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 Aleksandra Vasilevich, Anatoly Lebedko, Vladimir Katsora and Valery Repnin, by imposing administrative fines and detentions for their participation in unauthorized peaceful protests. They 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. The petitioners argued that the State failed to justify how the restrictions on their rights were necessary to protect national security, public safety, public order, public health, morals, or the rights and freedoms of others. Belarus held that the sanctions were consistent with articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The Committee concluded that the restrictions were neither necessary to pursue any legitimate aim nor proportionate, and were therefore incompatible with articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.  The UNHRC argued that penalizing individuals for engaging in peaceful protests, even if unauthorized, was an unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. Hence, it ordered Belarus to provide the petitioners with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of fines and legal costs. The Committee also called on the State to review its domestic legislation to comply with international human rights standards and prevent future violations.

---

Facts

The case concerned four separate communications submitted by Aleksandra Vasilevich, Anatoly Lebedko, Vladimir Katsora, and Valery Repnin. They were convicted under the Law on Mass Events and Article 23.34 of the Belarusian Code of Administrative Offences for organising and participating in peaceful protests. These provisions criminalize organizing or participating in public events that lack prior official authorization.

Aleksandra Vasilevich

On 26 October 2014, Aleksandra Vasilevich participated in the funeral of a civil activist in Svisloch, followed by a commemoration of the 1863 Belarusian uprising in the Grodno region. Together with other attendees, she visited several historical sites related to the national hero K. Kalinovskiy. During the event, participants delivered speeches on the history of the uprising, Belarusian culture, and the country’s current political situation, while carrying red and white flags—symbols of the uprising—as well as the national flag. Vasilevich noted that police officers were present throughout the event and recorded the procession on video.

On 16 December 2014, the Svisloch District Court of Grodno Region held that Vasilevich participated in an unauthorized protest in violation of the provisions of the Law on Mass Events and ordered her to pay a fine of 3.75 million Belarusian roubles (equivalent to 376 USD at the time). Consequently, Vasilevich submitted a cassation appeal to the Grodno Regional Court challenging the decision. It was dismissed on 20 January 2015. She subsequently sought a supervisory review from the Grodno Regional Court and later from the Supreme Court. Both requests were denied.

Anatoly Lebedko

Anatoly Lebedko, Chairman of the United Civil Party of Belarus, an opposition political party, was prosecuted for two separate incidents in 2016. The first incident occurred on 3 March 2016, when he distributed leaflets inviting the public to a gathering scheduled for 25 March 2016 in Minsk. On 2 May 2016, the Sovietskiy District Court in Minsk held that the petitioner, along with two others, had handed out these leaflets at noon inside the “Siluet” Shopping Mall on 1 Viery Charužaj Street. The court ruled that this action breached the Law on Mass Events and constituted an administrative offence under Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences. It imposed a fine of 8,400,000 Belarusian roubles (equivalent to 840 USD at the time). The petitioner appealed the decision on the same day. The Minsk City Court dismissed the appeal on 7 June 2016.

The second incident occurred on 25 March 2016, when Lebedko took part in a peaceful, unauthorized gathering on 4 Kupala Street in Minsk. He was later charged with participating in an unlawful mass event, in violation of Article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences. On 12 April 2016, the Central District Court in Minsk held that Lebedko was guilty of breaching the Law on Mass Events and fined him for 10,500,000 Belarusian roubles (equivalent to 1050 USD at the time). This court determined that around 5:00 p.m. on 25 March, the petitioner actively participated in a public demonstration on Kupala Square marking “Freedom Day,” where he shouted slogans such as “Long live Belarus!”

Lebedko appealed the ruling on 20 April 2016, arguing that he had peacefully exercised his right to free expression. However, the Minsk City Court dismissed the appeal on 20 May 2016.

Vladimir Katsora

On 19 February 2017, Vladimir Katsora participated in an unauthorized peaceful street rally held from 12:00 to 13:10 in Uprising Square (Gomel City). The protest, attended by approximately 3,000 people, opposed the presidential decree “On prevention of social dependency.”

On 17 March 2017, the Central District Court of Gomel held that Katsora was guilty of participating in an unauthorized meeting—in breach of the Law on Mass Events—and sentenced him to 12 days of administrative detention.

on 20 March 2017, Katsora appealed the decision to the Gomel Regional Court, arguing that the sentence infringed on his rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. His appeal was dismissed on 29 March 2017.

Valery Repnin

On 25 March 2017, Valery Repnin participated in a peaceful rally on Sovietskiy Street (Gomel City) to protest the presidential decree “On prevention of social dependency.”

On 27 March 2017, the Soviet District Court of Gomel determined that Repnin participated in an unauthorized demonstration from 12:00 to 12:40, marching from Uprising Square to Yubileinaya Street while carrying a red and white flag. The court held that this breached the Law on Mass Events and sentenced her to five days of administrative detention.

On 4 April 2017, Repnin filed a cassation appeal before the Gomel Regional Court, which was dismissed on 28 April 2017.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

Vasilevich, Lebedko, Katsora and Repnin submitted communications to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC or the Committee) alleging that the sanctions imposed by the State of Belarus violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly as enshrined in articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR. They further emphasized that Belarus failed to explain why the restrictions were necessary.

The State party argued that its actions were lawful under domestic legislation—particularly the Law on Mass Events, which was consistent with the national Constitution and international human rights law. Furthermore, the State emphasized that the regulation of rallies and protests was aimed at “creating the conditions for the realization of the constitutional rights of citizens and their freedoms.” [para. 4.3]

On 14 March 2023, the Human Rights Committee decided to join the four communications due to their substantial factual and legal similarity and addressed them in a consolidated decision.

---

Decision Overview

On March 14, 2023, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. It had to decide whether the fines and administrative detentions imposed by Belarus on the petitioners, after participating in peaceful public events, violated their rights to freedom of expression and assembly, under articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

The petitioners argued that Belarus violated articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR since the State failed to explain why the imposed restrictions were necessary under the permissible grounds set out in the Covenant. They argued that the current domestic legislation and its application breached Belarus’ international obligations. Furthermore, they highlighted Belarus’ failure to implement the Committee’s views on similar cases and to comply with the recommendations of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) and the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (“On the Law on Mass Events of the Republic of Belarus”) regarding the amendment of its national legislation.

In response, Belarus maintained that the domestic courts’ decisions were issued in compliance with national legislation, particularly the Law on Mass Events. It argued that this law is consistent with the Belarusian Constitution and international norms, which allow for restrictions on fundamental rights when they are “necessary in a democratic society and in the interests 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 as foreseen under article 19 and 21 of the Covenant.” [para. 4.2]

The Committee analyzed whether the restrictions imposed on the petitioners violated their right to peaceful assembly enshrined in Article 21 of the Covenant. In its assessment, the Committee explained that peaceful assemblies must not be relegated to remote areas (or prohibited based on blanket bans). The UNHRC held that the right to peaceful assembly is indispensable to the public expression of opinions and views in a democratic society. Citing the Human Rights Committee’s General Comment No. 37 (2020), it recalled 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. 7.5]

Further, the Committee stated that Article 21 of the Covenant protects peaceful assemblies in all settings—outdoors, indoors, or online; in public or private spaces—and in various forms (demonstrations, rallies, sit-ins, candlelight vigils, flash mobs, and processions—whether they are stationary or mobile). It also emphasized that the organizers “have the right to choose a location within sight and sound of their target audience.” [para. 7.5]. Moreover, the UNHRC held that “no restriction to this right is permissible, unless it (a) is imposed in conformity with the law; and (b) 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. 7.5]

The Committee reaffirmed, citing its decision in Poplavny v. Belarus, that States must justify any restriction on the right to peaceful assembly. Analyzing the domestic courts’ decisions in the case at hand, the UNHRC held that they “did not provide any justification or explanation as to how, in practice, the [petitioners’] participation in such peaceful rallies 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] The Committee also underscored that the State did not explain why the peaceful rallies breached the constitutional rights and freedoms of their citizens. For these reasons, it concluded that Belarus violated the petitioners’ right to peaceful assembly, as set in Article 21 of the Covenant.

Subsequently, the UNHRC had to analyze whether the sanctions imposed by Belarus violated the petitioners’ right to freedom of expression under Article 19 of the Covenant. It referred to its General Comment 34 (2011) to emphasize that “freedom of expression is essential for any society and constitutes a foundation stone for every free and democratic society.” [para. 7.9] Nonetheless, the Committee held that the right to freedom of expression—including the freedom to impart information and ideas—can be subject to limitations, as long as such interference is prescribed by law and is necessary to respect “(a) the rights or reputation of others; or (b) for the protection of national security or public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals”. [para. 7.9] The UNHRC also said that restrictions on freedom of expression should not be overly broad; on the contrary, “it must be the least intrusive among the measures that might achieve the relevant protective function and proportionate to the interest being protected” [para. 7.9]

In particular, the Committee explained that imposing heavy monetary fines and administrative detentions raised serious doubts about the necessity and proportionality of such restrictions on freedom of expression. Specifically, it observed that Belarus failed to show any compelling reason in favor of the necessity of the measures imposed against the petitioners.  It emphasized, too, that the State failed to demonstrate “that the measures selected were the least intrusive in nature or proportionate to the interest that it sought to protect.” [para. 7.10]

For all these reasons, the Committee considered that “in the circumstances of the cases before it, the restrictions imposed on the petitioners and the imposed sanctions, although based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 of the Covenant.” [para. 7.10] Therefore, the UNHRC concluded that Belarus also violated the petitioners’ right to freedom of expression.

The Committee ordered Belarus to take all the appropriate measures to provide the petitioners “with adequate compensation, including to reimburse the fines and any legal costs incurred by them,” [para. 9] and to prevent similar violations in the future. Finally, it requested Belarus to review its domestic legislation to bring it into accordance with the obligations outlined in articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

---