CCPR/C/139/D/3095/2018
Administrative Offences of Belarus 5 or a request to the prosecutor’s office under article
12.11 (1) of the same Code. In addition, the State party contends that the communication
should be declared inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol as the author abused
his right to petition.
4.2
The State party also argues that the restrictive measures do not contravene the
Covenant and emphasizes that article 19 (3) of the Covenant expressly allows for restrictions
of the right to freedom of expression for respect of the rights or reputations of others and for
the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals.
4.3
The State party referred to the Law on Countering Extremism,6 which defines the legal
and organizational foundations for countering extremism with the aim of protecting the rights,
freedoms and lawful interests of individuals, the constitutional order, and the territorial
integrity of Belarus, ensuring the safety of society and the security of the State.7 The State
party indicated that, according to article 14 (1) of that Law, “the dissemination of
informational products which call for extremist activities or promote such activities, and their
production, publishing, storage and transportation for the purpose of dissemination, are
prohibited”. The State party also stated that, according to article 14 (3) of the Law,
“informational products are declared extremist materials by the decision of a court delivered
following a request from the State authority responsible for countering extremism”, and that,
according to article 14 (5) of the Law, “the court’s decision to declare the informational
products as extremist materials can be appealed against in courts”. After coming into force,
a copy of the court’s decision is forwarded to the Ministry of Information to include the
informational products concerned in the State List of Extremist Materials (under art. 14 (6)
of the Law). The State List of Extremist Materials (containing the names only of the extremist
materials concerned) must be published on the official website of the Ministry of Information,
as well as in the Respublika, Narodnaya Gazeta and Zvyazda newspapers, whereas “the
content (substance) of the informational products declared to be extremist materials is not to
be disclosed” (under art. 14 (6) of the Law).
4.4
The State party further reiterated the reasoning behind the national court’s decision of
2 May 2017, and stated that by the decision of the Central District Court of Minsk of
10 November 2016, in force as of 22 November 2016, the informational products published
on the Internet on vk.com had been declared extremist materials and included in the State
List of Extremist Materials. Therefore, the prohibition imposed on the author had been
decided in accordance with the law.
Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits
5.1
On 5 June 2018, the author commented on the State party’s observations. He reiterated
that he did not lodge applications for supervisory review because he did not consider that
such applications constituted an effective legal remedy. He submitted that an effective
remedy was one that could provide the author with compensation and offer him a reasonable
prospect of redress. The author also referred to the jurisprudence of the Committee8 in that
regard, as well as to the position of the European Court of Human Rights,9 which are both of
the view that applications for supervisory review constitute extraordinary remedies, the use
of which depends on discretionary powers, and that they therefore do not constitute effective
remedies.
5.2
The author maintained that the State party had violated his right to freedom of
expression, enshrined in article 19 (2) of the Covenant. Regarding the State party’s argument
that the limitation of the author’s rights was allowed under article 19 of the Covenant, the
author referred to the Committee’s standard that any restriction must be proportionate,
5
6
7
8
9
GE.24-01139
Law No. 194-Z of 20 December 2006.
Law No. 203-Z of 4 January 2007. The State party referred to the preamble and art. 14 of the Law on
Countering Extremism as amended by Law No. 435-Z of 26 October 2012 and Law No. 358-Z of
20 April 2016.
As stated in the preamble to the Law.
The author referred to Iskiyaev v. Uzbekistan (CCPR/C/95/D/1418/2005).
The author referred to European Court of Human Rights, Tumilovich v. Russia (application
No. 47033/99), decision of 22 June 1999.
3