Yury Chavusau: Belarusan side doesn’t fulfill any recommendations that can be clearly assessed

On May 4 Belarus underwent the second round of the UPR in Geneva. Civil society representatives mark government’s selective approach to recommendations of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC).

The procedure of the second round of the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) for human rights took place within the frames of the 22^ndsession of the UN Human Rights Council (HRC). The first round of UPR procedure resulted in 93 recommendations for Belarus, and only 53 of them were considered acceptable by the official Minsk. It is the implementation of these recommendations that was discussed during the second round of the UPR.

“First of all, we need to note that in comparison with the 2010 Belarus really dedicated much effort to undergoing Universal Periodic Review, - Yury Chavusau, a lawyer of the Assembly Of Pro-Democratic NGOs Of Belarus told to the “EuroBelarus” Information Service. – If earlier it had been Belarus’ diplomatic mission in Geneva that answered, now it was representative official delegation headed by Valiantsin Rybakou, Deputy Foreign Minister, who was assisted by many ministerial representatives: from health care and social security to penalty execution department and Information Ministry. In fact, all key structures were represented, including the Supreme Court”.

According to Chavusau, it proves that Belarusan government devotes biggest attention when upholding its vision of human rights in international organizations to the UPR procedure.

As to the report presented by Rybakou, Chavusau believes that it only has indications of positive steps that the government made following the recommendations of 2010. “And surprisingly, among these steps there are few concrete changes. Mostly these are things that touch upon discussions on death penalty and ombudsman. Thus, it was said that this work would be continued. For example, it was announced that the Council of Europe with UN’s participation starts huge research on the problem of introduction of ombudsman’s position in Belarus”, - he said.

“There were no answers to the critical questions asked during the dialog, - Chavusau noted. – There were also no sensational statements. But in those questions that were asked by the countries-members of the UN to Belarus one could notice certain dynamics. In particular, many states, not only European ones, but also, let’s say Mexico, expressed concern that during the forthcoming president elections situation with human rights in Belarus will get worse. Likewise in 2010, now the UPR procedure is taking place on the eve of the president elections and there are concerns that the current situation might change for the worse”.

When Belarus was undergoing the procedure, there were a lot of questions about political prisoners and abolition of death penalty. Belarus got a suggestion to join international documents that have to do with human rights – Convention on the rights of the disabled, Charter of the International Criminal Court, and, in particular, to the Second Optional Protocol to the international civil and political rights pact that touches upon abolition of death penalty.

A lot of attention was given to the problems of freedom of information, persecutions of human rights defendants, situation with NGOs. Thus, such countries as Switzerland, Lithuania, and the US have once again recommended Belarus’ to abolish Article 193.1. of the Criminal Code that provides for the liability for action on the part of non-registered organizations.

“To sum it up, we got the following situation: when the Human Rights Council is giving general recommendations, such as to consider the question or to investigate the problem, Belarusan state readily listens to these recommendations and fulfills them, - Chavusau noted. – Especially with involvement of the UN and the EU funds for holding conferences, researchers, round tables, and so on. But when it comes to recommendations that can be clearly assessed, the Belarusan side doesn’t fulfill any of them – for example, abolition of death penalty, abolition of Article 193.1. of the Criminal Code, and introduction of ombudsman’s position”.

“We will wait what recommendations the UN Human Rights Council voices in the end of the second round of dialog; let’s hope there will be more concrete recommendations”, - stated the lawyer.

Let us note that on May 4 15 minutes after Belarus underwent UPR procedure a side event was held, where representatives of the HRC “Viasna”, Center for Legal Transformation “Lawtrend”, and Assembly Of Pro-Democratic NGOs Of Belarus gave assessment to the situation with human rights in Belarus as seen by the official Minsk. Besides, an alternative report “Freedom of association and the legal status of non-commercial organizations in Belarus” was presented.

“The event caused quite huge interest and was attended by more than 20 delegations and about 50 people in general, - Chavusau informed. – The information we submitted re situation with human rights defendants, NGOs, challenges and perspectives that the civil society is facing was heard by delegations from Slovakia, Finland, and the EU. Questions re actual situation on the eve of the presidential elections were asked, as well as questions about the situation in Ukraine, how it affects situation in Belarus, how the civil society of our country answers these challenges”.

As “EuroBelarus” Information Service earlier informed, there are four main problems in the sphere of freedom of associations and legal status of non-commercial organizations in Belarus:

“First, the order of registering an NGO. If an NGO is for some reason unwanted by the state our legislation provides for denying registration to this organization. And registration practice permits us saying that the state is broadly applying this possibility. Secondly, ban to work of non-registered organizations and criminal liability for work on behalf of the non-registered organizations. Since 2008 people haven’t been behind the bars for that; however, the presence of this article allows issuing warnings – and they are. Third. Belarusan legislation considerably restricts access to NGOs’ funding from abroad, and we are to face even bigger toughening of legislation. There is also a problem with internal funding. The fourth problem is the presence of considerable restriction of the right of public unions to realize other rights, such as possibility of realizing the right to participate in the peaceful assemblies and to the freedom of expression,” – said Volha Smalianka, the head of the Centre for Legal Transformation “Lawtrend”.