On March 20, 2024, the 36th meeting of the 55th regular session of the Human Rights Council took place. During this session, the Report of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights "Situation of human rights in Belarus in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and in its aftermath" was presented, and the positions of states and organisations regarding the information presented in the report were voiced.
Following the session, a vote will be held on its adoption, and the final version of the report with recommendations from states will be published. The conclusions of the final report will be analysed in a separate material. Today we’ll analyse the positions of the Office of the High Commissioner, democratic states, Belarus itself and its allies, as well as discuss why the reference to "non-interference in internal affairs" as a criticism of the Report is irrelevant.
The report was presented by Christian Salazar Volkmann, Director for Field Operations and Technical Cooperation for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He emphasised that the parliamentary elections of 2024 cannot be considered fair, as no opposition party was allowed to register, the elections themselves took place without observers and with numerous violations, which raises concerns about the conduct of elections next year. He drew attention to ongoing arbitrary detentions and politically motivated persecution, in particular, mass arrests of citizens for organizing or receiving food aid, gender-based violence, torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, medical negligence and denial of adequate medical care to prisoners in Belarusian prisons, which has already led to a number of deaths of political prisoners and raises particular concern in the context of some prisoners being held without contact with relatives or a lawyer. The report highlights trials of children, including arrests and convictions of persons under 18, inclusion of such individuals in so-called "extremist lists," removal of children from families and deprivation of parental rights for their activism, placement of children in orphanages without valid reason. The situation faced by citizens after forced dismissal for political reasons was also addressed, when there are obstacles to further employment for such a category of citizens in the country. Separate emphasis was placed on legislation regulating the issuance of passports, specifically the prohibition of issuing them outside the republic. The speaker mentioned the figure of 207 persons arrested at the Belarusian border when attempting to return to the country.
According to the report, the actions of the Belarusian state can be considered crimes against humanity.
Belarus was represented by Larisa Belskaya. According to Belskaya, the Report is an illustration of hypocrisy, and Belarus itself is firmly committed to human rights obligations and is ready to cooperate with UN member states. She believes that "fugitive activists" are broadcasting extremist calls, trying to turn the West against Belarus, and "fair" verdicts are unjustifiably equated with repression; according to Belskaya, there are no political prisoners in the country, and all actions of law enforcement agencies are lawful. In the opinion of the Belarusian representative, the Report is hypocritical, it uses human rights as a means to weaken the state and undermine stability, to facilitate colour revolutions. The speaker concluded her speech by stating that the country is thriving despite sanctions.
Next, representatives of other countries took turns making their recommendations. Conventionally, the speakers can be divided into three blocks: states that supported the report, states that condemned it, and those who chose a neutral position.
The first category includes: the EU, countries of the Scandinavian-Baltic region, Liechtenstein, Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, Australia, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Belgium, USA, Romania, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, UK, Montenegro, Moldova, Albania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Luxembourg, Bulgaria. Representatives of these countries emphasised that the human rights situation in Belarus has never been so dire. Teachers, lawyers, and workers are being persecuted. Fair elections in 2020 and 2024 failed to take place, and electoral rights continue to be violated. Arbitrary arrests are taking place, the right to a fair trial is systematically violated, and victims are not compensated for damages. Human rights defenders, including Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski, are behind bars, while the Viasna Human Rights Centre is labelled as extremist. There is no freedom of speech in the country, journalists are persecuted, and media outlets are being closed. Prisoners are kept in inhumane conditions. All this is happening against the backdrop of Belarus supporting Russian military aggression against Ukraine, including through the deportation and illegal movement of Ukrainian children. The death penalty still exists in Belarus, which is condemned by representatives of France in particular, considering the unclear and vague formulations of crimes for which it is provided. Some countries strongly recommended Belarus to re-ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The second block of states encompasses Russia, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, China, Niger, Nicaragua, Eritrea, Egypt, and Iran. Like Belarus, representatives of some of these states (for instance, Russia and Venezuela) called the information gathered and presented in the report false and not reflecting reality. A characteristic feature of the speeches of representatives of these countries is the repeated narrative about the priority of principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, state independence, and sovereignty, the ability of the state to independently choose its path. The report by these states was seen as an act of external pressure on Belarus, and human rights, according to the speakers, were used as a political tool. Russia stated that sanctions by Western countries cause discontent among the Belarusian population, while Nicaragua stated that they would never support a report, whatever it may be, if it is against Belarus. The constitutional reform of 2022 was often mentioned, which, according to the speakers, took place "in an atmosphere of peace" (it is worth reminding that 5 days before the constitutional reform, Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, including from the territory of Belarus).
The third block of states, which expressed a fairly neutral position, includes Laos, Tajikistan, Sudan, Cambodia, Burundi, Sri Lanka, and Azerbaijan. Representatives of these countries were reluctant to directly disagree with the information presented in the report in their speeches. Words of support were voiced for the interaction of Belarusian authorities with the UN (through submitting a national report on the human rights situation), "important steps" in strengthening the role of parliament, constitutional reform, free education, and healthcare. Tajikistan welcomed Belarus' cooperation with the UN, especially its "efforts to educate people in the field of human rights and promote children's rights and gender equality". According to the representative of Tajikistan, Belarus' participation in UN procedures signifies its cooperation with international human rights mechanisms. Representatives of Sudan and Cambodia pointed out that human rights should be exercised in a balanced manner to "coincide with state interests", taking into account the principles of non-interference, territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national peculiarities. This category of countries advocates for constructive dialogue and the implementation of the Council's mandate with the interests and consent of the states.
We’d like to remind you that reference to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs was used by the Belarusian parliament to adopt a law denouncing the Optional Protocol to the Pact, which essentially excluded the possibility for Belarusians to file a complaint with the Human Rights Committee.
Contrary to the often voiced thesis by representatives of states unwilling to take into account the considerations of international bodies operating on the basis of ratified treaties, the latter do not inherently imply the possibility of violating state sovereignty. The voluntary ratification of an international treaty (and therefore the ability to have rights and obligations to its participants) is a direct consequence of state sovereignty, recognition of the state as a full-fledged subject of international relations, rather than a waiver of state sovereignty. The general principle of international law — pacta sunt servanda ("treaties shall be complied with") — implies, among other things, the requirement of good-faith interpretation of an international treaty. An interpretation that deprives the treaty of its purpose, for which it was concluded, cannot be considered good-faith. It is worth noting that the Republic of Belarus is a full-fledged participant in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the moment. Among other things, it has undertaken to comply with this treaty. The lack of adequate response to the recommendations and conclusions of international bodies (which sometimes establish a state's violation of its obligations and the need to still provide people under its jurisdiction with effective legal remedies) deprives the state's participation in the Covenant of purpose and meaning.
If a state strives to present itself as a sovereign, full-fledged actor in international relations, it should ensure genuinely good-faith, not ostensible, interpretation and implementation of its international obligations. Treaty bodies do not attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a state; rather, by exercising its sovereignty and ratifying international instruments, the state has undertaken an obligation to heed their opinion for the fullest compliance with its international obligations.
At the end, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, the Human Rights House Foundation, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Right Livelihood Foundation, Article 19, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety once again drew attention to systematic human rights violations in Belarus and supported the report and its theses, in particular that Belarus' actions constitute potential crimes against humanity.
International legal organisations also made separate statements. The International Bar Association drew attention to incommunicado detention of the attorney Maxim Znak, lacking access to medical assistance, and demanded the release of all imprisoned attorneys and political prisoners. The association condemns Belarus' encroachments on the rule of law. The International Commission of Jurists condemned the Belarusian practice of arresting members of the legal profession, leading to the forced departure of some attorneys from the country, attacks on attorneys by authorities, paying particular attention to the case of Vitaly Braginets. The Commission called on Belarus to immediately release attorneys and compensate for their violated rights, as well as to urgently restore the rule of law.
Nada Al-Nashif, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, concluded the discussion of the report by calling on the Belarusian authorities to allow independent observers into Belarusian prisons, restore communication with the UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus as part of building an effective dialogue. Actors outside Belarus (states, organisations) should create favourable conditions for Belarusians, provide psychological support, ensure their international protection, and, if necessary, refugee status. The speaker emphasised that legal and human rights activities in Belarus are under continuous state pressure; many representatives of these professions are persecuted, some are held in incommunicado detention. In principle, access to legal assistance is severely restricted. Moreover, fewer attorneys are willing to take on sensitive cases due to the risk of losing their lawyer status. Practices of persecuting lawyers and restricting the right to legal assistance must be stopped.
Following the session, a vote will be held on its adoption, and the final version of the report with recommendations from states will be published. The conclusions of the final report will be analysed in a separate material. Today we’ll analyse the positions of the Office of the High Commissioner, democratic states, Belarus itself and its allies, as well as discuss why the reference to "non-interference in internal affairs" as a criticism of the Report is irrelevant.
The report was presented by Christian Salazar Volkmann, Director for Field Operations and Technical Cooperation for the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. He emphasised that the parliamentary elections of 2024 cannot be considered fair, as no opposition party was allowed to register, the elections themselves took place without observers and with numerous violations, which raises concerns about the conduct of elections next year. He drew attention to ongoing arbitrary detentions and politically motivated persecution, in particular, mass arrests of citizens for organizing or receiving food aid, gender-based violence, torture and degrading treatment of prisoners, medical negligence and denial of adequate medical care to prisoners in Belarusian prisons, which has already led to a number of deaths of political prisoners and raises particular concern in the context of some prisoners being held without contact with relatives or a lawyer. The report highlights trials of children, including arrests and convictions of persons under 18, inclusion of such individuals in so-called "extremist lists," removal of children from families and deprivation of parental rights for their activism, placement of children in orphanages without valid reason. The situation faced by citizens after forced dismissal for political reasons was also addressed, when there are obstacles to further employment for such a category of citizens in the country. Separate emphasis was placed on legislation regulating the issuance of passports, specifically the prohibition of issuing them outside the republic. The speaker mentioned the figure of 207 persons arrested at the Belarusian border when attempting to return to the country.
According to the report, the actions of the Belarusian state can be considered crimes against humanity.
Belarus was represented by Larisa Belskaya. According to Belskaya, the Report is an illustration of hypocrisy, and Belarus itself is firmly committed to human rights obligations and is ready to cooperate with UN member states. She believes that "fugitive activists" are broadcasting extremist calls, trying to turn the West against Belarus, and "fair" verdicts are unjustifiably equated with repression; according to Belskaya, there are no political prisoners in the country, and all actions of law enforcement agencies are lawful. In the opinion of the Belarusian representative, the Report is hypocritical, it uses human rights as a means to weaken the state and undermine stability, to facilitate colour revolutions. The speaker concluded her speech by stating that the country is thriving despite sanctions.
Next, representatives of other countries took turns making their recommendations. Conventionally, the speakers can be divided into three blocks: states that supported the report, states that condemned it, and those who chose a neutral position.
The first category includes: the EU, countries of the Scandinavian-Baltic region, Liechtenstein, Czech Republic, Malta, Poland, Australia, Austria, Germany, Ireland, Switzerland, France, Belgium, USA, Romania, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, UK, Montenegro, Moldova, Albania, Slovakia, Ukraine, Luxembourg, Bulgaria. Representatives of these countries emphasised that the human rights situation in Belarus has never been so dire. Teachers, lawyers, and workers are being persecuted. Fair elections in 2020 and 2024 failed to take place, and electoral rights continue to be violated. Arbitrary arrests are taking place, the right to a fair trial is systematically violated, and victims are not compensated for damages. Human rights defenders, including Nobel laureate Ales Bialiatski, are behind bars, while the Viasna Human Rights Centre is labelled as extremist. There is no freedom of speech in the country, journalists are persecuted, and media outlets are being closed. Prisoners are kept in inhumane conditions. All this is happening against the backdrop of Belarus supporting Russian military aggression against Ukraine, including through the deportation and illegal movement of Ukrainian children. The death penalty still exists in Belarus, which is condemned by representatives of France in particular, considering the unclear and vague formulations of crimes for which it is provided. Some countries strongly recommended Belarus to re-ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The second block of states encompasses Russia, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Syria, China, Niger, Nicaragua, Eritrea, Egypt, and Iran. Like Belarus, representatives of some of these states (for instance, Russia and Venezuela) called the information gathered and presented in the report false and not reflecting reality. A characteristic feature of the speeches of representatives of these countries is the repeated narrative about the priority of principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, state independence, and sovereignty, the ability of the state to independently choose its path. The report by these states was seen as an act of external pressure on Belarus, and human rights, according to the speakers, were used as a political tool. Russia stated that sanctions by Western countries cause discontent among the Belarusian population, while Nicaragua stated that they would never support a report, whatever it may be, if it is against Belarus. The constitutional reform of 2022 was often mentioned, which, according to the speakers, took place "in an atmosphere of peace" (it is worth reminding that 5 days before the constitutional reform, Russia began a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, including from the territory of Belarus).
The third block of states, which expressed a fairly neutral position, includes Laos, Tajikistan, Sudan, Cambodia, Burundi, Sri Lanka, and Azerbaijan. Representatives of these countries were reluctant to directly disagree with the information presented in the report in their speeches. Words of support were voiced for the interaction of Belarusian authorities with the UN (through submitting a national report on the human rights situation), "important steps" in strengthening the role of parliament, constitutional reform, free education, and healthcare. Tajikistan welcomed Belarus' cooperation with the UN, especially its "efforts to educate people in the field of human rights and promote children's rights and gender equality". According to the representative of Tajikistan, Belarus' participation in UN procedures signifies its cooperation with international human rights mechanisms. Representatives of Sudan and Cambodia pointed out that human rights should be exercised in a balanced manner to "coincide with state interests", taking into account the principles of non-interference, territorial integrity, sovereignty, and national peculiarities. This category of countries advocates for constructive dialogue and the implementation of the Council's mandate with the interests and consent of the states.
We’d like to remind you that reference to the principle of non-interference in internal affairs was used by the Belarusian parliament to adopt a law denouncing the Optional Protocol to the Pact, which essentially excluded the possibility for Belarusians to file a complaint with the Human Rights Committee.
Contrary to the often voiced thesis by representatives of states unwilling to take into account the considerations of international bodies operating on the basis of ratified treaties, the latter do not inherently imply the possibility of violating state sovereignty. The voluntary ratification of an international treaty (and therefore the ability to have rights and obligations to its participants) is a direct consequence of state sovereignty, recognition of the state as a full-fledged subject of international relations, rather than a waiver of state sovereignty. The general principle of international law — pacta sunt servanda ("treaties shall be complied with") — implies, among other things, the requirement of good-faith interpretation of an international treaty. An interpretation that deprives the treaty of its purpose, for which it was concluded, cannot be considered good-faith. It is worth noting that the Republic of Belarus is a full-fledged participant in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights at the moment. Among other things, it has undertaken to comply with this treaty. The lack of adequate response to the recommendations and conclusions of international bodies (which sometimes establish a state's violation of its obligations and the need to still provide people under its jurisdiction with effective legal remedies) deprives the state's participation in the Covenant of purpose and meaning.
If a state strives to present itself as a sovereign, full-fledged actor in international relations, it should ensure genuinely good-faith, not ostensible, interpretation and implementation of its international obligations. Treaty bodies do not attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of a state; rather, by exercising its sovereignty and ratifying international instruments, the state has undertaken an obligation to heed their opinion for the fullest compliance with its international obligations.
At the end, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, the Human Rights House Foundation, the International Federation for Human Rights, the Right Livelihood Foundation, Article 19, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the Institute for Reporters' Freedom and Safety once again drew attention to systematic human rights violations in Belarus and supported the report and its theses, in particular that Belarus' actions constitute potential crimes against humanity.
International legal organisations also made separate statements. The International Bar Association drew attention to incommunicado detention of the attorney Maxim Znak, lacking access to medical assistance, and demanded the release of all imprisoned attorneys and political prisoners. The association condemns Belarus' encroachments on the rule of law. The International Commission of Jurists condemned the Belarusian practice of arresting members of the legal profession, leading to the forced departure of some attorneys from the country, attacks on attorneys by authorities, paying particular attention to the case of Vitaly Braginets. The Commission called on Belarus to immediately release attorneys and compensate for their violated rights, as well as to urgently restore the rule of law.
Nada Al-Nashif, Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights, concluded the discussion of the report by calling on the Belarusian authorities to allow independent observers into Belarusian prisons, restore communication with the UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus as part of building an effective dialogue. Actors outside Belarus (states, organisations) should create favourable conditions for Belarusians, provide psychological support, ensure their international protection, and, if necessary, refugee status. The speaker emphasised that legal and human rights activities in Belarus are under continuous state pressure; many representatives of these professions are persecuted, some are held in incommunicado detention. In principle, access to legal assistance is severely restricted. Moreover, fewer attorneys are willing to take on sensitive cases due to the risk of losing their lawyer status. Practices of persecuting lawyers and restricting the right to legal assistance must be stopped.
