Statement by the human rights community of Belarus
July 24, 2024
We, representatives of the human rights community of Belarus, note that criminal liability for “incitement of hatred” under Article 130 of the Criminal Code has been selectively and discriminatorily applied by both the investigators and courts only to protect the state bodies. Moreover, it seems unreasonable to label government officials, police officers, military personnel, etc., as separate social groups under protection in this context.
We insist that it is unacceptable to apply a law aimed to protect government officials, law enforcement officers, and judges from threats in connection with the lawful performance of their duties to punish those citizens who have spoken out in connection with the clear violation of the Constitution and law by state institutions, the involvement of government officials, prosecutors and judges in torture and in creating a climate of impunity for torture and other human rights violations, often showing signs of crimes against humanity.
Accoding to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. All or part of the public may be excluded from a trial for reasons of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, the proceedings should be open to the general public, including representatives of the media, and should not, for example, be limited to a certain category of persons. Even in cases where the public is denied access to the hearing, the court decision, including the main conclusions, evidence, and legal arguments, should be made public. The court did not fulfill these requirements in the case of the persons mentioned, which could determine the attitude of human rights defenders to the hearing results.
We are aware of the conviction of:
Alaksandr Katovič under Articles 368, 361-1, 130, 367 of the Criminal Code on charges of insulting A. Łukašenka, slandering him, inciting other social hatred or hostility, creating an extremist formation or participating in it; he was sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony;
Viktar Miarzlikin under Articles 130, 342, 361, 367 of the Criminal Code on charges of defamation of A. Łukašenka, organizing and preparing actions that grossly violate public order, or actively participating in them, and inciting other social hatred or hostility, calls for sanctions; he was sentenced to five years of imprisonment in a penal colony;
Alaksiej Čarnavusaŭ under Articles 361-1, 361-4, 409 of the Criminal Code on charges of creating an extremist formation or participating in it, facilitating extremist activities, illegal actions with respect to seized property; he was sentenced to four years and six months of imprisonment in a penal colony;
Volha Vołkava under Articles 130, 361-4 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred, aiding extremist activities; she was sentenced to imprisonment;
Natalla Cimašenka under Articles 130, 361-4 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred, aiding extremist activities; she was sentenced to imprisonment;
Alaksandr Kapylec, under Article 130 of the Criminal Code for inciting other social hatred; he was sentenced to imprisonment;
Vieranika Žarkina under Articles 368, 130 of the Criminal Code on charges of insulting A. Łukašenka, inciting other social hatred or hostility; she was sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony;
Alaksandra Mielničak under Articles 130, 342 of the Criminal Code on charges of organizing and preparing actions that grossly violate public order, or actively participating in them and inciting other social hatred or hostility; she was sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony;
Alaksandr Blizniec under Articles 368, 369, 130, 342 of the Criminal Code on charges of insulting A. Łukašenka and a representative of the government, inciting other social hatred or hostility, organizing and preparing actions that grossly violate public order, or actively participating in them; he was sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony;
Uładzimir Basłyka under Articles 368, 367, 369, 361, 130 of the Criminal Code on charges of insulting a representative of the government and A. Łukašenka, slandering him, inciting other social hatred or hostility, calling for sanctions; he was sentenced to imprisonment in a penal colony.
The authorities unreasonably use detention in the absence of sufficient grounds, which restricts personal freedom: as the UN Human Rights Committee notes, “remand in custody on criminal charges must be reasonable and necessary in all the circumstances.” “Detention in custody of persons awaiting trial shall be the exception rather than the rule. […] release from such custody may be subject to guarantees of appearance, including appearance for trial, appearance at any other stage of the judicial proceedings and (should occasion arise) appearance for execution of the judgment. This suggestion concerns persons awaiting trial on criminal charges, that is, after the indictment, but a similar requirement, covering the period before the indictment, follows from the prohibition of arbitrary arrest… It should not be the general practice to subject defendants to pretrial detention. Detention should be based on a case-by-case decision that it is justified and necessary, taking into account all the circumstances, for purposes such as preventing escape, interfering with the process of collecting evidence or recidivism of the crime… The relevant factors should be spelled out in the law and should not contain vague and broad standards such as “public danger”… Pre-trial detention should be applied not on the basis of a possible sentence, but on the basis of determining the need for this measure of restraint.”
It is also known about the detention of:
Alaksandr Łazarevič under Articles 130, 342 of the Criminal Code on charges of organizing and preparing actions that grossly violate public order, or actively participating in them and inciting other social hatred or hostility;
Ihar Suško under Article 130 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred or hostility;
Rusłan Pracharenka under Articles 130, 356, 361-4, 406 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred, treason to the state, complicity in extremist activities, failure to report an accurately known serious crime being prepared.
According to the Guidelines on the Definition of Political Prisoners, violence that was provoked by the initial disproportionate use of physical force, means of restraint, and if there was no intent to cause non-symbolic material damage or harm to anyone in the actions of the accused, provides grounds to hold these individuals to be political prisoners.
Having studied these criminal prosecution cases, we concluded that all of them are politically motivated.
According to the Guidelines on the Definition of Political Prisoners, a person deprived of liberty is to be regarded as a political prisoner, if at least one of the following criteria is observed:
- the detention has been imposed in violation of the right to a fair trial, other rights and freedoms guaranteed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
- the person has been detained in a discriminatory manner as compared to other persons.
We, representatives of the Belarusian human rights community, declare that the further imprisonment of Alaksandr Katovič, Viktar Mierzlikin, Alaksiej Čarnavusaŭ, Volha Vołkava, Natalla Cimašenka, Alaksandr Kapylec, Alaksandra Mielničak, Alaksandr Blizniec, Uładzimir Basłyka, Alaksandr Łazarevič, Ihar Suško, Rusłan Pracharenka is politically motivated, and they themselves are political prisoners.
We demand from the Belarusian authorities:
- review the sentences and preventive measures imposed on these political prisoners, while ensuring the right to a fair trial and eliminating the factors that affected the categorizing of actions, the type and severity of punishment;
- release the mentioned political prisoners by taking other measures to ensure their appearance in court;
- immediately release all political prisoners, review politically motivated sentences and end political repression against citizens.
Human Rights Center Viasna;
Legal Initiative;
PEN Belarus;
Office for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities;
Belarusian Helsinki Committee;
Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House;
Lawtrend.