2009 08/12
Аляксей Лапіцкі, Жодзіна

Аlaksiej Lapicki, Zhodzina

Comments of human right defender on /// of authorities to HRC of UNO in the matter of Alena Zalesskaya…

It’s noticeable that Belarusian authorities traditionally make accent only on their own narrow-minded and corporation-official understanding of provisions of this high-rank international agreement in the field of human rights.

In their comments they completely rely on provisions of inner law and large limitation powers of the acknowledged indispensable right of Belarusian citizens for peaceful events and meetings which is presented there.

In this regard we can observe the tendency of Belarusian authorities to replace the criteria written in the International Covenant on civil and political rights with unlimited competence of local executive committees by a complete deforming of their essence… Which in its turn contradicts the criterion of law quality determination provisions of which must be indispensably publicly available, understandable and exact, and they also must be equally understood and executed towards all right-holders without any discrimination exceptions …

Otherways it would mean that the violation of article 2 of ICCPR widely practiced by officials of the “vertical” would be settled in the national law. Suchlike permit for wide use of subjective will of local executive committees during deciding the claim for peaceful meetings is just a permit for dismissing any claims of the official power’s opponents without any explanations (!?) …

And together with this it’s important to note that in Belarusian courts explanations of representatives of ruling power isn’t absolutely required when they prohibit (discriminated appealers) to use their right for peaceful meetings.

This way, knowing the state of things in the country and ideological grounds for prohibiting any peaceful meeting there, our authorities try to tell the Committee that our National law, which gives an unlimited right to executive committees (violating article 2 and 5 of ICCPR) to shape destiny of every claim for peaceful events under their own “always right” opinions, in Belarus has power greater than the Constitution of the country and signed obligations towards International Covenant on Civil and political Rights.

That’s how everything fits together. All announcements of the political riling power of the country about the fact that everything (from elections to control of the country) is done according to the right law, our correct legal standards and our “right and understandable” principles of democracy, only proves these completely lawless and ideologically motivated approaches.

All what is concerned the standartization of “correct orientations” directed to remaining stability of the ruling regime in Belarus is considered to be an act of aggression and destabilization of state in which it’s possible to fulfill a total control over the society… and is stopped by the ruling authorities through subordinate subjects of law (including law-enforcement bodies and courts).

Thus, “it’s all right, mama”…it seems like everything is normal “according to law”. But the law itself and its interpreting, pledged schemes of using its norms are very far from norm acknowledged by the high rate international agreement on human rights.

That’s why taking into account everything listed above I have to note that such like practice of limitations motivated by opinions of executive committee’s administration and approaches and interpreting of legal standards used, don’t fit even the first from the three criteria in the test on legality of limitations of the right for peaceful events used in the country.

I would even suggest professionals of law to prove the contrary. I’m sure that a professional approach to the case of human rights and international law in this sphere will only prove my convictions once again.

Indeed, lawful limitations of rights and freedoms must be foreseen in law and this means that these positions must be expressed clear and exact to be understandable for all subjects of law.

Moreover, to avoid any violations of article 2 and 5 of ICCPR these limitations should be used for all subjects of law under clear and objective criteria…
It means that there mustn’t be any discrimination-subjective exclusion out of written strict rules, without widening of limits of any civil and political law settled by international law which is important for normal development of democracy and civil way of society in Belarus.


Strategic lawsuit on Alena Zalesskaya’s case (Vitsebsk) … (Rus.)

Filing petition of Belarusian authorities of HRC of UNO on Alena Zalesskaya’s comment

Aliaksiey Lapitsky,
Specially for

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *