Against the backdrop of ongoing discussions about the establishment of an institution of a Commissioner for the Rights of Belarusian Citizens, several human rights organisations have published their position on the initiative put forward by the Belarusian democratic forces. Among the authors of the statement are: the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, Legal Initiative, the Belarusian Human Rights House, Belarusian PEN, Human Constanta, the Human Rights Center "Viasna", the Office for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Lawtrend, and Respect-Protect-Fulfill.
The Right to Defence project joins the statement. The full text is available at the link provided. Key points are cited below.
The statement notes that, given the current circumstances, the creation of a Commissioner’s position appears neither appropriate nor effective, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed scope of the Commissioner’s functions is overly broad and cannot be effectively implemented under current circumstances.
The thematic mandate outlined in the draft Statute (Chapter 3) includes a list of twelve functions for the Commissioner, which almost entirely duplicate the functions already carried out by human rights organisations, other civil society groups, and international mechanisms working on Belarus. In the current environment, a Commissioner with such a broad formal mandate would not, in practice, have any additional capabilities compared to the structures of the Democratic Forces, human rights organisations, or existing international mechanisms focused on Belarus. Therefore, this duplication and overlap of functions would be unjustified and ineffective. The Commissioner would largely end up compiling and repackaging the work and materials produced by human rights defenders, as well as reports from international mechanisms and UN procedures, which would add no real value and only create unnecessary redundancy.
2. The Scope of the Commissioner’s Mandate Dilutes the Essence of a Human Rights Institution
First, the position is described as a Commissioner for the Rights of Belarusian Citizens, not a Commissioner for Human Rights. Even taking into account the current situation, this framing excludes the possibility for the Commissioner to advocate, for instance, on behalf of foreign nationals subjected to political persecution by the Lukashenko regime in Belarus — including foreign political prisoners — which undermines the very logic and purpose of a human rights protection mechanism.
Second, the mandate is proposed to cover not only Belarusian citizens residing within Belarus but also those living abroad. This approach also appears ineffective: the Commissioner would have no additional tools beyond those already used by human rights organisations, international mechanisms, and the Democratic Forces to influence the situation of people inside Belarus. Moreover, given the high likelihood that the Commissioner could be labelled as an “extremist”, Belarusian citizens within the country would likely be afraid to contact them.
3. The Draft Statute Is Insufficiently Developed
The draft Statute itself is underdeveloped, with imprecise wording, a lack of clear logic, and insufficient justification for the necessity of creating such an institution. We recognise the difficult circumstances in which the Democratic Forces are operating and appreciate their efforts to keep the Belarusian agenda on the international stage, to advocate for, and to lobby in support of the rights and interests of Belarusians — including in the field of human rights. However, poorly considered and insufficiently substantiated steps in this area can undermine the effectiveness of engagement with international human rights mechanisms and cause frustration among international partners.
In light of the concerns raised regarding the proposed institution of the Commissioner for the Rights of Belarusian Citizens we call on the Democratic Forces of Belarus to:
The Right to Defence project joins the statement. The full text is available at the link provided. Key points are cited below.
The statement notes that, given the current circumstances, the creation of a Commissioner’s position appears neither appropriate nor effective, for the following reasons:
1. The proposed scope of the Commissioner’s functions is overly broad and cannot be effectively implemented under current circumstances.
The thematic mandate outlined in the draft Statute (Chapter 3) includes a list of twelve functions for the Commissioner, which almost entirely duplicate the functions already carried out by human rights organisations, other civil society groups, and international mechanisms working on Belarus. In the current environment, a Commissioner with such a broad formal mandate would not, in practice, have any additional capabilities compared to the structures of the Democratic Forces, human rights organisations, or existing international mechanisms focused on Belarus. Therefore, this duplication and overlap of functions would be unjustified and ineffective. The Commissioner would largely end up compiling and repackaging the work and materials produced by human rights defenders, as well as reports from international mechanisms and UN procedures, which would add no real value and only create unnecessary redundancy.
2. The Scope of the Commissioner’s Mandate Dilutes the Essence of a Human Rights Institution
First, the position is described as a Commissioner for the Rights of Belarusian Citizens, not a Commissioner for Human Rights. Even taking into account the current situation, this framing excludes the possibility for the Commissioner to advocate, for instance, on behalf of foreign nationals subjected to political persecution by the Lukashenko regime in Belarus — including foreign political prisoners — which undermines the very logic and purpose of a human rights protection mechanism.
Second, the mandate is proposed to cover not only Belarusian citizens residing within Belarus but also those living abroad. This approach also appears ineffective: the Commissioner would have no additional tools beyond those already used by human rights organisations, international mechanisms, and the Democratic Forces to influence the situation of people inside Belarus. Moreover, given the high likelihood that the Commissioner could be labelled as an “extremist”, Belarusian citizens within the country would likely be afraid to contact them.
3. The Draft Statute Is Insufficiently Developed
The draft Statute itself is underdeveloped, with imprecise wording, a lack of clear logic, and insufficient justification for the necessity of creating such an institution. We recognise the difficult circumstances in which the Democratic Forces are operating and appreciate their efforts to keep the Belarusian agenda on the international stage, to advocate for, and to lobby in support of the rights and interests of Belarusians — including in the field of human rights. However, poorly considered and insufficiently substantiated steps in this area can undermine the effectiveness of engagement with international human rights mechanisms and cause frustration among international partners.
In light of the concerns raised regarding the proposed institution of the Commissioner for the Rights of Belarusian Citizens we call on the Democratic Forces of Belarus to:
- Maintain a careful balance between building a proto-ecosystem of the Democratic Forces (proto-government, proto-parliament) and preserving the real meaning and essence of legal institutions recognised in international practice, especially in the human rights sphere;
- Avoid justifying deviations from basic legal principles and standards on the grounds of a “special situation”;
- Base decisions to establish additional structures and positions within the human rights framework on a thorough consideration of the existing system of organisations and mechanisms working on human rights advocacy and protection, avoiding unnecessary duplication and dilution of the human rights agenda;
- Take into genuine account the positions of Belarusian human rights organisations — which have long formed a resilient community with an international reputation — in matters relating to the protection of human rights, and avoid formalism in dialogue and consultations, ensuring the meaningful participation of all interested parties;
- Draw more extensively on in-depth legal expertise when developing documents and statements, with a strong grounding in international standards and a demonstrated commitment to the values of the rule of law.
