Belarus and UN: Ongoing confrontation

Belarus is not going to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur of the UN Human Rights Council and is hardly ready to open UN OHCHR office in Belarus.

On October 28, 2013 Miklosh Harasti, the UN Special Rapporteur to Belarus, has presented a report on the situation with human rights in Belarus at the UN General Assembly. It is the second report on the situation with human rights in Belarus. This time it is dedicated to the future electoral campaigns in the country.

Minsk - Special Rapporteur: Destructive phase

 Anna Gerasimova, the head of the Belarusian Human Rights House in exile in Vilnius, was present at the UN General Assembly, where Miklosh Harasti presented his report. Anna Gerasimova told EuroBelarus Information Service about the reaction of the official Minsk:

- The reaction of Belarus was rather predictable, as it was extremely negative. Official Minsk claims that the information presented in the report is untrue and Special Rapporteur is “blackening Belarus”. The representative from Belarus also stated that the country has successfully undergone a procedure of Universal Periodic Review (UPR) and has already fulfilled a number of recommendations.

However, Belarus didn’t adopt the most essential recommendations and didn’t fulfill even the half of the adopted ones.

Thus, Belarus remains unwilling to cooperate with the special reporter of the UN, - emphasized Anan Gerasimova.

Recommendations for the OHCHR

Let us recall that earlier the Center for Legal Transformation “Lawtrend” sent to Miklosh Harasti its attitude towards the recommendations of the UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus and the activity of other UN institutions dealing with the promotion of human rights in Belarus.

Lawtrend has received an official answer from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) on the letter from the “Lawtrend”. OHCHR in the person of Gianni Magazenni, Chief of Branch of the Americas, Europe and Central Asia, gave an answer to the suggestions:

“I would like to inform you that your recommendations were imparted to the UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus. OHCHR discussed your document with the UN Representative Office in Belarus, and made a decision to undertake common actions (that of OHCHR and UN Representative Office working on the situation in Belarus) in the context of your recommendations”.

Why the Office is better?

Meanwhile, the Third Forum of Belarusian Human Rights Forum held in Vilnius suggested the UN to start the procedure of opening the representation of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. Human rights fighters believe that OHCHR Office will be much more effective than the Special Rapporteur.

Iryna Dzeshavitsyna, the leader of the International group “Lawtrend”, explained to the EuroBelarus Information Service the meaning of these initiatives.

Does Belarus need the OHCHR representation?

Unfortunately, currently the UN Representative Office in Belarus gives little attention to the problem of human rights. OHCHR representation or the post of the human rights adviser would be working exclusively with the human rights problems, as it would be primarily aimed at building up dialog with Belarusan authorities and civil society by organizing regular consultations, round tables.

Besides, the opening of OHCHR representation would form a regularly functioning UN human rights mechanism inside the country.

- Is it possible to open such representation office taking into account that even Miklosh Harasti, the UN Special Rapporteur, wasn’t allowed to study Belarusan situation in the country by the official Minsk?

- Indeed, the problem with opening OHCHR Office in Belarus depends on the decision made by authorities; i.e. their content is required.

The question is whether the government will give their content or not is tricky. Though now the government shows no desire to cooperate with the UN in the human rights sphere, it doesn’t exclude the possibility that the work of Special Rapporteur (which is considered to be politicized) will be substituted for the OHCHR Office in Minsk.

- How do the authorities tell the difference between the two institutions?

- The difference is that the Special Rapporteur is a temporary mechanism, whereas OHCHR Office is meant to be permanent. The Office has to work from Belarus, while Special Rapporteur can’t come to Belarus freely. For the authorities the difference is that once they didn’t recognize the mandate of the Special Rapporteur they won’t renounce their position.

Besides, Special Rapporteur is usually perceived as a politicized and biased instrument; however, no such claims were uttered towards the Office of the High Commissioner.

- Can we expect that OHCHR Office will somehow manage to carry out monitoring of human rights in Belarus more effectively?

- Yes, because of its Minsk location, as it presupposes at least some contact with the authorities. Of course, it won’t be difficult even for the Special Rapporteur, due to numerous sources inside the country.

- What can be done now for the OHCHR Office to open in Minsk and who should do that?

- We need to persuade Belarusan authorities to agree on the OHCHR suggestion, or open the Office by their own initiative. Human rights fighters have already “asked” OHCHR to put forth the initiative of opening OHCHR Office in Belarus. We have received the answer that our recommendations will be taken into consideration, those about the OHCHR representation, too.