Number of political prisoners in Belarus grows by six

Joint statement by the human rights community of Belarus

28 April 2023

We, representatives of the human rights community in Belarus, have noted an increasing number of court decisions in politically motivated criminal cases that violate the basic procedural rights of the accused and, in the absence of an independent, impartial, and objective trial, define the conviction as arbitrary. The sentences imposed in these cases go beyond those usually imposed in non-political trials, are excessively harsh and do not correspond to the degree of public danger of the offense and the personality of those convicted.

Specifically:

Siamion Akula was sentenced to two years and six months' imprisonment for participating in protests under Part 1 of Article 342 of the Criminal Code and for making false statements in official and statistical reports, which resulted in underpayment of required insurance premiums to the budget under Part 2 of Article 216 of the Criminal Code (injury not qualifying as theft). The acts described in Part 2 of Article 216 of the Criminal Code do not constitute a grave offense, and the circumstances of the criminal case did not exclude the imposition of a non-custodial sentence; thus, Siamion Akula was sentenced discriminatorily compared to the other convicted persons without any political motive;

Jerzy Żywalewski (Polish national) was sentenced in a closed trial under Article 358-1 of the Criminal Code (undercover activities) to four years' imprisonment; Mikhail Stoliarchuk and Dmytro Gudik (Ukrainian nationals) were sentenced to six and five years' imprisonment, respectively, in a closed trial. Article 358-1 of the Criminal Code is vaguely and broadly worded, requiring the state to prove the social danger of the act with strict observance of procedural guarantees, including a public trial; this right may be restricted only for legitimate purposes.

Ruslan Labanok was convicted in a closed trial under Article 431 of the Criminal Code (bribery) and Article 356 (high treason). The wording of Article 356 of the Criminal Code is ambiguous and allows for an expansive interpretation, which in practice, as of 2020, means arbitrary conviction of citizens who have not violated national security - in the sense that this concept is understood in democratic states; in this context, the state is obliged to prove the social danger of the act with strict observance of procedural guarantees, including a public trial; this right may be restricted only for legitimate purposes.

The juvenile Artsiom Vaitsiakhovich is detained on charges under Part 2 Article 208 of the Criminal Code (extortion), while his brother, the administrator of a protest Telegram channel, is being forced to cease his activities as a condition for Artsiom Vaitsiakhovich's release. However, "the juvenile justice system shall emphasize the well-being of the juvenile and shall ensure that any reaction to juvenile offenders shall always be in proportion to the circumstances of both the offenders and the offense. Detention pending trial shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest possible period of time. Whenever possible, detention pending trial shall be replaced by alternative measures, such as close supervision, intensive care or placement with a family or in an educational setting" (United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice).

In evaluating the above cases of criminal prosecution, we conclude that in each of them, a political motive for the prosecution of the accused prevails.

In our statement, we reiterate that the trial of politically motivated criminal cases in closed or otherwise restricted proceedings to the public, observers and the independent press grossly violates the procedural rights of the accused and limits the assessment of the credibility, sufficiency and admissibility of any evidence for the prosecution.

According to the Guidelines on the Definition of a Political Prisoner, a person deprived of liberty is also to be regarded as a political prisoner, if, as well as political reasons for their prosecution, at least one of the following criteria is observed:

1. 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;

2. the detention was based on falsification of evidence of the alleged offense, or imposed in the absence of the event or elements of the offense, or imposed in connection with an offense committed by another person;

3. the length of the detention or its conditions ar disproportionate (incommensurate) to the offense the person is suspected, accused or has been found guilty of;

4. 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 persecution of Siamion Akula, Jerzy Żywalewski, Mikhail Stoliarchuk, Dmytro Gudik, Ruslan Labanok, and Artsiom Vaitsiakhovich is politically motivated, and they are political prisoners. In this regard, we demand that the Belarusian authorities:

• review the measures and judicial decisions taken against them, while respecting the right to a fair trial and addressing the factors that influenced the sentence;
• immediately release all political prisoners and stop political repression against Belarusian citizens.

Viasna Human Rights Center;

Lawtrend;

Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House;

Human Constanta;

Legal Initiative.