The sinuosities of the human rights defense system in Belarus

Though the mandate of the Special Rapporteur was extended, Belarusan authorities don’t intent to invite Miklos Haraszti to Belarus. Human rights defenders say such reaction was but predictable.

Miklos Haraszti, UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus, is still not allowed to enter the country. However, the Belarusian authorities are ready to invite a number of special rapporteurs and discuss only certain questions.

As the head of the main bureau of the multilateral diplomacy of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs Yury Ambrazevich stated at a briefing in Minsk on 10 February, the Belarusian government has no plans to invite Haraszti to Belarus: "We do not believe that he can or able to lead a constructive dialogue with the Belarusian government because of the specific personal qualities and background of the problem (establishment of the post of special rapporteur), and also because this post was established without the consent of the Belarusian government". Ambrazevich also noted that the Belarus intends to confirm the invitation to visit the country for a number of special rapporteurs of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). In particular, these are the special rapporteurs on freedom of the press, freedom of religion, freedom of judges, on human trafficking and child pornography, on the rights of migrants and on violence against women.

The president of the Barys Zvozskau Belarusian Human Rights House and member of the Human Rights Center "Viasna" Tatsiana Raviaka (left) noted that such actions of the Belarusian authorities show willingness to talk only about specific issues of human rights in Belarus, and not to discuss problematic issues and the situation as a whole: "There are country and special rapporteurs in the UN human rights defense system. Country rapporteurs are assigned very rarely, this happens in those countries where the human rights situation is critical. If the Human Rights Council appoints a special country rapporteur, the practice is that it is guided by its reports, because they contain analysis of a wide range of problems. Special rapporteurs analyse the situation only in specified sphere. If the Belarusian authorities say they are ready to invite only the special rapporteurs, so they primarily demonstrate the position of non-recognition of country rapporteur and the Council's common approaches on the human rights issue. They also express willingness to discuss something at the UN level, but only those topics they choose themselves. Of course, they are choosing those areas where there is definitely some progress made. But there are no opportunities to talk about the whole range of human rights, as well as some of the most sensitive issues in this approach. Here we can observe the will the Belarusian authorities: on one hand - to ignore the general accepted rules, on the other - to try to impose their own".

Answering the question why the special rapporteurs and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay still haven't visited Belarus, Ambrazevich reported that invitations had been sent back in 2010.  "Probably, the visit has not been implemented because of the position of the High Commissioner that, if there is a country rapporteur, there is no need for visits of other rapporteurs,” he presumed. After the clarification that the High Commissioner for Human Rights refused to visit Belarus due to the fact that the Belarusian side did not guarantee her a meeting with political prisoners, Ambrazevich said: "Perhaps, the question of the meeting was considered, but why should the Belarusian State make such actions in violation of its own laws?"

Miklos Haraszti is meeting human rights defenders outside Belarus

UN Council on Human Rights introduced the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus in March 2012. However, Miklos Haraszti did not have the opportunity to come to Belarus, as the authorities denied him the right to enter. Not being able to visit Belarus, the rapporteur works by organizing consultations with representatives of the democratic civil society and human rights defenders from Belarus on the territory of neighbouring countries.

"As regards the human rights defenders, we are committed to cooperation and real work with all mechanisms to protect human rights, and of course with such strong mechanism as the country rapporteur. Human rights defenders welcomed the introduction of the mandate in 2012, and immediately expressed their interest in cooperation. Throughout the term of the special rapporteur this cooperation was very close. Of course, we are very sorry that the Belarusian side stands for the official position of non-recognition of the mandate and refuses to invite Mr. Haraszti to Belarus. We believe that such cooperation could result in serious positive success and help to improve the situation in many problem areas, "- said the human rights defender Tatsiana Raviaka.

After the decision to extend the mandate of the Special Rapporteur in Belarus for another year was made in June 2013, the UN Council on Human Rights called on the Belarusian authorities to cooperate fully with the UN Special Rapporteur, including granting him permission to visit the country and giving access to relevant information. Miklos Haraszti has repeatedly stated that he would like to investigate the human rights situation in Belarus on the spot, and also that he believes direct dialogue with the Belarusian authorities is an important tool to improve the human rights situation in Belarus, but the stand of the Belarusian authorities does not change.

Tatsiana Raviaka, in turn, noted that such reaction of the authorities is quite predictable: "The authorities of most countries where such a mandate is introduced, react very nervously to it and can perceive it as pressure and interference. At one of the meetings in Geneva, we had a talk with a representative of one of the African countries, where a similar mandate was introduced. First, the authorities reacted very painful and behave the way the Belarusian authorities do now. But then they decided to try to cooperate and it was not as bad as they thought. The rapporteur was allowed into the country, a close cooperation was established and in the end they got the best results: those recommendations, that were introduced by the rapporteur, helped the country to cope with systemic problems. It would be very helpful if the Belarusian authorities were able to really understand the positive potential of cooperation with an expert of the highest level and finally made a step forward. "

Originally published at humanrightshouse.org