CCPR/C/141/D/J/1

GE.24-14085 (E) 021224 021224 Human Rights Committee Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, concerning communications No. 3273/2018, No. 3306/2019, No. 3610/2019, No. 3653/2019, No. 3862/2020, No. 3893/2021, No. 3962/2021, No. 3963/2021, No. 3964/2021, No. 3965/2021, No. 3966/2021, No. 4133/2022, No. 4134/2022, No. 4135/2022, No. 4136/2022, No. 4137/2022, No. 4138/2022, No. 4139/2022, No. 4140/2022 and No. 4313/2023*, ** Communications submitted by: Dmitry Lupach (represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov) Alleged victim: The author State party: Belarus Dates of communications: See annex Document references: Decisions taken pursuant to rule 92 of the Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to the State party (see dates of transmission in annex) (not issued in document form) Date of adoption of Views: 17 July 2024 Subject matter: Sanction of journalist for producing and distributing mass media products without appropriate accreditation Procedural issues: Exhaustion of domestic remedies; substantiation of claims Substantive issue: Freedom of expression Articles of the Covenant: 14 and 19 (2) Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2, 3 and 5 (2) (b) 1.1 The author of the communications is Dmitry Lupach, a national of Belarus born in

1967. He claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 14 and 19 (2) of the

* Adopted by the Committee at its 141st session (1–23 July 2024). ** Pursuant to rule 97 (3) of its rules of procedure and the strategy adopted at its 140th session (A/79/40, para. 22), the Committee decided to join the communications for examination. The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communications: Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos Gómez Martínez, Laurence R. Helfer, Marcia V.J. Kran, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, José Manuel Santos Pais, Soh Changrok, Tijana Šurlan, Kobauyah Tchamdja Kpatcha, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu. United Nations CCPR/C/141/D/J/1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr.: General 3 December 2024 Original: English CCPR/C/141/D/J/1 2 GE.24-14085 Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 30 December 1992. The author is represented by counsel. 1.2 The communications were submitted for consideration before the State party’s denunciation of the Optional Protocol became effective, on 8 February 2023. In accordance with article 12 (2) of the Optional Protocol and the Committee’s previous jurisprudence, the State party continues to be subject to the application of the Optional Protocol with regard to the communications considered herein.1 1.3 On 17 July 2024, the Committee, pursuant to rule 97 (3) of its rules of procedure and the strategy it adopted at its 140th session aimed at addressing the high number of communications pending consideration,2 decided to join 20 communications (see annex) for examination and the issuance of a joint decision thereon. Pursuant to the strategy, such decisions, to be adopted in a simplified format, relate to communications in which similar factual elements and claims are raised and for which the Committee has identified the structural nature and policy underlying the violations and has developed consistent jurisprudence over the years. Facts as submitted by the author 2. The author is a freelance journalist. Between 2017 and 2021 he carried out interviews on various topics in Belarus and posted audio and video recordings thereof on different media websites on the Internet. On each occasion, domestic courts in Belarus found him guilty under the Code of Administrative Offences of unlawful production and distribution of mass media products and of acting as a journalist of a foreign mass media outlet in the territory of Belarus without being accredited by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as required by Act No. 427-Z on the Mass Media of 17 July 2008. As a result, fines ranging from €255 to €480 were imposed on him.3 The author unsuccessfully appealed the decisions of the court of first instance to the regional courts. He did not appeal under the supervisory review procedure. Complaint 3. The author claims that the State party has violated his rights under articles 14 and 19 (2) of the Covenant. State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4. The State party argues that the author’s communications are inadmissible under articles 2 and 3 of the Optional Protocol, given that he has not appealed the decisions of the regional courts to the Chair of a higher court, the Chair of the Supreme Court or the Prosecutor’s Office. The State party submits that the claims under article 14 are unsubstantiated. It asserts that the restrictions on freedom of expression imposed by domestic legislation are in line with article 19 (3) of the Covenant and that there has been no violation of the author’s rights.4 Author’s comments on the State party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5. The author submits that the supervisory review procedure does not constitute an effective domestic remedy, as it does not entail a fresh examination of the case and its outcome depends on the sole discretion of the relevant prosecutor or judge. He reiterates that his rights under articles 14 and 19 (2) of the Covenant were violated. 1 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). 2 A/79/40, para. 22. 3 For additional information on the exhaustion of domestic remedies, including the domestic court proceedings and fines imposed, see annex. 4 The State party did not provide its observations on communication No. 4313/2023. CCPR/C/141/D/J/1 GE.24-14085 3 Issues and proceedings before the Committee 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 communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol. The Committee notes that the author’s allegations under article 14 of the Covenant are of a general nature and that he does not provide any details to sufficiently substantiate his claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it concludes that these claims are inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. The Committee finds the author’s claims under article 19 (2) of the Covenant to have been sufficiently substantiated and therefore proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 6.2 The Committee has considered the communications in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol. The Committee notes that it has found a violation of article 19 (2) of the Covenant in similar cases in respect of the same laws and practices of the State party in a number of earlier communications. 5 There is nothing in the factual background or legal claims of the communications concerned that would lead the Committee to a different conclusion on their admissibility or on the merits of the claims. Having considered the communications in the light of all the information made available to it by the parties, and having due regard for its previous jurisprudence on the subject, the Committee considers that, by sanctioning the author for posting media materials on foreign websites without being accredited in Belarus as a foreign journalist, the State party violated his rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant.6 7. 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 current value of the fines and any legal costs incurred by the author in relation to the numerous domestic proceedings against him (see annex). The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. The Committee therefore recommends that the State party revise its normative framework, in particular the Act on the Mass Media, in accordance with its obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, with a view to ensuring that the rights under article 19 may be fully enjoyed in the State party. 8. 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 communications considered in the present Views were submitted for consideration before the State party’s denunciation of the Optional Protocol became effective, on 8 February 2023. Given that, 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. 5 See, for example, Shchiryakova et al. v. Belarus. 6 Ibid., paras. 7.2–7.4. CCPR/C/141/D/J/1 4 GE.24-14085 Annex Key procedural information and additional details for the communications submitted by Dmitry Lupach, by communication Communication No. Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law 3273/2018 7 November 2018 10 December 2018 First instance: 4 September 2018, Braslavsky District Court Appeal: 10 October 2018, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 882 Belarusian roubles (approximately €360) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3306/2019 12 February 2019 3 June 2019 First instance: 22 December 2018, Gruboksky District Court Appeal: 23 January 2019, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 612 Belarusian roubles (approximately €255) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3610/2019 10 April 2018 21 May 2019 First instance: 31 January 2018, Dokshytsky District Court Appeal: 7 March 2018, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 980 Belarusian roubles (approximately €410) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3653/2019 7 November 2018 20 September 2019 First instance: 4 September 2018, Braslavsky District Court Appeal: 10 October 2018, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 882 Belarusian roubles (approximately €360) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3862/2020 19 December 2017 22 December 2020 First instance: 9 November 2017, Gluboksky District Court Appeal: 29 November 2017, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 805 Belarusian roubles (approximately €350) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3893/2021 16 February 2021 29 April 2021 First instance: 12 December 2019, Vitebsk District Court Appeal: 8 January 2020, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 1 071 Belarusian roubles (approximately €465) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) CCPR/C/141/D/J/1 GE.24-14085 5 Communication No. Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law 3962/2021 2 March 2020 23 June 2021 First instance: 10 January 2020, Postavy District Court Appeal: 29 January 2020, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 1 134 Belarusian roubles (approximately €480) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3963/2021 19 April 2021 23 June 2021 First instance: 25 February 2021, Sharkovshchinsky District Court Appeal: 24 March 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €280) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3964/2021 27 April 2021 23 June 2021 First instance: 25 February 2021, Glubokoe District Court Appeal: 24 March 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €280) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3965/2021 28 May 2021 23 June 2021 First instance: 25 February 2021, Sharkovshchinsky District Court Appeal: 24 March 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €280) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 3966/2021 9 June 2021 23 June 2021 First instance: 24 February 2021, Sharkovshchinsky District Court Appeal: 24 March 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 1 080 Belarusian roubles (approximately €465) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 4133/2022 15 June 2021 13 April 2022 First instance: 15 July 2021, Gluboksky District Court Appeal: 4 August 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €280) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 4134/2022 18 August 2021 28 April 2022 First instance: 26 October 2020, Postavy District Court Appeal: 23 December 2020, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 1 080 Belarusian roubles (approximately €360) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) CCPR/C/141/D/J/1 6 GE.24-14085 Communication No. Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law 4135/2022 20 August 2021 28 April 2022 First instance: 22 December 2020, Postavy District Court Appeal: 3 February 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 1 269 Belarusian roubles (approximately €430) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2) 4136/2022 1 September 2021 28 April 2022 First instance: 25 May 2021, Gluboksky District Court Appeal: 23 June 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €285) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 23.5 (3) 4137/2022 15 September 2021 28 April 2022 First instance: 25 May 2021, Braslavsky District Court Appeal: 23 June 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €285) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 23.5 (3) 4138/2022 11 October 2021 28 April 2022 First instance: 24 June 2021, Dokshitsky District Court Appeal: 14 July 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €285) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 23.5 (3) 4139/2022 21 October 2021 28 April 2022 First instance:15 July 2021, Gluboksky District Court Appeal: 4 August 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €285) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 23.5 (3) 4140/2022 31 January 2022 28 April 2022 First instance: 4 August 2021, Dokshitsky District Court Appeal:1 September 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approximately €285) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 23.5 (3) 4313/2023 19 August 2021 20 February 2023 First instance: 26 October 2020, Postavy District Court Appeal: 23 December 2020, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 1 080 Belarusian roubles (approximately €360) Code of Administrative Offences, art. 22.9 (2)