Previous 6 / 6 Next

CCPR/C/139/D/3095/2018 systems to support such communication, such as Internet service providers or search engines, are only permissible to the extent that they are compatible with article 19 (3) of the Covenant.19 Permissible restrictions generally should be content-specific; generic bans on the operation of certain sites and systems are not compatible with paragraph 3.20 7.7 The Committee observes that in his appeal to Gomel Regional Court, the author requested the authorities to carry out an individualized assessment of the article entitled “Idiocy and fake honour to the victims of war in a capital city gymnasium”, relying on article 19 (3) of the Covenant. However, the appeal court merely acknowledged and upheld the decision of the Central District Court of Minsk of 10 November 2016. The Committee reiterates that even if the sanctions imposed on the author were permitted under domestic law, the State party must show that they were necessary for one of the legitimate aims set out in article 19 (3).21 The Committee further observes that the State party has failed to invoke any specific grounds related to the author to support the necessity of the restrictions imposed on him, as is required under article 19 (3) of the Covenant.22 7.8 In particular, the Committee notes that the court decisions made no individualized assessment of the author’s case and have not provided any explanation as to why the conviction and fine imposed on him were necessary and the least intrusive among the measures which might achieve the relevant protective function and were proportionate to the interest to be protected. It therefore considers that the author’s right to freedom of expression under article 19 (2) of the Covenant has been violated. 8. The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation of the author’s rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant. 9. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is obligated to take appropriate steps to reimburse the fine and any legal costs incurred by the author. The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. 10. On becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there had been a violation of the Covenant. The present communication was submitted for consideration before the State party’s denunciation of the Optional Protocol became effective on 8 February 2023. Since, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the Committee’s Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State party. 19 20 21 22 6 See the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 43. Ibid. Laptsevich v. Belarus (CCPR/C/68/D/780/1997), para. 8.3. Zalesskaya v. Belarus (CCPR/C/101/D/1604/2007), para. 10.5. 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