Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that Belarus violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of sixteen Belarusian citizens who, between 2014 and 2018, had requested authorization to hold peaceful public gatherings, including pickets and individual demonstrations. Local executive authorities rejected all applications on the grounds that they did not comply with the Public Events Act, and national courts upheld these administrative decisions. The petitioners argued before the UNHRC that, in practice, the Public Events Act functioned as a prohibitive barrier that prevented them from expressing their opinions and assembling peacefully in public spaces. Belarus responded that the law served to maintain public order and that the restrictions were legal and legitimate. The UN HRC examined the sixteen petitions jointly, noting that they reflected similar factual patterns and were part of a structural and repeated practice in Belarus in relation to restrictions on public gatherings. The Committee recalled its consistent jurisprudence finding violations in comparable cases involving the same legal framework. It concluded that Belarus had failed to assess whether the restrictions were necessary and proportionate and had violated Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Committee therefore ordered Belarus to provide effective redress, including reimbursement of fines and legal costs, and urged the State to review its domestic regulatory framework, in particular the Law on Public Events and related administrative practices, in order to ensure full protection of the rights guaranteed in articles 19 and 21.

Facts

The petitioners are sixteen citizens of Belarus* who, between 2014 and 2018, requested authorization from local executive authorities to organize various public events in different cities across the country, including individual pickets and peaceful demonstrations. In each case, the requests were rejected by the authorities on the grounds that the proposed locations were not among those specifically designated for public gatherings under local administrative decisions, or because the petitioners had not entered into mandatory contracts for security, medical assistance, and cleaning services, as required by the Law on Public Events. 

One of them had requested authorization to hold an individual picket, which was also denied on the basis of the same requirements regarding location and contracting of mandatory services.

Following the administrative rejections, the petitioners filed appeals with national courts, arguing that the refusal violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The courts upheld the decisions of the local authorities, holding that the organization of public events must strictly comply with the formal requirements set forth in domestic law. 

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

Subsequently, the petitioners filed individual communications with the UN Human Rights Committee, alleging violations of their rights protected by Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, due to the impossibility of exercising their right to express opinions in public spaces and to assemble peacefully.

For its part, Belarus argued that the Law on Public Events was intended to ensure public safety and order, and that the formal requirements imposed did not constitute undue restrictions, but rather legitimate limitations provided for by domestic law.

On July 17, 2024, the Committee “decided to join 16 communications 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.” [para. 1.3] 

*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

Decision Overview

On March 20, 2025, the UN Human Rights Committee had to decide whether the state’s refusal to authorize peaceful public events—under the Public Events Act and local administrative decisions—violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly protected by Articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.

The petitioners argued before the Committee that the systematic refusal to authorize pickets and peaceful gatherings prevented them from expressing their opinions and participating in demonstrations in public spaces, which constituted an unjustified restriction on their rights protected by articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant. They argued that the formal requirements set forth in national legislation operated, in practice, as obstacles that made it impossible to exercise their freedoms of expression and assembly. In turn, the State of Belarus responded that the Law on Public Events and local administrative decisions were intended to ensure public safety and order, and that the requirements for authorization and contracting of services were not undue restrictions, but legitimate limitations established by domestic law.

The Committee explained 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”, citing cases decided by the Committee itself Evzrezov v. Belarus, Poliakov v. Belarus, and Matskevich v. Belarus.

For instance, in the case of Matskevich v. Belarus, the Committee had established that “the right to peaceful assembly, as set in the ICCPR, is fundamental to the public expression of opinions and views in a democratic society. Referring to the Committee’s General Comment No. 37 of 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.” Furthermore, in that decision, the Committee concluded that “Belarus only argued that the right to freedom of expression could be limited by a domestic law. Noting this, the Committee found that the State did not refute the petitioner’s argument that his participation in the peaceful assembly did not violate public order or health or affect the rights of others. In turn, the Committee emphasized that Belarus did not allege specific reasons that justified the administrative detention of the petitioner, nor did it demonstrate that the measures used were the least intrusive to the right to freedom of expression.”

On that basis, relying on its established jurisprudence on the same regulatory framework and practices in Belarus, the Committee concluded that this doctrine was “fully applicable” to the case. [para. 7] Next, after reviewing the factual background and the positions of the parties in the 16 communications, the Committee held that “by refusing to authorize the petitioners 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 petitioners.” [para. 7]

For these reasons, the Committee concluded that there had been a violation of Articles 19 (and 21 only for communication No. 3231/2018) and ordered Belarus to provide an effective remedy, including reimbursement of the updated value of the fines and costs incurred by the petitioners in domestic proceedings. In addition, it provided guarantees of non-repetition, recommending that the State “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 (…) articles 19 and 21” of the Covenant. [para. 8]