Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) held that the State of Belarus violated Mikhail Matskevich’s rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly by imposing a ten-day administrative detention for participating in an unauthorized peaceful demonstration in the city of Minsk. Matskevich was arrested by unidentified individuals in civilian clothes while participating in a candlelight vigil in solidarity with demonstrators previously detained for protesting the 2010 presidential election results. He was later charged, under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences, with participating in an unauthorized mass event. The Moskovsky District Court found him guilty and sentenced him to ten days of administrative detention. His appeals to both the Minsk City Court and the Supreme Court of Belarus were dismissed. The national courts maintained that the restrictions were lawful and necessary to protect public order. Matskevich brought his case to the UNHRC, claiming that the restrictions imposed on his rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly were unnecessary and disproportionate. Belarus, for its part, argued that the detention was lawful and justified since it sought to protect public order and national security. The Committee found that the Belarusian authorities did not adequately justify the restrictions imposed on Matskevich, nor did they demonstrate that the sanction was necessary and proportionate to protect the rights of others, national security, public order, public health, or public morals. In addition, the Committee ordered Belarus to adequately compensate the applicant and to review its domestic legal framework to ensure the full exercise of the rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly.

Facts

On December 24, 2010, Mr. Mikhail Matskevich participated in a peaceful protest in Minsk, Belarus. The demonstration was organized to show solidarity with several citizens detained for protesting the 2010 presidential election results in the country. The demonstration, which took place in front of the Minsk Offenders’ Detention Centre, consisted of a candlelight vigil in which the participants, a group of 10-15 people, stood silently holding lit candles. At 7:00 p.m., Matskevich and the other participants were arrested by unidentified individuals in civilian clothes and taken to the Offenders’ Detention Center, where they were charged—under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences—with participating in an unauthorized mass event.

On December 27, 2010, Matskevich was brought before the Moskovsky District Court, in Minsk, where he was found guilty of violating the aforementioned provision and sentenced to ten days of administrative detention for participating in an unauthorized public gathering. Matskevich filed an appeal to the Minsk City Court, arguing that his detention violated his rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly. On February 11, 2011, the Minsk City Court rejected his appeal, arguing that the rights invoked by Matskevich were not absolute and that their exercise should be in accordance with the law.

Dissatisfied with this decision, Matskevich filed an appeal for review before the Supreme Court of Belarus. On November 21, 2012, the Supreme Court rejected the petition.

On December 9, 2014, Matskevich filed a communication before the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) arguing that Belarus violated his rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly, as laid out by Articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR or the Covenant). On November 28, 2016, Belarus submitted its observations to the Committee arguing that the detention of the petitioner, in the context of an unauthorized mass gathering, did not violate his rights, since the restriction was provided by law.

Decision Overview

On 7 February 2024, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. The Committee had to decide whether Belarus’ decision to interrupt an unauthorized protest and to impose an administrative detention against the applicant, for participating in the demonstration, violated his rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly under Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

Mikhail Matskevich alleged that Belarus violated his rights to freedom of expression and to peaceful assembly. The petitioner argued that the restrictions imposed by Belarusian authorities were unnecessary and disproportionate, as his participation in the demonstration did not affect national security, nor did it harm health, public morals, or the rights of third parties. Matskevich held that national courts offered no valid justification for such restrictions, contravening the principles of proportionality and necessity. Thus, he asked the Committee to recommend Belarus to adapt its national legislation to international standards on human rights.

For its part, Belarus argued that the ten-day administrative detention of Matskevich was lawful and in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences—which punishes participating in unauthorized mass events. The State argued that the restrictions imposed on the petitioner’s rights were necessary and justified under the Law on Public Events, which seeks that citizens exercise their constitutional rights in a manner compatible with security and public order. In addition, Belarus asserted that the contested restrictions were consistent with Article 19, paragraph 3, of the ICCPR, which permits limitations on freedom of expression and peaceful assemblies to protect national security, public order, and public morals.

The Committee began its analysis by considering whether the restrictions imposed on the petitioner were justified under Article 21 of the Covenant. The UNHRC explained 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.” [para. 7.3]

Subsequently, the Committee held that peaceful assemblies may take various forms, such as demonstrations, protests, vigils, or marches. To the UNHCR, organizers have the right to choose a place where they can be seen and heard. Moreover, the Committee argued that “no restriction to this right is permissible, unless it is imposed in conformity with the law; and is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of 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. 7.3] In light of this, the UNHRC emphasized that States must justify any limitation on the right to peaceful assembly. For the Committee, failure to notify authorities about a demonstration, nonetheless, cannot, by itself, render an assembly unlawful or justify undue sanctions.

Subsequently, the UNHCR noted that the Belarusian courts sentenced the petitioner to a ten-day administrative detention for participating in an unauthorized peaceful assembly. Upon analyzing this restriction, the Committee considered that “the domestic courts did not provide any justification or explanation as to how, in practice, the petitioner’s participation in the peaceful assembly had 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. 7.4]

Furthermore, the Committee highlighted that Belarus, in its reply to the petitioner’s communication to the UNHCR, did not provide any reason for restricting the petitioner’s rights or demonstrate that the sanction was the least intrusive measure—or a necessary one—to protect the interests it pursued. Consequently, “in the absence of any further explanations from the State party regarding the matter, the Committee concludes that the State party ha[d] violated the author’s rights under article 21 of the Covenant.” [para. 7.4]

The UNHCR then analyzed whether the 10-day administrative detention violated the right to freedom of expression, under Article 19 of the Covenant, of the applicant. The Committee recalled its General Comment 34 (2011), to underscore that “freedom of expression is fundamental to any society and constitutes the cornerstone of all free and democratic societies.” [para. 7.5] It further clarified that freedom of expression includes the freedom to disseminate information and ideas. Then, the Committee affirmed that the right to freedom of expression may be subject to limitations, provided that such interferences are prescribed by law and necessary to ensure “respect for the rights or reputations of others” or “the protection of national security, public order, or public health or morals.” [para. 7.5]

It also held that restrictions on freedom of expression should not be overly broad; on the contrary, they should be “the least intrusive among the measures likely to achieve the relevant protective function and be proportionate to the interest being protected.” [para. 7.5]

When analyzing the specific case, considering the above standards, the Committee held 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.

For all these reasons, the UNHCR held that “the administrative detention imposed on the petitioner, although based on domestic law, was not justified in accordance with the conditions set out in article 19, paragraph 3, of the Covenant. The Committee therefore conclude[d] that the petitioner’s rights under article 19 of the Covenant ha[d] been violated.” [para. 7.6] It ordered Belarus to take all the appropriate measures to provide the petitioner “with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of legal costs incurred.” [para. 9] The UNHCR also ordered the State to take all the necessary measures to avoid similar violations in the future. Finally, the Committee requested Belarus to review its legislation on public acts to bring it in line with the obligations outlined in Articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.