Belarusians have been cut the freedom of assembly

Amendments to the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On mass actions" do not meet the standards of the OSCE, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of assembly.

Head of the Legal Transformation Center Elena Tonkacheva commented to Information service of "EUROBELARUS” almost a lightning adoption by deputies of the draft law "On introducing amendments and addenda to the Law of the Republic of Belarus "On mass actions in the Republic of Belarus" in two readings, in the evening of October, the 3^rd. 

- The set of amendments and addenda prepared, which were supposed to introduce to the law "On mass actions in the Republic of Belarus", was subjected to severe criticism both from the representatives of our civil society and experts from international organizations. The fact is that amendments and addenda did not meet the standards of the OSCE, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of assembly. This draft bill encroaches into the already limited freedom of assembly in Belarus.

The civil society had been almost convinced that the text of the draft bill would be discussed and that it would be seriously altered in the process of adoption or rejection of the law.

On October, the 3^rd the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of Belarus began its work, and in the afternoon deputies heard the reports from now former Minister of Justice ViktorGolovanov (on October, the 4^th he was relieved of this post) and from Deputy Chairman of the Standing Committee of the House of Representatives on Human Rights, National Relations and Mass Media Anatoli Glaz. Before afternoon came, the deputies managed to: 1) to hear the presentation of the draft bill, 2) to examine and discuss its articles, 3) to adopt it in the first reading, and 4) to adopt it in the second reading. Such a work speed the deputies had been demonstrating in the past, as well, thus in this case they were dealing with the constitutional rights of citizens. Moreover, the bill, which received a highly negative assessment of society, human rights defenders and international institutions, certainly had the right to a detailed and public discussion of the parliament members, and certainly, more than during half a day in two readings. I believe that such hurry has been politically motivated, and the parliamentarians have clearly deviated from their direct obligation - a detailed examination and reflexion of the law, and only subsequent adoption.

Why are there two readings? In the first reading there are questions being posed, a sort of reflection and discussion of these issues, and in the second reading the members come to a consensus on all statements. In this case above, obviously, none of the deputies had not been examining the content of the regulation, for which they’d voted twice in a few hours.

Yuliya Inysheva, Information of service "EUROBELARUS"