viasna on patreon

The statement on the recognition of 18 people as political prisoners

2024 2024-11-28T14:42:39+0300 2024-11-28T14:42:39+0300 en https://spring96.org./files/images/sources/ehoza_1.jpg The Human Rights Center “Viasna” The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
The Human Rights Center “Viasna”

Statement by the human rights community of Belarus

November 27, 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.

According to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in the determination of any criminal charge against them, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent, and impartial tribunal. 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 also reiterate our position expressed in the statement of the human rights community that it would be a violation of Paragraph 3 of Article 19 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to refer to treason laws and similar acts concerning national security, professional secrecy, or the fight against subversion, to withhold or conceal from the general public information of legitimate public interest and does not threaten national security, but also to prosecute journalists, researchers, environmentalists, human rights defenders, or others for disseminating such information.

We are aware of the conviction of:

Tatsiana Kashcheyeva and Uladzimir Kashcheyeu in a closed court hearing under Article 356 of the Criminal Code on the charge of treason, sentenced to imprisonment;

Ihar Batsian in a closed court hearing under Article 356 of the Criminal Code on the charge of treason to the state, sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment;

Illia Naryshkin in a closed court hearing under Articles 356 and 361-3 of the Criminal Code on charges of attempted treason and preparation for participation in military operations on the territory of a foreign state for intending to join the defenders of Ukraine from Russian aggression, sentenced to 15 years of imprisonment;

Natallia Zaitsava under Article 130 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred, sentenced to one year of imprisonment;

Yan Karliyonau under Article 130 of the Criminal Code on the charge of inciting other social hatred, sentenced to one year of imprisonment;

Alena Barysiuk under Articles 130, 368, and 369 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred on the Internet, insulting a representative of the authorities and A. Lukashenka for comments on the Internet, sentenced to two years and six months of imprisonment;

Anatol Shuliak under Articles 130, 368, and 367 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred on the Internet, insulting and slandering A. Lukashenka for comments on the Internet, sentenced to three years of imprisonment;

Anastasiya Zhylskaya under Articles 130, 361, and 367 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred on the Internet, calls for sanctions and defamation of A. Lukashenka for comments on the Internet, sentenced to imprisonment;

Natallia Mikulich under Articles 130, 369-1, and 188 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred, defamation, discrediting the Republic of Belarus; she was sent for compulsory psychiatric inpatient treatment;

Iryna Mazol under Article 130 of the Criminal Code on the charge of inciting other social hatred, sentenced to one year of imprisonment;

Dzmitry Holub on charges of insulting A. Lukashenka, inciting other social hatred, organizing or actively participating in a group gross violation of public order under Articles 368, 130, 342 of the Criminal Code, sentenced to four years of imprisonment;

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, we are aware of the detention of:

Tatsiana Aliakseichyk under Articles 130 and 342 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred on the Internet and participating in group actions grossly violating public order, for reposts on social media and participation in peaceful protest actions;

Aliaksandr Yatskevich under Articles 130, 342, and 369 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred on the Internet and participating in group actions grossly violating public order, insulting a representative of the authorities for reposts on social media and participation in peaceful protest actions;

Aliaksei Silenka under Articles 130 and 361 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting hatred, calls for sanctions;

Tatsiana Badrenka under Articles 130 and 367 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred on the Internet, defamation of A. Lukashenka;

Alena Marozava under Articles 130, 361, and 342 of the Criminal Code on charges of inciting other social hatred on the Internet, calls for sanctions and participation in group actions grossly violating public order;

Vasil Verameichyk under Article 366 of the Criminal Code on the charge of threatening an official performing official duties (a minor crime at the time of the initial suspicion of damaging a car).

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 Tatsiana Kashcheyeva, Uladzimir Kashcheyeu, Ihar Batsian, Illia Naryshkin, Natallia Zaitsava, Yan Karliyonau, Alena Barysiuk, Anatol Shuliak, Anastasiya Zhylskaya, Natallia Mikulich, Iryna Mazol, Dzmitry Holub, Tatsiana Aliakseichyk, Aliaksandr Yatskevich, Aliaksei Silenka, Tatsiana Badrenka, Alena Marozava, Vasil Verameichyk are politically motivated, and they 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 choice of punishment, 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;

Belarusian Helsinki Committee;

Legal initiative;

Lawtrend.

Latest news

Partnership

Membership