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 Vitaliy Gulyak by imposing administrative fines for his participation in an unauthorized single-person picket and denying authorization to organize assemblies without proper justification. The Belarusian authorities rejected Gulyak’s requests for approval to hold street processions in favor of Ukraine’s membership in the European Union, claiming it was not permissible under the Public Events Act. In addition, national courts imposed fines against Gulyak for staging a solo picket against the russian troops’ deployment in Ukraine. Gulyak argued that Belarus violated his rights under articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). On the other hand, Belarus argued that the restrictions were necessary to ensure public safety and order. The Committee held that Belarus failed to demonstrate how Gulyak’s actions violated public order or justified the imposed sanctions. It 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. As a remedy, the UNHRC ordered Belarus to provide full reparations to Gulyak, including reimbursement of fines and legal costs. Furthermore, it noted that the case reflected patterns identical to those examined in previous decisions and, thus, recommended the State to review its normative framework on public events to ensure its compliance with international human rights standards.

 

---

Facts

Vitaliy Gulyak submitted two requests—in January and February 2014—to the Volkovysk District Executive Committee for authorizations to hold street processions in a city park in favor of Ukraine’s membership in the European Union. Both were rejected by the authorities on the grounds that they did not comply with the Public Events Act. The first one was rejected on the understanding that the city park could not be a permissible venue for a street procession, according to the definitions provided in such legislation—since street processions were defined as organized mass movements of a group of citizens along a street, boulevard, avenue, or square. In the second case, authorities denied authorization because Gulyak did not provide information on the list of measures to ensure public order, safety, medical services, and the cleaning of the location after the event.

Gulyak challenged the refusals before the Volkovysk District Court, arguing they constituted a violation of his right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. On 19 March 2014, the District Court rejected the complaint. To it, the decisions conformed with domestic legislation. Consequently, Gulyak submitted a cassation appeal before the Grodno Regional Court, then a supervisory review procedure before the Chair of the Grodno Regional Court, and another supervisory review appeal before the Chair of the Supreme Court of Belarus. All of them were rejected. On 12 December 2014, the Supreme Court rejected his appeal, considering it was unfounded.

On 13 March 2014, Gulyak held a solo picket in Volkovysk, protesting the Russian troops’ deployment in Ukraine. According to Gulyak, he did not apply for authorization as the city authorities had already refused his prior requests on two occasions.

Belarus authorities charged him with violating the established procedure for conducting public events—an administrative offence under Article 23.34 (1) of the Code of Administrative Offences. On 17 March 2014, the Volkovysk District Court ordered him to pay an administrative fine of 1.3 million Belarusian roubles (approximately 130 United States dollars at the time). Gulyak challenged the decision before the Grodno Regional Court, complaining that it constituted an unnecessary limitation on his right to freedom of expression and assembly—as his actions did not pose a threat to national security, public order, health and morals, or the rights and interests of others. The Grodno Regional Court rejected it. Gulyak further appealed before the Grodno Regional Court and the Supreme Court. Both appeals were rejected.

 

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

On 12 March 2015, Gulyak submitted a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) arguing that Belarus violated his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly enshrined in articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as he was denied authorization to organize peaceful assemblies and was fined for holding a peaceful single-person picket. He explained that domestic courts and authorities relied solely on the provisions of domestic legislation and disregarded their compatibility with the ICCPR, and that they did not consider whether the restrictions on his rights were necessary or justified.

For its part, Belarus argued that its domestic legislation was aimed at creating conditions for the exercise of constitutional rights and freedoms, as well as at ensuring public safety and order during mass events. It claimed that its legislation did not contradict the ICCPR. According to Belarus, the Covenant allows States to introduce restrictions on these rights and freedoms as long as they are necessary to protect national security, public safety, public order, public health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others.

---

Decision Overview

On March 12, 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. The central issue before the UNHRC was whether the sanctions imposed by Belarusian authorities on the petitioner for his participation in an unauthorized single-person picket, as well as the refusals to issue authorizations for holding a protest, violated his right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

The petitioner argued that Belarus violated his right to freedom of expression by denying authorizations to organize peaceful assemblies and penalizing him for engaging in a peaceful demonstration that consisted of a single-person picket. He contended that the restrictions were unnecessary, noting that neither the city authorities nor the courts analyzed whether the restrictions on his rights were justified.  Moreover, he argued that domestic courts relied solely on national legislation and disregarded its incompatibility with articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.

In response, Belarus maintained that Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences did comply with international standards, that the restrictions were necessary to ensure public safety and order, and that articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR allow restrictions as long as they are necessary in a democratic society and in the interest of national security or public safety, public order, the protection of public health or morals or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

At the outset of its analysis, the Committee recalled that the right to peaceful assembly “is a fundamental human right, essential for public expression of an individual’s views and opinions and indispensable in a democratic society.” [para. 7.5] Citing the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 37 (2020), the UNHRC held that Article 21 of the ICCPR protects peaceful assembly regardless of where it takes place —whether in public or private spaces, outdoors, indoors, or online—and encompasses various forms (protests, marches, vigils, or spontaneous gatherings).

The Committee explained that protests’ organizers generally have the right to hold assemblies within sight and sound of their intended audience. Furthermore, it held that any restrictions to the aforementioned right must be lawful, necessary in a democratic society, and pursue legitimate aims such as “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. 7.5] It added that States have a duty to facilitate this right, not to impose unnecessary or disproportionate limitations, and they carry the burden of justifying any restriction under Article 21 of the Covenant.

Subsequently, upon studying the specific case, the UNHRC held that “that neither the Executive Committee nor the domestic courts have provided any justification or explanation as to how, in practice, the petitioner’s public events would have 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] Additionally, it highlighted that the State party failed to show that any alternative measures were taken to facilitate the exercise of the petitioner’s right to peaceful assembly. Based on this, the Committee concluded there Belarus violated the petitioner’s rights under Article 21 of the ICCPR.

Regarding Article 19 of the ICCPR, the Committee recalled its General Comment No. 34 (2011), which stated “that the freedom of expression was essential for any society and constituted a foundation stone for every free and democratic society.” [para. 7.9] The UNHRC 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.

Furthermore, the Committee explained that any restriction on freedom of expression must be narrowly tailored and should be the least intrusive alternative available. It also held that States bear the burden of proving that any restrictions on the petitioner’s rights, under Article 19 of the Covenant, were both necessary and proportionate.

Considering this, the Committee noted that limiting a public assembly to certain predetermined locations did not appear to meet the standards of necessity and proportionality set out in Article 19 of the ICCPR. On this point, the Committee argued that Belarus “failed to invoke any specific grounds to support the necessity of the restrictions imposed on the petitioner as required under article 19  of the Covenant.” [para. 7.10] Moreover, the UNHRC considered that the State party failed to demonstrate that the measures selected were the least intrusive available. Thus, it concluded that the sanctions and limitations imposed on the petitioner, although based on domestic law, were not justified. Consequently, the Committee said that Belarus violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression.

As a remedy, the UNHRC recommended Belarus to provide the petitioner with adequate compensation— including reimbursement of the fine imposed on him and any legal costs incurred. Additionally, it said that the State had the obligation to take all the steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future, especially noting that the Committee has dealt with similar cases regarding Belarus. Thus, the UNHRC reiterated that the defendant “should revise its normative framework on public events” to ensure “that the rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant may be fully enjoyed in the State party.” [para. 9]

---