BCD activist Andrei Gaidukov received an answer from the Constitutional Court on his appeal on the decision of Navapołacak City Council contradiction in holding events of the Constitution and international treaties.
The appeal activist reported that the Navapołacak City Council did not approve its application for holding a picket in support of political prisoners in Belarus, on formal grounds: lack of payment for the services of public order.
"The decision of the Navapołacak City Executive Committee on September 9, 2011 №858« On amendments and additions to the decision of the Navapołacak City Executive Committee on December 10, 1998 №942 »found that" the payment of expenses related to the protection of public order, health care, cleaning of the territory after holding the mass event, performed organizer (s) of public events department of Internal Affairs Executive Committee, health care " Navapołacak Central City Hospital", Navapołacak municipal enterprise of housing and communal services in accordance with applicable law and copies of documents on the provision of these services are directed organizer(s) of public events in the city council together with the application on holding mass events", - quotes Andrei Gaidukov decision.
However, referring to the international agreements signed by Belarus, Andrei Gaidukov draws the attention of the Constitutional Court that the procedure for payment of imposed restrictions on the right of peaceful assembly and makes it dependent on the financial condition of the applicant, which is a direct contradiction to the current international and national law. In addition, analyzing the international norms and national legislation, the applicant concluded that provided by Article 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus the right is limited by national legislation, namely Article 5 of the Law "On mass events in Belarus", and even more narrowed decisions of local executive and administrative bodies .
The activist asked the Constitutional Court to assess the compliance of Article 5 of the Law "On mass events in Belarus", the decision of Navapołacak executive committee "On the determination of a permanent place to hold meetings, rallies, marches, demonstrations and pickets" and the decision of Navapołacak city executive committee of 10.07.2015 refusal to picket with international standards and to make a decision to eliminate the contradictions in the legislation.
In turn, the Constitutional Court considered an appeal on the merits did not, but only once again referred to the indirect access of individuals and entities to constitutional justice. And Share contact "with the initiative for proposals for consideration by the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, to bodies with the right to make such proposals", and returned to circulation accompanying materials.
Not satisfied with the response of the Constitutional Court, an activist Andrei Gaidukov already appealed to the City Council of Deputies Navapołacak to revoke the decision of Navapołacak city executive committee № 858 "On amendments and additions to the decision of Navapołacak city executive committee of 10.02.1998 of №942» from 09.09. 2011, as inconsistent with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is part of acting on the territory of the Republic of Belarus law and is directly applicable.
Lawyer of Human Rights Center "Viasna" Anastasia Loika notes:
- The problem of arbitrary procedural limitations on the right to freedom of peaceful assembly in Belarus is systemic. The restrictions come from both the law on mass events, and the decisions of local executive committees, which further narrow the fundamental right of assembly.
For example, Navapołacak City Council in its decision of 1998 has developed a procedure is absolutely impossible to pre-pay for a mass event service facilities, but the grounds for concluding the necessary contracts there without the permission of the executive committee. A vicious circle, which excludes any possibility of exercising their right. In addition, the decision in 1998 not in the public domain, because citizens simply cannot know the nuances of when applying for a rally.
As a result of attempts to appeal to the Constitutional Court is visible common position of the state on this issue: they do not even want to discuss this topic. At the same time for about 40 views of the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations confirmed the fact of deliberate devaluation of the authorities of the right to peaceful assembly, primarily through the legislative process in Belarus and the practice of its implementation. But on this issue, it is important to actively and consistently speak and to use new ways to defend the right to peaceful assembly, as guaranteed by international obligations in the field of human rights on the part of Belarus. Therefore, we will wait for the reaction of the local council of deputies - on whose side they will be?
spring96.org
