Vitebsk activist Antonina Pivonos continues his fight in court for the state to enforce the decision of the UN Committee on Human Rights in relation to it. Unlike the first meeting, which took place five days earlier, on April 30 the court was also the representative of the defendant - the main department of the Ministry of Finance of the Republic of Belarus in Vitebsk region.

Let us recall the essence of the requirements of the Vitebsk activist. Freedom Day 2008, she wanted to give her a tapestry embroidered with the words of the Lord's Prayer oppositionist Boris Khamaida. But it prevented the police officers who detained the activist, and the tapestry was taken away. The events took place at the "Blue House". Later, the court found Antonina Pivonos guilty of organizing mass actions and punished with a fine. Vitebsk Regional and Supreme Courts, in which Antonina Pivonos directed against a decision of the Court of First Instance upheld that decision changes.

But in the defense of the activist became the UNCHR, which recognized that the rights of Antonina Pivonos been violated and ordered the Belarus activist compensate the incurred losses. It took 180 days from the date of the decision - this time led committee on the authorities of the country of his performance - but the authorities have not done anything. Now Antonin Pivonos trying to get financiers to implement the decision in court HRC.

The defendant's representative Vitaly Sharandа told the court that the claim of Antonina Pivonos does not recognize. They say that the decision of the administrative case against her five-year-old has not been canceled, so despite the decision of UN Human Rights Committee, the Finance Ministry should compensate her anything. That in addition to domestic law, there is also international law, the rules of which Belarus is obliged to carry out, at the headquarters of the Ministry of Finance in the Vitebsk region, apparently did not know.

Interests Antonina Pivonos was represented by attorney Michael Zamalin. He drew the attention of the court that the case file contained no data received if the Belarusian authorities to the HRC decision, and it is unknown how they reacted to it. So he made a motion that the appeal request to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of the Foreign Ministry received a copy of that decision, how the Foreign Ministry responded and of the authority referred the matter for consideration, or whether or not the public authority from any response by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The referee Valentina Kovaleva petition granted the plaintiff's representative. The relevant inquiry will be sent to the Foreign Ministry. The next hearing is scheduled for May 16.