Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that Belarus violated Grygory Gryk’s right to freedom of expression, under Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), by imposing an administrative fine for participating in a peaceful one-person picket in support of a presidential candidate. Gryk was found guilty under Article 23.34 of the Belarusian Code of Administrative Offences for holding the protest without prior authorization. He argued that the penalty was unnecessary and disproportionate, as his actions posed no threat to public order, national security, or the rights of others. Belarus defended the fine, stating that its regulations on public gatherings were lawful and necessary to maintain public order. The Committee held that Belarus failed to demonstrate how Gryk’s actions violated public order or justified the imposed sanction. The UNHRC emphasized that domestic authorities did not provide specific grounds to justify the necessity of the restriction or prove that the fine was the least intrusive measure available. Consequently, the Committee held that Belarus violated Article 19 of the ICCPR. The UNHRC ordered Belarus to provide Gryk with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of the fine and legal costs. It also called on the State to review its domestic legislation to comply with international human rights standards and prevent future violations.

Facts

Grygory Gryk is a citizen of Belarus who was sanctioned for participating in a peaceful protest without authorisation. On 20 September 2015, the team of presidential candidate Tatyana Korotkevich filed a notification with the Executive Committee of the City of Baranovichi, stating that Gryk would hold a one-person picket in the city park, located on Komsomolskaya Street, in support of Korotkevich’s candidacy in the presidential elections.

On 27 September 2015, at 2:20 p.m., Gryk carried out the picket, holding a photograph of the candidate with a text reflecting her campaign promises. On 7 October 2015, the police drew up a report against him for allegedly violating the procedure for organising and holding public meetings, under Article 23.34 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences.

On 28 October 2015, the Baranovichi District Court held that Gryk organised and carried out a picket without authorisation, in violation of the Public Events Act. The court found him guilty of an administrative offence, under article 23.34 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences, and imposed a fine of 4,500,000 Belarusian rubles (equivalent to $259). Gryk appealed the decision on 28 November 2015 before the Brest Regional Court, which rejected his appeal on 23 December 2015. He subsequently filed requests for review with the President of the Brest Regional Court and the President of the Supreme Court of Belarus, which were dismissed on 2 March and 13 July 2016, respectively.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

On 30 January 2017, Gryk submitted a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) claiming that the penalty imposed on him for exercising his rights to express his opinion and protest peacefully violated articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). He also argued that the authorities did not justify the necessity of the restriction or its proportionality in relation to the protection of public order or national security.

On 20 April 2017, Belarus submitted its observations to the UNHRC in response to Gryk’s communication. The State maintained that the fine imposed against him followed the law since Gryk had been convicted of violating the Public Events Act and Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences. In addition, Belarus asserted that the restrictions on protests outlined in its legislation were necessary and proportionate to guarantee public order and security.

Decision Overview

On 6 December 2022, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. The central issue before the UNHRC was whether the administrative fine imposed on Grygory Gryk for participating in a one-person picket violated his right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the ICCPR.

The petitioner argued that Belarus violated his rights under Article 19 of the ICCPR by imposing an unnecessary restriction on his freedom of expression. He explained that his participation in a peaceful picket, holding a photo of a presidential candidate in a public park, posed no threat to national security, public order, public health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Moreover, he argued that national authorities failed to justify the necessity of the sanction imposed against him.

Belarus, for its part, contended that the fine was lawful under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences, which sanctions unauthorized public gatherings. Belarus explained that its regulations were necessary to maintain public order and protect national security.

The Committee began its analysis by reaffirming the fundamental nature of freedom of expression in democratic societies—following its General Comment No. 34 (2011), which states that “freedom of expression is essential for any society and constitutes a foundation stone for every free and democratic society.” [para. 7.3] It noted that any restriction to this right must comply with the conditions set out in Article 19(3) of the ICCPR: (i) it must be provided by law, (ii) it must serve a legitimate purpose, and (iii) it must be necessary and proportionate.

Upon reviewing the facts, the UNHRC considered that the fine imposed on Gryk for peacefully expressing his political support raised serious concerns about the necessity and proportionality of the restriction. On this point, the Committee underscored that Belarusian authorities “failed to invoke any specific grounds to support the necessity of such restrictions and the sanction imposed, as required under article 19 (3) of the Covenant.” [para. 7.4] It further highlighted that “the State party also failed to demonstrate that the measures selected were the least intrusive in nature or were proportionate to the interest that it sought to protect.” [para. 7.4] Consequently, the UNHRC held that the restrictions imposed on Gryk’s freedom of expression were not justified under Article 19(3) of the ICCPR and that Belarus had violated the aforementioned right.

In light of the above, the Committee ordered the State to “provide the author with adequate compensation, including to reimburse the fines and any legal costs incurred by him.” [para. 9] Moreover, it also urged Belarus to review its domestic legislation on public events to ensure compliance with international human rights standards on freedom of expression and prevent future violations.