2011 25/02
Віктар Карняенка, Гомель

Viktar Karniajenka, Homiel

We suggest you to familiarize yourself with judgments of UNO Committee on Human Rights about “Karniayenka vs. Belarus” case (“Public Initiatives”, Homiel, 2004-2006). It is worthwhile noting that the judgments of UNO CHR experts of 2006 we suggest to read about the state’s violations of the right to freedom of peaceful assemblies at the events of liquidation of NGO “Public Initiatives” in Homiel – didn’t get any feedback from Belarusian authorities.

In the individual report of the applicant Viktar Karniayenka (“Public Initiatives”, Homiel) to UNO CHR questions about the following situations were raised:

-Equality before the law, -Proscription of discrimination,

- Right to freedom of peaceful associations,

-Right to define rights and duties in legal proceedings by a competent, independent and unbiased court.

It corresponds art. 14, p.1; art. 26; art. 22, p.p.1 and 2 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (UNO CHR). The report was filed according to art.1 and art.2 of Optional Protocol of ICCPR

We believe, the situation with a systematic failure of Republic of Belarus to meet provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (further ICCPR of Covenant) and constant ignoring of these ICCPR judgments about the facts of violations, require correspondent comments and active position of Belarusian human rights defending society and public society.

Moreover, this concrete destructive position of official Minsk can and must be appealed through all kinds of international mechanisms of human rights defense including the Committee itself.

It’s absolutely unacceptable when Belarusian authorities consider all provisions of the international agreement (ICCPR) signed by Republic of Belarus not compulsory and practically refuse Belarusian citizens a wide range of civil and political rights which are described in the document and are guaranteed by the Constitution – the supreme law to use on our national territory.

Аляксей Лапіцкі, Жодзіна

Аlaksiej Lapicki, Zhodzina

Aliaksiey Lapitsky: Indeed, in spite of the obvious violations of rights and international obligations in the field of human rights, working authorities of Belarus keep on ignoring correspondent mechanisms of control over obligatory fulfillment of generally accepted legal standards and people’s rights, registered by the Optional Protocol of ICCPR In this situation we can talk about a certain unspoken moratorium set by the authorities of Belarus over the use of public and political rights and freedoms.

As a result, Belarusian society now exists in the situation when obligations registered by the Supreme Law of the country and international agreements aren’t being executed.

The country lacks both legal mechanisms and political will about keeping and using the Constitution of Republic of Belarus about guaranteed constitutional inherent rights and freedoms of Belarusian citizens.

And this situation in the country can be described as completely lawless and anti-constitutional.

In actual fact, systematic abuse of power and refusal of fulfillment in practice of obligations of the main Constitution’s provisions in the conditions of a total apathy and inactivity of the country’s law enforcement and court system, which are completely dependant from the ruling power vertical is just a reduction of constitutional order in the country to anti-constitutional.

P/S

In a special section HERE and also at the portal’s forum you can additionally familiarize yourself with a full version of the document of the UNO Committee on Human Rights mentioned above about “Karniayenka vs. Belarus” case and you can also express thoughts and opinions, your attitude to the problem (as well as in the comments to the materials).

As we all know, the mechanism of the individual reporting to UNO CHR about the probable state’s violations of civil and political rights enshrined in the Covenant, works according to the correspondent rules of the Optional Protocol of ICCPR.

This mechanism is meant to provide control over the execution of the international agreement mentioned relating to the state of Human Rights in all countries-participants of this agreement. This obligation is one more time proved by the General Comment #33 of UNO Committee on Human Rights which was accepted at the 94th session on October 13-31, 2008 in Geneve.

Ales Volny

Belarusian Legal Portal,

by.prava-by.info

One thought on ““Karniayenka vs. Belarus” case – it’s early to dot the i’s… (UNO CHR document, forum)”

  1. Ales says:

    Authorities in Belarus is non-constitutional, it totally ignores the whole range of important constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens and the main right to free and conscious choice. In these conditions, in the situation of nonfeasance of law-enforcement and court systems and a total official impunity, a replacement of values, rights and duties and as a result of the constitutional order in the country takes place.

Leave a Reply

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


*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>