The UN Committee on Human Rights issued another decision taken on the complaint resident of Viciebsk. According to this decision, Belarus has violated the rights of Taras Surhan, which are provided by Part 2 of Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Part 2 of Article 19 of the Covenant states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression; this right includes freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or other media of his choice."
The events that led Taras complain to the HRC, there were six and a half years ago. July 16, 2009, the day of solidarity with the victims of repression by the political regime, he tried to attach white-red-white flag to the parapet of the Blokhin bridge. Viciebsk law enforcement officers appeared vigilant – activist detained, taken to the police station, where drew up a report on the violation, and the flag was confiscated.
Several days later, a trial was held. Actions activists were identified as participating in an unsanctioned picket, and in accordance with Part 1 of Article 23.34 of the Administrative Code, he was fined 175 thousand rubles (at that time it was the equivalent of about 43 m euros). Taras Surhan Attempts to appeal the judgment without success: the Viciebsk Oblast, and the Supreme Court recognized the decision of the Railway district court of Viciebsk right.
In his address to the HRC Taras Surhan said that by hanging the Belarusian national flag, which is not prohibited in the country, he did express their political views, and the right to publicly express his opinion is guaranteed by article 33 of the Constitution. In his opinion, the court made a mistake by putting him in violation of the procedure of the guilt of the organization or holding mass events, as he participated in the campaign alone, so no mass event was not. Taras Surhan also noted that in 10 minutes he spent on the bridge until his or detained, he is in no way violated the rights of others and did not cause any harm to citizens or city.
During communication with the HRC State party did not comment on a matter of fact, but only insisted that the appeal Surhan committee should be declared inadmissible because he allegedly failed to exhaust all domestic remedies, without filing a supervisory appeal to the Prosecutor General. Later, representatives of the state in general stated that the Committee had registered treatment activist in violation of article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It was also stated that although Belarus as the state recognizes the competence of the HR Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of a violation of their rights, but it is not obliged to accept the rules of procedure of the Committee and its interpretation of the provisions of the protocol.
"It further submits that any communication registered in violation of the provisions of the Optional Protocol will be viewed by the State party as incompatible with the Optional Protocol and will be rejected without comment on the admissibility or merits. The State party further maintains that decisions taken by the Committee on such “rejected communications” will be considered by its authorities as “invalid”" – describes the Committee of the result of his relations with the Belarusian authorities about the case Surhan.
Belarus's reluctance to cooperate with the HRC did not go unnoticed last. The judgment Surhan position stated by the Belarusian authorities, a special section is devoted to:
"The Committee recalls that article 39 (2) of the Covenant authorizes it to establish its own rules of procedure, which the States parties have agreed to recognize... Implicit in a State’s adherence to the Optional Protocol is an undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith... It is incompatible with these obligations for a State party to take any action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of a communication and in the expression of its Views. It is up to the Committee to determine whether a case should be registered. By failing to accept the competence of the Committee to determine whether a communication shall be registered and by declaring outright that it will not accept the Committee’s determination regarding the admissibility and the merits of communications, the State party has violated its obligations under article 1 of the Optional Protocol."
As for the case of Taras Surhan, the HR Committee noted the comments of the Belarusian authorities that the activist has not addressed the Prosecutor General with the supervisory appeal, but recalled its practice, according to which such treatment is not considered as a remedy which should be exhausted. The Committee concluded that, for purposes of admissibility, Mr. Surhan sufficiently substantiated his statement on the violation by the State Part 2 of Article 19 of the Covenant.
Considering the merits of the case, the committee noted that the Belarusian authorities did not even try to explain, to achieve any of the legitimate aims, as set out in paragraph 3 of article 19 of the Covenant, Taras Surhan had to get permission to hold their share, and why it was necessary to arrest him, impose a fine and confiscation of the flag, which he owned. Also, the authorities did not explain how, in practice, activist actions violated the rights and freedoms of others or jeopardize public safety or public order. In light of this, the Committee concluded that the facts before it disclose a violation of Belarus rights activist.
"In accordance with article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy, including adequate compensation, – says the decision of the HRC in the case of Taras Surhan. – The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. In this connection, the Committee reiterates that the State party should review its legislation, in particular, the Law on Mass Events of 30 December 1997, as it has been applied in the present case, with a view to ensuring that the rights under article 19 of the Covenant may be fully enjoyed in the State party."
Kastus Dzvinski
