of necessity and proportionality as set out in article 19 (3) of the Covenant, and whether the penalties imposed (i.e. the administrative fines), even if based on law, were necessary and proportionate and in compliance with any of the legitimate purposes listed in the mentioned provisions. The Committee therefore concludes that the authors’ rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant have been violated“. See: UNHR Comm., Shchiryakova et al. v. Belarus, CCPR /C/137/DR/2911/2016 (2023), para. 7.4:

https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F137%2FD%2F2911%2F2016%2C%20CCPR%2FC%2F137%2FD%2F3081%2F2017&Lang=en