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 Vitaly Amelkovich and 20 other petitioners by imposing administrative fines and detention penalties for their participation in unauthorized peaceful protests. The petitioners were prosecuted under Article 23.34 of the Belarusian Code of Administrative Offenses, which penalizes individuals for organizing or participating in public events that have not received prior approval from the authorities. As a result, domestic courts imposed fines and, in some cases, administrative detentions of up to 15 days. The petitioners unsuccessfully appealed their convictions, arguing that the restrictions violated their rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The UNHRC consolidated 21 separate communications into a single decision—a measure aimed at streamlining the handling of cases revealing systematic patterns of human rights violations in Belarus. To the Committee the cases reflected patterns identical to those examined in previous decisions. It emphasized that sanctioning individuals for participating in peaceful demonstrations, even if unauthorized, violated their fundamental rights. The Committee concluded that Belarus violated Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR and ordered the State to provide full reparation to the petitioners, including reimbursement of fines and legal costs and compensation for those subjected to administrative detentions. Additionally, the Committee recommended Belarus to amend its Public Events Act to ensure its compliance with international human rights standards and to prevent future violations of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.

Facts

Petitioners Vitaly Amelkovich, Grigory Kostusev, Oleg Metelitsa, Leonid Kulakov, Anatoly Poplavnyi, Stanislav Pavlinkovich, Kristina Kashitskaya, Larisa Evnevich, Marina Samuseva, Tatiana Sevyarynets, Aleksandr Dubrovskikh, Natalya Strelchenko, Oleg Pavlov, Sergei Stribulski, Sergey Tihanovski, Natalia Troshchenko, Irina Grishchuk, and Ekaterina Timoshenko, all Belarusian citizens, participated in unauthorized peaceful protests in various cities across the country—or made public calls to participate in them—between 2016 and 2020.

As a result, Belarusian authorities detained them and charged them with an administrative offense under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which penalizes violations of the established procedures for holding public events. Local district courts found them guilty and imposed various administrative sanctions—including fines ranging from 216 to 1275 Belarusian Roubles and, in some cases, administrative detentions ranging from 5 to 15 days.

The petitioners unsuccessfully appealed these decisions before appellate courts, arguing that the imposed sanctions violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as protected under articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). However, the appellate courts upheld the lower court decisions.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) determined that it had jurisdiction to examine Vitaly Amelkovich’s communication, and others lodged in light of the same facts, as those were submitted before Belarus’s 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 those communications.

The petitioners argued that Belarus violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. They further emphasized that Belarus failed to comply with the Committee’s previous recommendations to reform its public events legislation to bring it in line with its international human rights obligations.

For its part, Belarus contended that the restrictions imposed on the petitioners were lawful, as the Belarusian Constitution safeguards these rights as long as their exercise does not disrupt public order or infringe upon the rights of others. The State also held that the Public Events Act regulates the organization of public gatherings in public spaces to ensure public safety and order. Consequently, Belarus concluded that the petitioners’ allegations were unfounded.

On July 17, 2024, the UNHRC consolidated 21 communications into a single joint and simplified decision, as part of its strategy to address the high number of pending communications. The Committee justified this consolidation, stating that the submissions “relate[d] 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]

Decision Overview

On October 14, 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Committee examined whether the sanctions imposed by Belarusian authorities on the petitioners, for their participation in unauthorized peaceful protests, violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

The petitioners argued that Belarus violated their rights by penalizing them for engaging in peaceful demonstrations, despite these protests being unauthorized under domestic law. They contended that their participation did not threaten public order or national security and that the imposed sanctions were neither necessary nor proportionate.

In response, Belarus maintained that the restrictions were lawful, citing its domestic legislation on public assemblies, which requires prior authorization for protests. The State argued that the sanctions were justified to maintain public order and were consistent with articles 19(3) and 21 of the ICCPR.

The Committee held 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 a number of earlier communications.” [para. 6.6]

On this point, the Committee noted that the facts of these petitions mirrored the patterns previously examined in cases such as Malei v. Belarus (CCPR/C/129/D/2404/2014); Tolchina et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/132/D/2857/2016); Zavadskaya et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/132/D/2865/2016); and Vasilevich et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/137/D/2693/2015, 2898/2016, 3002/2017 and 3084/2017). [1]

Moreover, the Committee stated that it did not observe any facts, arguments, or legal aspects in the present petitions, that would lead the UNHRC to reach a different reasoning or conclusion on the merits. Thus, the Committee concluded that “that by sanctioning the [petitioners] for participation in peaceful protests, although unauthorized, the State party has violated their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.” [para. 6.6]

As a result, the Committee determined that Belarus violated the petitioners’ right to freedom of expression under Article 19 and the right to peaceful assembly under Article 21 of the ICCPR.

As a remedy, the Committee ordered Belarus to provide full reparations to the petitioners—including reimbursement of the imposed fines and legal costs, as well as compensation for those subjected to administrative detentions. Additionally, the Committee recommended the State party to “revise its normative framework, in particular the Public Events Act, 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.” [para. 7]

[1] In these decisions, the Committee concluded that the restrictions imposed by Belarus on freedom of expression and public assembly did not meet the three-part test, in particular the necessity and proportionality prong. Indeed, in “Tolchina et al. v. Belarus” the Committee held “7.9 The Committee observes that allowing rallies to be held only in certain predetermined locations does not appear to meet the standards of necessity and proportionality set out in article 19 of the Covenant. It notes that, in the present case, neither the State party nor the national courts have provided any explanation as to why the restriction imposed was necessary for a legitimate purpose. The Committee considers that, in the circumstances of the case, the restrictions imposed on the authors, although based on domestic law, were not justified for the purposes of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. In the absence of any further information or explanation by the State party, the Committee concludes that the rights of the authors under article 19 of the Covenant have been violated.”. See: UNHR Comm., Tolchina et al. v. Belarus, para. 7.9 (2022): https://juris.ohchr.org/casedetails/3176/en-US