Previous 4 / 6 Next

CCPR/C/139/D/3095/2018 provided for by law, and necessary to achieve the specific goals it pursues. 10 The author contends that the State party has failed to demonstrate why the restrictions on his right to express his opinion were necessary for even one legitimate purpose under article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Issues and proceedings before the Committee Consideration of admissibility 6.1 Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the case is admissible under the Optional Protocol. 6.2 The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement. 6.3 The Committee notes the State party’s challenge to the admissibility of the communication on the grounds of failure to exhaust domestic remedies, namely the author’s failure to apply to the Chair of Gomel Regional Court and to the prosecutor’s office for supervisory review of the decision delivered by Gomel Regional Court on 2 June 2017. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which an application for supervisory review of court decisions that have entered into force and depend on the discretionary power either of a judge or a prosecutor does not constitute a remedy which must be exhausted for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.11 Accordingly, it considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining this part of the communication. 6.4 The Committee further notes the author’s claim that his rights under article 19, read in conjunction with article 2 (2), of the Covenant, were violated. The Committee also considers that the provisions of article 2 cannot be invoked as a claim in a communication under the Optional Protocol in conjunction with other provisions of the Covenant, except when the failure by the State party to observe its obligations under article 2 is the proximate cause of a distinct violation of the Covenant directly affecting the individual claiming to be a victim.12 The Committee notes, however, that the author has already alleged a violation of his rights under article 19, resulting from the interpretation and application of the existing laws of the State party, and the Committee does not consider that an examination of whether the State party also violated its general obligations under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 19, is distinct from the examination of the violation of the author’s rights under article 19. The Committee therefore considers that the author’s claims in this regard are incompatible with article 2 of the Covenant, and inadmissible under article 3 of the Optional Protocol. 6.5 The Committee considers that the author has sufficiently substantiated his claim under article 19 of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares this part of the claim admissible and proceeds to examine it on its merits. Consideration of the merits 7.1 The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. 7.2 The Committee notes the author’s allegations that the authorities violated his rights under article 19 of the Covenant, as he was convicted and fined for sharing a link on the 10 11 12 4 The author referred to Park v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/64/D/628/1995), in which the Committee disagreed with the State party prioritizing national legislation over rights enshrined in the Covenant. Romanchik v. Belarus (CCPR/C/135/D/3240/2018), para. 6.3; Belenky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/135/D/2860/2016), para. 8.3; Lozenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/112/D/1929/2010), para. 6.3; and Sudalenko v. Belarus (CCPR/C/115/D/2016/2010), para. 7.3. Zhukovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/127/D/2724/2016), para. 6.4; Zhukovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/127/D/2955/2017), para. 6.4; and Zhukovsky v. Belarus (CCPR/C/127/D/3067/2017), para. 6.6. GE.24-01139

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Katorzhevsky v. Belarus

Case Law

Decision Date: 12 de fev. de 2024

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Disposition)

ICCPR Violation
Violation of a Rule of International Law

Keywords

Content Moderation
Content Regulation / Censorship
Fines
National Security
Social Media

Judicial Body: United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC)

Court Name: United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC)

Case Number: 3095/2018

Case Summary: The UN Human Rights Committee held that Belarus violated Pavel Katorzhevsky’s right to freedom of expression by initiating legal proceedings against him, and fining him, for the dissemination on a social network of an article published on a platform open to the public without having examined its content. Katorzhevsky posted on the social network “Vkontakte” a link to a newspaper article entitled “Idiocy and fake honor to the victims of war in a capital city gymnasium,” published on the same day on “vk.com/rdbelarus.” Following a police complaint, the Belarusian courts issued a 230 rubles fine (approximately 110 euros) against Katorzhevsky for violating the Law against Extremism in Belarus. Katorzhevsky argued before the UN Human Rights Committee that Belarus violated his right to freedom of expression because the article he disseminated did not contain extremist material that threatened national security. For its part, Belarus argued that the fine was a permissible limit to freedom of expression because it was backed by a law aimed at combating extremism. The State also argued that in Belarus any information or ideas published on the site “vk.com/rdbelarus” were considered “extremist material.” The Committee held that Belarus violated the petitioner’s right to freedom of expression. It noted that the article was originally published on a public platform. Moreover, the Committee held that Belarus cannot automatically consider all content posted on a website to be extremist or to affect national security. It also argued that the lack of an individualized assessment of the article’s content, regarding its impact on national security—on behalf of national authorities and courts—, did not satisfy the requirements of legitimacy, necessity, and proportionality, laid out in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Case Significance: Expands Expression

The UN Human Rights Committee’s decision in this case expanded freedom of expression. In it, the Committee reiterated that States cannot validly restrict freedom of expression to protect national security by automatically and generically declaring that any content posted on a website is extremist, without a detailed analysis. In finding such practice illegal, the Committee set forth a robust protection for expression against blanket and vague prohibitions. It is worth noting that this is also the first precedent issued by the Committee regarding the Law on Combating Extremism in Belarus, concerning a freedom of expression case.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

Columbia

Date Updated: 18 de out. de 2024

Primary Documents

Decision.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Katorzhevsky v. Belarus

Primary Documents

Notifications