{"id":15666,"date":"2024-05-23T11:17:11","date_gmt":"2024-05-23T11:17:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/penbelarus.org\/?p=15666"},"modified":"2024-05-23T11:30:13","modified_gmt":"2024-05-23T11:30:13","slug":"zayava-ab-pryznanni-19-chalavek-palitychnymi-znyavolenymi","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/penbelarus.org\/en\/2024\/05\/23\/zayava-ab-pryznanni-19-chalavek-palitychnymi-znyavolenymi.html","title":{"rendered":"The statement on the recognition of 19 people as political prisoners"},"content":{"rendered":"

Statement by the human rights community of Belarus<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

May 21, 2024<\/em><\/p>\n

We, representatives of the human rights community of Belarus, note:<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0the authorities abuse criminal law and apply excessively harsh measures of responsibility to protesters and dissidents for committing actions that did not entail serious consequences, often having obvious features of being provoked artificially. In particular, categorizing of actions as terrorism initially does not correspond to the content, in accordance with international standards, of this concept in accordance with the Statement of the human rights community<\/a>\u00a0of October 18, 2022. At the same time, violations of the principles of fair justice, including the presumption of innocence and the right to protection, guarantees specified in international law for minors and persons against whom detention is used, worsen the arbitrary nature of persecution;<\/p>\n

\u2014 detention in the absence of sufficient grounds for the application of a preventive measure restricting personal freedom contrary to the position of the UN Human Rights Committee based on the norms of international law, which has become a common practice in modern Belarus; in accordance with the Statement of the human rights community<\/a>\u00a0of September 6, 2021, this factor is the basis for the requirement to review the procedural decisions and measures taken against them while respecting the right to a fair trial;<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0all 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 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; even in cases where the public is denied access to the trial, the court decision, including the main conclusions, evidence, and legal arguments, should be made public. Violation of this rule, in accordance with the position set out in the Statement of the human rights community<\/a>\u00a0dated December 22, 2021, gives grounds to demand a review of the verdict while eliminating the factors that influenced it;<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0criminal charges for incitement of “other social hatred or discord” (Article 130 of the Criminal Code) has been selectively and discriminatorily applied by both the investigators and courts in an apparent attempt to protect the institutions of power. Moreover, it seems\u00a0unreasonable<\/a>\u00a0to label representatives of the authorities, police officers, military personnel, etc. as separate social groups falling under protection in this context.<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0the description of Article 356 of the Criminal Code (treason to the state) is formulated vaguely, and it allows for a broad interpretation, which from 2020 in practice entails arbitrary conviction of citizens who did not threaten national security in the sense attached to this concept in democratic states; in this regard, the state has the obligation to prove the public danger of the act with strict compliance with procedural guarantees.<\/p>\n

In this regard, it should be recalled that any permissible limitations imposed on fundamental rights and freedoms must be \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. Therefore, restrictions must be necessary and proportionate in a society based on democracy, the rule of law, political pluralism, and human rights. These measures must also be the least restrictive of those that could provide an appropriate protective function. Otherwise, state intervention, including in the form of criminal prosecution for violations of national law, would constitute a violation of human rights.<\/p>\n

Thus, human rights defenders are aware of the conviction of:<\/p>\n