CCPR/C/145/D/J/1

GE.26-05201 (E) 220526 220526 Human Rights Committee Views adopted by the Committee under the Optional Protocol, concerning communications No. 3182/2018, No. 3235/2018, No. 3284/2019, No. 3287/2019, No. 3288/2019, No. 3298/2019, No. 3608/2019, No. 3609/2019, No. 3611/2019, No. 3612/2019, No. 3817/2020, No. 3861/2020, No. 3864/2020, No. 3884/2021, No. 3888/2021, No. 3899/2021, No. 4115/2022, No. 4127/2022, No. 4177/2022 and No. 4337/2023*, ** Communications submitted by: Victor Remnyov (communication No. 3182/2018), Tatiana Smotkina (communication No. 3235/2018), Konstantin Zhukovsky (communication No. 3284/2019), Nataliya Krivoshei (communication No. 3287/2019), Andrei Tolchin (communications No. 3288/2019 and No. 3298/2019), Evgeny Merkis (communication No. 3608/2019), Larisa Shchiryakova (communications No. 3609/2019 and No. 3899/2021), Vyacheslav Lazarev (communications No. 3611/2019 and No. 3884/2021), Elena Shabunya (communications No. 3612/2019, No. 3888/2021, No. 4115/2022 and No. 4337/2023), Vladimir Laptsevich (communication No. 3817/2020), Tamara Shchepetkina (communication No. 3861/2020), Vladimir Lunyov (communication No. 3864/2020) and Dmitry Kazakevich (communications No. 4127/2022 and No. 4177/2022) (see counsel representation in annex) Alleged victims: The authors State Party: Belarus Dates of communications: See annex

* Adopted by the Committee at its 145th session (2–19 March 2026). ** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication: Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders, Carlos Ramón Fernández Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia Leinarte, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh Changrok, Tijana Šurlan, Teraya Koji and Hélène Tigroudja. United Nations CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Distr.: General 27 May 2026 Original: English CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 2 GE.26-05201 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: 11 March 2026 Subject matter: Sanctions for unauthorized production of media content Procedural issues: Exhaustion of domestic remedies; substantiation of claims Substantive issue: Freedom of expression Articles of the Covenant: 14, 19 and 21 Articles of the Optional Protocol: 2 and 5 (2) (b) 1.1 The authors of the communications are Victor Remnyov, Tatiana Smotkina, Konstantin Zhukovsky, Nataliya Krivoshei, Andrei Tolchin, Evgeny Merkis, Larisa Shchiryakova, Vyacheslav Lazarev, Elena Shabunya, Vladimir Laptsevich, Tamara Shchepetkina, Vladimir Lunyov and Dmitry Kazakevich, all of whom are nationals of Belarus. They claim that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 30 December

1992. The authors of communications No. 3182/2018, No. 3235/2018, No. 3284/2019, No. 3287/2019, No. 3288/2019, No. 3298/2019, No. 3608/2019, No. 3609/2019, No. 3611/2019, No. 3612/2019, No. 3864/2020, No. 3884/2021, No. 3888/2021, No. 4115/2022, No. 4127/2022, No. 4177/2022 and No. 4337/2023 are represented by counsel, whereas the others are not represented. 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,1 the State Party continues to be subject to the application of the Optional Protocol with regard to the communications considered herein. 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 consideration 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. Factual background 2. Between 2010 and 2021, the authors were sanctioned for publishing articles or posting audio and video recordings of interviews with Belarusian citizens on various national and foreign online media platforms, without holding official accreditation as journalists. The author of communication No. 3182/2018 was sanctioned for delivering copies of a newspaper without prior authorization of the Ministry of Information. All of the authors were charged with an administrative offence under article 22.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences for unauthorized production of media content.3 The author of communication No. 3609/2019 was also sanctioned for participating in a peaceful protest on 28 September 2017 and charged with an administrative offence under article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences for violating the established procedure for conducting public events and picketing. All of the 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), para. 10. 2 A/79/40, para. 22. 3 Article 23.5 of the Code of Administrative Offences, as amended on 6 January 2021. CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 GE.26-05201 3 authors were sentenced to pay various administrative fines. The authors unsuccessfully appealed the decisions of the courts of first instance to the appellate courts. The authors of communications No. 3182/2018 and No. 3287/2019 also unsuccessfully attempted to appeal to higher courts and prosecutor’s offices for a supervisory review of their cases. The remaining authors submit that they have not attempted to lodge appeals for a supervisory review with the judicial or prosecutorial authorities. They refer to the ineffectiveness of those remedies, citing the Committee’s established jurisprudence, as their reason for not doing so. Complaint 3.1 All of the authors claim that the State Party has violated their rights under article 19 of the Covenant. 3.2 The authors of communications No. 3182/2018, No. 4115/2022, No. 4127/2022, No. 4177/2022 and No. 4337/2022 also claim that the State Party has violated their rights under article 14 of the Covenant because the domestic courts were not competent, as they adopted decisions contrary to the State Party’s obligations under the Covenant. 3.3 The author of communication No. 3609/2019 also claims that the State Party has violated her rights under article 21 of the Covenant. State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 4.1 The Committee notes that the State Party has not submitted its observations with regard to communications No. 4177/2022 and No. 4337/2023. For all of the remaining communications, the State Party contests their admissibility for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and notes that domestic legislation provides for the possibility to appeal a court ruling concerning an administrative offence to the Chair of a higher court or a prosecutor through a supervisory review procedure. The State Party rejects the authors’ assertion that the procedure of supervisory appeal in administrative cases should be considered an ineffective remedy. 4.2 The State Party submits that freedom of opinion and expression is enshrined in article 33 of the Constitution. At the same time, violation of the Mass Media Law entails criminal, administrative and civil liability. The State Party notes that the rights protected by article 19 of the Covenant may be subject to certain restrictions, which must be provided by law and necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals. Accordingly, the State Party considers that the procedure established by the Mass Media Law regulating the activities of journalists cannot be considered a restriction of the freedom of expression within the meaning of article 19 (3) of the Covenant. Similarly, with regard to communication No. 3609/2019, the State Party considers that the allegations put forward by the author concerning violation of her rights under article 21 of the Covenant are unsubstantiated. Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on admissibility and the merits 5.1 The authors reject the State Party’s assertions about the effectiveness of supervisory review appeals lodged before judicial and prosecutorial authorities. They note that such appeals depend on the discretionary power of a judge or prosecutor and cannot be considered an effective remedy for the purposes of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the Committee has recognized in its jurisprudence. 5.2 As to the State Party’s arguments that the rights protected by article 19 of the Covenant may be subject to certain restrictions, the authors note that any restriction must be strictly necessary and proportionate and must not only be provided by law but also necessary to achieve the specific goals it pursues. 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 takes note of the State Party’s argument that the authors have not exhausted all available domestic remedies, as they failed CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 4 GE.26-05201 to seek a supervisory review by the prosecutorial and judicial authorities of the impugned decisions. The Committee recalls its jurisprudence, according to which a petition for supervisory review submitted to the chairperson of a court directed against court decisions that have entered into force,4 or to a prosecutor’s office requesting a review of court decisions that have taken effect,5 constitutes an extraordinary remedy and that the State Party must show that there is a reasonable prospect that such requests would provide an effective remedy in the circumstances of the case. In the absence of any new information from the State Party that would allow the Committee to reach a different conclusion, and given its previous jurisprudence, the Committee considers that for the communications under consideration, the authors have exhausted all available effective domestic remedies and that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol from examining the communications. 6.2 The Committee notes that the authors of communications No. 3182/2018, No. 4115/2022, No. 4127/2022, No. 4177/2022 and No. 4337/2022 also claim that the State Party has violated their rights under article 14 of the Covenant. In the absence of any further pertinent information on file, the Committee considers that the authors have failed to sufficiently substantiate those claims for the purposes of admissibility. Accordingly, it declares those claims inadmissible under article 2 of the Optional Protocol. 6.3 The Committee finds that the claims of all the authors under article 19 of the Covenant, and under article 21 for communication No. 3609/2019, to have been sufficiently substantiated, and it proceeds with its consideration of the merits. 7.1 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 of the Covenant in similar cases in respect of the same laws and practices of the State Party in several earlier communications.6 After a careful examination of the factual background and the legal claims of the communications under consideration, and after considering all of the information made available to it by the parties, the Committee concludes that its previous jurisprudence on the subject is fully applicable to the merits of those claims. In particular, the Committee considers that by sanctioning the authors for unauthorized production of media content, without assessing the necessity and proportionality of the restrictive measures under the relevant provisions of the Covenant, the State Party has violated their rights under article 19 of the Covenant. 7.2 Similarly, the Committee considers that by sanctioning the author of communication No. 3609/2019 for participation in a peaceful – albeit unauthorized – protest, the State Party has violated her rights under article 21 of the Covenant.7 8. Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State Party is under an obligation to provide the authors 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 reimburse the current value of the fines and any legal costs incurred by the authors in relation to the domestic proceedings against them (see annex). The State Party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future and to ensure that its normative framework, in particular the Mass Media Law and the Public Events Act, as well as their application, are consistent with the State Party’s obligation under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, with a view to ensuring that the rights under articles 19 and 21 may be fully enjoyed in the State Party. 4 Koreshkov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/121/D/2168/2012), para. 7.3. 5 Gryk v. Belarus (CCPR/C/136/D/2961/2017), para. 6.3; Tolchin v. Belarus (CCPR/C/135/D/3241/2018), para. 6.3; Shchukina v. Belarus (CCPR/C/134/D/3242/2018), para. 6.3; and Vasilevich et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/137/D/2693/2015, 2898/2016, 3002/2017 and 3084/2017), para. 6.3. 6 Burakov v. Belarus (CCPR/C/131/D/2692/2015), para. 7.4; Zhukovsky v. Belarus, (CCPR/C/127/D/3067/2017), para. 7.4; and Andreev v. Belarus (CCPR/C/131/D/2863/2016), para. 7.5. 7 Matskevich et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/143/D/J/1), para. 7; Amelkovich et al. v. Belarus (CCPR/C/142/D/J/1), para. 6.6. CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 GE.26-05201 5 9. 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. CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 6 GE.26-05201 Annex Key procedural information and additional details, by communication Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Victor Remnyov 3182/2018 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 19 September 2014 16 April 2018 First instance: 25 March 2010, Lioznensky District Court Appeal: 21 April 2010, Vitebsk Regional Court Supervisory review: 22 July 2010, Supreme Court Fine of 1.225 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €315) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First instance: 26 March 2010, Vitebsky District Court Appeal: 21 April 2010, Vitebsk Regional Court Supervisory review: 22 July 2010, Supreme Court Fine of 1.75 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €440). Reduced to 875,000 Belarusian roubles (approx. €225) by the Supreme Court First instance: 4 May 2010, Pervomaysky District Court of Vitebsk Appeal: 26 May 2010, Vitebsk Regional Court Supervisory review: 27 July 2010, Supreme Court Fine of 1.05 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €270) First instance: 11 May 2010, Goretsky District Court Appeal: 10 June 2010, Mahiliou Regional Court Fine of 1.4 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €370) CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 GE.26-05201 7 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Supervisory review: 12 August 2010, Supreme Court First instance: 12 October 2010, Lioznensky District Court Appeal: 10 November 2010, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 1.33 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €320) Tatiana Smotkina 3235/2018 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 29 August 2018 10 December 2018 First instance: 31 May 2018, Dokshitsky District Court Appeal: 11 July 2018, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 735 Belarusian roubles (approx. €320) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Konstantin Zhukovsky 3284/2019 Represented by counsel, Leonid Sudalenko 16 January 2018 27 March 2019 First instance: 11 April 2017, Svetlogorsky District Court Appeal: 24 May 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 920 Belarusian roubles (approx. €420) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First instance: 6 May 2017, Tsentralny District Court Appeal: 21 June 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 690 Belarusian roubles (approx. €315) First instance: 6 June 2017, Mozyrsky District Court Appeal: 26 July 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 1,150 Belarusian roubles (approx. €525) First instance: 10 July 2017, Svetlogorsky District Court Appeal: 18 August 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 1,150 Belarusian roubles (approx. €525) First instance: 3 August 2017, Buda-Koshelevsky District Court Fine of 805 Belarusian roubles (approx. €365) CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 8 GE.26-05201 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Appeal: 25 August 2017, Homiel Regional Court First instance: 11 September 2017, Zhlobinsky District Court Appeal: 4 October 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 575 Belarusian roubles (approx. €260) First instance: 27 September 2017, Petrikovsky District Court Appeal: 3 November 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 920 Belarusian roubles (approx. €420) First instance: 3 October 2017, Homiel District Court Appeal: 15 November 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 1,150 Belarusian roubles (approx. €525) First instance: 2 November 2017, Kalinkovichsky District Court Appeal: 6 December 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 920 Belarusian roubles (approx. €420) First instance: 29 November 2017, Zheleznodorozhny District Court Appeal: 22 December 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 690 Belarusian roubles (approx. €315) Nataliya Krivoshei 3287/2019 Represented by counsel, Leonid Sudalenko 3 February 2016 26 March 2019 First instance: 24 April 2015, Tsentralny District Court Appeal: 29 May 2015, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 5.4 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €350) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First instance: 5 June 2015, Buda- Koshelevsky District Court Appeal: 1 July 2015, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 3.6 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €210) CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 GE.26-05201 9 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Supervisory review: 26 October 2015, Supreme Court Supervisory review: 10 December 2015, Prosecutor’s Office of the Homiel region First instance: 10 June 2015, Tsentralny District Court of Homiel city Appeal: 22 July 2015, Homiel Regional Court Supervisory review: 22 October 2015, Supreme Court Supervisory review: 3 December 2015, Prosecutor’s Office of the Homiel region Fine of 9 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €530) First instance: 2 July 2015, Rogachevsky District Court Appeal: 31 July 2015, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 6.3 million old Belarusian roubles (approx. €370) Andrei Tolchin 3288/2019 Represented by counsel, Leonid Sudalenko 17 January 2018 26 March 2019 First instance: 11 April 2017, Svetlogorsky District Court Appeal: 24 May 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 460 Belarusian roubles (approx. €210) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First instance: 27 September 2017, Petrikovsky District Court Appeal: 3 November 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 920 Belarusian roubles (approx. €420) First instance: 2 November 2017, Kalinkovichsky District Court Appeal: 6 December 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 920 Belarusian roubles (approx. €420) CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 10 GE.26-05201 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law First instance: 30 November 2017, Zheleznodorozhny District Court Appeal: 5 January 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 575 Belarusian roubles (approx. €260) Andrei Tolchin 3298/2019 Represented by counsel, Leonid Sudalenko 31 December 2018 24 July 2019 First instance: 18 January 2018, Svetlogorsky District Court Appeal: 7 March 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 1,102.50 Belarusian roubles (approx. €460) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First instance: 28 February 2018, Kalinkovichsky District Court Appeal: 28 March 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 980 Belarusian roubles (approx. €410) First instance: 7 July 2018, Sovetsky District Court Appeal: 17 August 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 980 Belarusian roubles (approx. €410) First instance: 25 October 2018, Buda-Koshelevsky District Court Appeal: 23 November 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 735 Belarusian roubles (approx. €305) First instance: 13 November 2018, Svetlogorsky District Court Appeal: 19 December 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 1,225 Belarusian roubles (approx. €510) First instance: 15 November 2018, Gomelsky District Court Appeal: 19 December 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 490 Belarusian roubles (approx. €205) CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 GE.26-05201 11 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Evgeny Merkis 3608/2019 Represented by counsel, Leonid Sudalenko 5 December 2017 20 May 2019 First Instance: 19 April 2017, Sovetsky District Court Appeal: 24 May 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 920 Belarusian roubles (approx. €400) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First Instance: 5 May 2017, Sovetsky District Court Appeal: 7 June 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 920 Belarusian roubles (approx. €400) Larisa Shchiryakova 3609/2019 Represented by counsel, Leonid Sudalenko 1 December 2017 20 May 2019 First Instance: 12 April 2017, Gomelsky District Court Appeal: 26 May 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 943 Belarusian roubles (approx. 420) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First Instance: 13 April 2017, Rechitsky District Court Appeal: 9 June 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 690 Belarusian roubles (approx. €300) First Instance: 19 May 2017, Gomelsky District Court Appeal: 23 June 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 805 Belarusian roubles (approx. €360) First Instance: 9 August 2017, Gomelsky District Court Appeal: 15 September 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 805 Belarusian roubles (approx. €360) First Instance: 19 October 2017, Zheleznodorozhny District Court Appeal: 22 November 2017, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 575 Belarusian roubles (approx. €255) Public Events Act CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 12 GE.26-05201 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Vyacheslav Lazarev 3611/2019 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 8 August 2018 22 May 2019 First Instance: 16 March 2018, Vitebsk District Court Appeal: 25 April 2018, Vitebsk Region Court Fine of 539 Belarusian roubles (approx. €230) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Elena Shabunya 3612/2019 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 25 July 2018 22 May 2019 First Instance: 16 March 2018, Vitebsk District Court Appeal: 25 April 2018, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 490 Belarusian roubles (approx. €210) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Vladimir Laptsevich 3817/2020 Not represented by counsel 6 June 2019 18 September 2020 First Instance: 29 June 2017, Leninsky District Court Appeal: 15 August 2017, Mahiliou Regional Court Fine of 1,035 Belarusian roubles (approx. €450) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Tamara Shchepetkina 3861/2020 Not represented by counsel 29 December 2018 16 December 2020 First Instance: 3 August 2018, Berezovsky District Court Appeal: 30 August 2018, Brest Regional Court. Fine of 612.50 Belarusian roubles (approx. €255) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First Instance: 29 August 2018, Berezovsky District Court Appeal: 27 September 2018, Brest Regional Court Fine of 735 Belarusian roubles (approx. €305) First Instance: 10 September 2018, Baranovichi District Court Appeal: 10 October 2018, Brest Regional Court Fine of 980 Belarusian roubles (approx. €410) First Instance: 5 November 2018, Berezovsky District Court Appeal: 6 December 2018, Brest Regional Court Fine of 857.50 Belarusian roubles (approx. €360) CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 GE.26-05201 13 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Vladimir Lunyov 3864/2020 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 26 June 2018 22 December 2020 First Instance: 22 February 2018, Oktyabrsky District Court of Vitebsk Appeal: 4 April 2018, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 588 Belarusian roubles (approx. €250) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Vyacheslav Lazarev 3884/2021 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 14 January 2020 11 February 2021 First Instance: 15 May 2019, Novopolotsk City Court Appeal:12 June 2019, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 637.50 Belarusian roubles (approx. €270) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Elena Shabunya 3888/2021 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 16 January 2020 29 April 2021 First Instance: 15 May 2019, Novopolotsk City Court Appeal: 12 June 2019, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 637.50 Belarusian roubles (approx. €270) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Larisa Shchiryakova 3899/2021 Not represented by counsel 28 December 2018 10 March 2021 First Instance: 28 May 2018, Kalinkovichsky District Court Appeal: 4 June 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 980 Belarusian roubles (approx. €410) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media First Instance: 6 July 2018, Rechitsky District Court Appeal: 10 August 2018, Homiel Regional Court Fine of 980 Belarusian roubles (approx. €410) Elena Shabunya 4115/2022 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 19 May 2021 10 March 2022 First Instance: 24 March 2021, Pervomaysky District Court of Vitebsk Appeal: 7 April 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approx. €280) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media CCPR/C/145/D/J/1 14 GE.26-05201 Author Communication No. Counsel representation Date of communication (initial submission) Date of transmission to the State Party Relevant court decisions Type of sanction Applicable domestic law Dmitry Kazakevich 4127/2022 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 25 May 2021 11 April 2022 First Instance: 17 March 2021, Pervomaysky District Court of Vitebsk Appeal: 7 April 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approx. €285) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Dmitry Kazakevich 4177/2022 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 21 June 2021 7 July 2022 First Instance: 17 March 2021, Pervomaysky District Court of Vitebsk Appeal: 7 April 2021, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 870 Belarusian roubles (approx. €285) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media Elena Shabunya 4337/2023 Represented by counsel, Pavel Levinov 5 February 2020 27 March 2023 First Instance: 12 December 2019, Vitebsky District Court Appeal: 8 January 2020, Vitebsk Regional Court Fine of 816 Belarusian roubles (approx. €355) Code of Administrative Offences Law on Mass Media