Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Belarus violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The case concerned individuals who faced fines or detention for participating in peaceful protests without prior government approval. In this decision, the Committee consolidated 21 separate communications into a joint ruling, a measure aimed at streamlining the handling of cases that revealed systemic patterns of human rights violations in Belarus. It found that penalizing individuals for engaging in peaceful protests, even if unauthorized, was an unjustified restriction on fundamental freedoms. The Committee emphasized that these violations were part of a recurring issue in Belarus, as documented in previous cases. The Committee concluded that Belarus must compensate the affected individuals, annul the fines, and cover legal costs. Additionally, it urged the country to reform its laws to comply with international human rights standards and prevent future violations.

Facts

The petitioners, Leonid Kulakov and twenty other Belarusian citizens, participated in unauthorized peaceful protests or publicly called for participation in such protests between 2016 and 2020. As a result, Belarusian authorities detained and charged them under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which penalizes violations of the procedures for organizing or participating in public events.

Local district courts found the petitioners guilty and imposed administrative sanctions, including fines ranging from 196 to 1225 Belarusian Rubles and, in some cases, administrative detention ranging from 5 to 15 days. The petitioners appealed the decisions, arguing that the imposed sanctions violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. However, the appellate courts upheld the lower courts’ decisions.

The petitioners subsequently submitted communications to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC), alleging that Belarus had violated their rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and that the restrictions imposed on them were not justified under Article 19 (freedom of expression) and Article 21 (right of peaceful assembly) of the ICCPR.

On July 17, 2024, the UNHRC consolidated 21 similar communications into a single decision, noting that the cases raised identical factual and legal issues. The Committee stated that it “has identified the underpinning structural and policy nature of the violations and developed consistent jurisprudence over the years” concerning such violations. [para. 1.3] It confirmed its jurisdiction over the communications, as they were submitted before Belarus’s denunciation of the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR took effect on February 8, 2023.

The 21 consolidated communications include Nos. 3672/2019, 3673/2019, 3682/2019, 3691/2019, 3692/2019, 3694/2019, 3695/2019, 3738/2020, 3745/2020, 3746/2020, 3747/2020, 3748/2020, 3749/2020, 3753/2020, 3763/2020, 3765/2020, 3801/2020, 3820/2020, 3823/2020, 3826/2020, and 3830/2020.

Decision Overview

The United Nations Human Rights Committee delivered a decision finding that Belarus violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly under Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The main issue before the Committee was whether the sanctions imposed on the petitioners for participating in unauthorized peaceful protests constituted a violation of their rights under the ICCPR.

The petitioners argued that Belarus violated their rights by penalizing them for engaging in peaceful demonstrations, even though the protests lacked prior authorization under domestic law. They contended that their actions did not threaten public order or national security and that the sanctions imposed were disproportionate and unjustified. Additionally, they highlighted Belarus’s failure to implement the Committee’s prior recommendations to reform its public events legislation to align with international human rights standards.

Belarus, in response, defended the sanctions as lawful under its domestic legislation, which requires prior authorization for public assemblies. Belarus maintained that its Constitution guarantees freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, provided these rights are exercised in accordance with the law, public order, and the rights of others. It cited the Public Events Act as the legal framework regulating public gatherings to ensure security and order. The State argued that the restrictions were necessary to maintain public order and be consistent with the limitations permitted under Articles 19(3) and 21 of the ICCPR.

In its reasoning, the Committee highlighted that it had previously found violations of Articles 19 and 21 in similar cases involving Belarus, where the Committee determined that the restrictions imposed by Belarus on freedom of expression and public assembly did not meet the three-part test, in particular the criteria of necessity and proportionality. The Committee cited its decisions in Malei v. Belarus, Tolchina et al. v. Belarus, Zavadskaya et al. v. Belarus, and Vasilevich et al. v. Belarus. The Committee stated that the facts of the present petitions mirrored the patterns examined in these earlier cases, and it found no new arguments or legal aspects that would justify a different conclusion.

For instance, in Tolchina et al. v. Belarus, the Committee held 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.” [para7.9]

The Committee concluded that “by sanctioning the [petitioners] for participation in peaceful protests, although unauthorized, the [Belarus] has violated their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant.” [para. 6.4] As a remedy, it ordered Belarus to provide full reparation to the petitioners, including reimbursement of fines and legal costs, as well as compensation for those subjected to administrative detention.

Additionally, the Committee recommended that Belarus amend its legal framework, particularly the Law on Mass Media and the Public Events Act, to ensure compliance with its obligations under the ICCPR and to prevent future violations of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. [para. 7] The Committee finally requested, within 180 days, from Belarus “information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. [Belarus] is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party.” [para. 8]