Statement of the human rights community on the recognition of 9 new political prisoners

Statement by the human rights community of Belarus

October 10, 2023

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 in an apparent attempt 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.

According 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:

Kiryl Hniazdzilau on charges of complicity in inciting other social hatred and disclosure of personal data under Part 6 of Article 16 and Part 1 of Article 130, Part 1 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code for transmitting data to a protest information resource to up to eight years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Maksim Belianovich on charges of facilitating extremist activity under Part 2 of Article 361-4 of the Criminal Code, participating in extremist formation under Part 3 of Article 361-1 of the Criminal Code, inciting other social hatred or enmity under Article 130 of the Criminal Code, facilitating extremist activity under Part 1 of Article 361-4 of the Criminal Code, illegal collection or dissemination of information about private life under Part 1 of Article 179 The Criminal Code for the transfer of data to a protest information resource to imprisonment in a correctional colony;

Aliaksandr Haluza on charges of organizing and preparing actions that grossly violate public order, or actively participating in them and inciting other social hatred or enmity under Articles 342 and 130 of the Criminal Code to imprisonment in a correctional colony;

Aliaksandr Leanovich on charges of inciting other social hatred or enmity under Article 130 of the Criminal Code to five years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Ihar Khrystaforau on charges of insulting a representative of the authorities, A. Lukashenka, and judges under Articles 369, 368, 391 of the Criminal Code, inciting other social hatred or enmity under Article 130 of the Criminal Code to six years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Aliaksandr Sakalouski in a closed court hearing on charges of treason against the state under Part 1 of Article 356 of the Criminal Code to ten years of imprisonment in a penal colony;

Valeryi Ramanouski in a closed court hearing on charges of treason under Article 356 of the Criminal Code to imprisonment in a penal colony.

The authorities unreasonably use detention in the absence of sufficient grounds for the use of the preventive measure, 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."

Thus, Ala Sakalenka has been detained since March 2022 on charges of agent activity, the criminal case against her was initiated in a closed court session.

Also in connection with the court's verdict against Anton Prudnikau on charges of using violence against an officer of the Department of Internal Affairs under Article 364 of the Criminal Code and active participation in actions grossly violating public order under Article 342 of the Criminal Code for resisting the detentions of participants of a peaceful assembly and participation in a peaceful assembly, by which he was sentenced to two years and six months in prison freedom in a penal colony, once again confirming our position, expressed in the joint statement of human rights organizations of January 16, 2021, we note the following:

Citizens’ peaceful assemblies should be protected by the state, and the police should not take actions to forcibly stop them, even if they take place in violation of the procedures for their organization and holding. Violent dispersal of assemblies and the use of physical force, let alone special weapons against protesters should be carried out only as an extreme measure, in cases when the behavior of assembly participants becomes violent and poses a real threat to national and public security, life and health of citizens.

Disproportionate brutal actions of the police aimed at suppressing peaceful assemblies cannot be considered as a legitimate activity for the protection and preservation of public order, and in cases of violence used by protesters who were provoked by the same police officers, these actions should be considered based on the severity of the injury and intent to cause such harm, as well as seen as justifiable or necessary defense carried out to protect oneself from clearly unlawful actions of law enforcement officers who had followed unlawful orders (necessary defense, extreme necessity).

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:

• a) 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;

• d) 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 Kiryl Hniazdzilau, Maksim Belianovich, Aliaksandr Haluza, Aliaksandr Leanovich, Ihar Khrystaforau, Aliaksandr Sakalouski, Valeryi Ramanouski, Ala Sakalenka, Anton Prudnikau is politically motivated, and they themselves are political prisoners. We demand from the Belarusian authorities:

• review the sentences passed against the mentioned political prisoners while exercising the right to a fair trial and eliminating the factors that affected the qualification 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;

Human Constanta;

Lawtrend;

Belarusian PEN;

Legal initiative;

Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House;

Belarusian Association of Journalists;

Office for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.