2012 24/02
Мікалай Самасейка, Палата прадстаўнікоў Нацыянальнага Сходу Рэспублікі Беларусь, Менск

Mykalay Samaseyka, Chairman of the Standing Committee of Parliament, Мiensk

Homiel opposition activists Uladzimir Katsora and Uladzimir Niapomnyashchykh received a response from the House of Representatives to their appeal, the main point of which was that the Parliament would call the Constitutional Court to initiate bringing in line Article 8.4 of Procedural-Executive Code on Administrative Offences (PEKAO) with Article 25 of the Constitution and Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Chairman of the Standing Committee of Parliament Mykalay Samaseyka is telling in the answer that the rules of PEKAO respond the Constitution and there is no need to check them for compliance with the Fundamental and international law.

Meanwhile, the deputy writes:
“As for the inaccuracies of terminology, which is mentioned in your appeal, this fact does not affect the constitutionality of the rules, and can be liquidated in the course of legislative activity – in April 2012 an introduction of draft law “On Amendments and Additions to the CAO and PEKAO” is planned in the House of Representatives”.

Let’s remind you that opposition leaders appealed to the Presidential Administration, the Supreme Court and the Council of the Republic with the same initiative.

The Supreme Court concluded that “there were no grounds to initiate proceedings in the Constitutional Court to verify the administrative law in correspondence to the Constitution”. The same response opposition activists received from the Standing Committee of the Republic of Belarus on Legislation and State-construction. The applicants also addressed the Administration of the President, which did not even investigate the issue in details, and confined itself to interpretation of the law “On appeals of citizens and legal persons”.

In their appeals to the governmental agencies activists mentioned the facts PEKAO’s discrepancy to the norms of the Constitution and international law. They noticed that when they were detained on October 7 and 8 by police on charges of having committed an offense, they were immediately placed in a detention center. Two days later the court found them guilty and fined.

The opposition activists noticed that administrative detention is a right but not a duty of police officers, respectively, the norm of law “can be detained” in this case was used only on the basis of the subjective opinion of militia officers.

According to the applicants, the law norm “an individual committed an offense” has no legal interpretation of the legislator. It is important to note that Article 8.4 of PEKAO regarding the content of the term “person committing an offense” is contrary to the presumption of innocence established by Article 2.7 of PEKAO.

“We believe that these conflicts of administrative law, in practice, resulted violation of our right to liberty and security”, – stressed the opposition activists. They believe that the extra judicial arrest or administrative detention from the point of view of an objective observer must be reasonable and necessary in peculiar circumstances, and mustn’t contradict the right to freedom of everyone, personal privacy and the presumption of innocence.

Zmitser Litvinau
Quoting gomelspring.org,
Prepared by Ales LETA,
Belarusian Legal Portal,
by.prava-by.info

Tags: , , , ,

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>