Human Rights Committee, the UN refused CCP BPF member Siarhiej Kavalenka in the finding of a violation of his rights under Articles 2, 14, 19, 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Siarhiej Kavalenka asked the UN Human Rights Committee, after the October district court of Vitebsk for hanging 7 January 2010 flag on the tree in the center of the city found him guilty of "activities that breach public order" under Articles 339 and 363 of the Criminal Code.

Article 14 of the Covenant, which is accused of violating the government of Belarus Siarhiej Kavalenka, in particular, states: "All persons are equal before the courts and tribunals. The determination of any criminal charge against a person or of his rights and obligations everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal ... When criminal charge, everyone has the right to ... attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him stand. "

Siarhiej Kavalenka said that by denying him a subpoena witnesses to his defense, the State had violated his rights under this Article. However, the UN committee concluded that "the material before it, including the recording hearings in court, do not give reason to believe that a violation of the impartiality of the court or the principle of equality of arms, or the fairness of the trial in one form or another."

With regard to articles 2, 19, 26, violation of which Sergey Kovalenko also accused the Belarusian authorities, in the opinion of the members of the UNCHR, the information activist said, is not a justification for his claim of a violation of his rights. For example, the committee has questioned that posting a flag on the tree, Siarhiej Kavalenka so publicly expressed their political views, but noted that, according to the rules of the pact, the freedom to express their thoughts may have restrictions necessary to ensure public order.

As Siarhiej Kavalenka did not explain adequately his claim for purposes of admissibility, the committee decided to recognize his appeal to the UN Human Rights Committee, "is inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol."

Vitebsk Spring