CCPR/C/139/D/3095/2018 party continues to be subject to the application of the Optional Protocol in respect of the present communication.1 Facts as submitted by the author 2.1 On 26 November 2016, the author shared a link on his profile page on the social network VKontakte to an article entitled “Idiocy and fake honour to the victims of war in a capital city gymnasium”, 2 dated 26 November 2016, which was posted on “vk.com/rdbelarus”, a public group on VKontakte. On 2 March 2017, the post came to the attention of the police, who drew up a report on the discovery of extremist material. On 13 March 2017, the author was summoned to the police station in Gomel and charged with dissemination of informational products included in the State List of Extremist Materials – an administrative offence under article 17.11 (2) of the Code of Administrative Offences of Belarus.3 On 2 May 2017, the Central District Court of Gomel found Mr. Katorzhevsky guilty and fined him 230 roubles (around 110 euros). 2.2 The Court based its decision on the following grounds: “Mr. Katorzhevsky disseminated informational products included in the State List of Extremist Materials, as informational products placed on vk.com/rdbelarus were declared extremist materials by a decision of the District Court of Minsk of 10 November 2016 (in force as from 22 November 2016)”. 2.3 On 10 May 2017 the author challenged the decision, requesting an individualized assessment from the Court of the article that had been shared with regard to its potential threat to national security or public order, or to public health or morals. On 2 June 2017, Gomel Regional Court rejected the appeal. 2.4 The author submits that he did not attempt to apply for supervisory review to the General Prosecutor’s Office of Belarus or the Supreme Court of Belarus since he does not consider it to be an effective remedy, and refers to the Committee’s jurisprudence on the matter. 4 The author contends that he has exhausted all available and effective domestic remedies. Complaint 3.1 The author submits that the authorities failed to justify the limitation of his freedom to distribute information as provided by article 19 (3) of the Covenant. He argues that even if the sanction imposed on him was permitted under domestic law, the State party did not show that in his particular case it was necessary and in line with any of the legitimate aims set out in article 19 (3). The author refers to article 27 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in which it is established that a State party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as a justification for its failure to fulfil treaty obligations. The author argues that he was fined for disseminating an article which did not pose a threat to national security, public order or the rights and freedoms of others. 3.2 The author also claims a violation of his rights under article 2 (2) and (3), read in conjunction with article 19, of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 On 5 March 2018, the State party submitted its observations, noting that the author had not exhausted all the available domestic remedies as required under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. He did not lodge a request for supervisory review with the Chair of Gomel Regional Court under article 12.11 (1) and (2) of the Procedural and Executive Code of 1 2 3 4 2 See, for example, Sextus v. Trinidad and Tobago (CCPR/C/72/D/818/1998), para. 10; Lobban v. Jamaica (CCPR/C/80/D/797/1998), para. 11; and Shchiryakova et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/137/D/2911/2016, 3081/2017, 3137/2018 and 3150/2018). See https://revbel.org/2016/11/marazm-i-pokazushnaya-pochest-pogibshim-v-vojne-v-stolichnojgimnazii/ (in Russian). Law No. 194-Z of 21 April 2003, as amended by Law No. 358-Z of 20 April 2016. The author referred to Schumilin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/105/D/1784/2008). GE.24-01139

Select target paragraph3