Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Welcome Belarus’ Strategies to Promote Interethnic Peace, Ask About the Stripping of Citizens’ Nationality and the Dissolution of Ethnic Minority Associations
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth periodic report of Belarus, with Committee Experts welcoming the State’s strategies to promote interethnic peace, and asking questions on the stripping of citizens’ nationality while abroad and the dissolution of non-governmental organizations, including associations of ethnic minorities, after post-election protests in 2020.
A Committee Expert welcomed the strategies used by the State party to promote interethnic peace. What strategies had been most effective?
Bakari Sidiki Diaby, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said there were citizens abroad who had been stripped of their nationality, which put them at risk of statelessness. How would the State party address this?
Régine Esseneme, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that since 2020, the Government had reportedly dissolved most non-governmental organizations and independent trade unions. Associations of Polish, Lithuanian and Armenian minorities were reportedly targeted. Was the State party considering revising its position on civil society?
Introducing the report, Yury Ambrazevich, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and head of the delegation, said Belarus was promoting tolerance and civil unity in the society. It had an Interethnic Consultative Council, an Interconfessional Consultative Council, as well as public associations for Roma, Poles, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Ukrainians, Jewish persons and others.
In 2023, Mr. Ambrazevich said, the law on the foundations of civil society was adopted, which provided for the interaction of State bodies, organizations and civil society. One of the main tasks of interaction was fostering respect for all nationalities, religions and cultures.
After the events of 2020, the delegation said, amendments to the law on citizenship were made to allow courts to strip the citizenship of persons found overseas who were guilty of crimes. Belarus had been forced to scale down foreign consular operations due to economic pressure placed on it by Western countries. However, the Belarusian diaspora had mechanisms to return to their country. If they had broken the law, they would be subjected to due process.
The delegation said the attempted overthrow of the President was inspired by the influence of non-governmental organizations. Many of these non-governmental organizations were engaging in political matters, with funding from abroad. Legislation had been changed to ban non-governmental organizations’ political activities and to close some non-governmental organizations.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Esseneme thanked Belarus for its calm responses to sensitive and difficult questions raised by the Committee, and thanked all persons who had contributed to the dialogue.
Mr. Ambrazevich, in concluding remarks, thanked the Committee for the constructive manner in which the dialogue was held. All citizens in Belarus believed that there was no racism in the country. Belarus’ goal was leaving no-one behind. This work required resources. Belarus had an active civil society that was an effective partner of the State.
The delegation of Belarus consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ministry of Justice, and the Permanent Mission of Belarus to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Belarus after the conclusion of its one hundred and thirteenth session on 23 August. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Committee’s one hundred and thirteenth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Friday, 23 August at 4 p.m. to close its one hundred and thirteenth session.
Report
The Committee has before it the combined twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth periodic report of Belarus (CERD/C/BLR/24-25).
Presentation of Report
YURY AMBRAZEVICH, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus and head of the delegation, said Belarus took a responsible approach to its international obligations to implement the Convention and was promoting tolerance and civil unity in the society. Belarus had achieved significant success regarding interethnic, interreligious and intercultural harmony. Belarus had fulfilled Sustainable Development Goal 10 on "reducing inequalities" ahead of schedule. Today, representatives of 156 nationalities peacefully coexisted in the territory of Belarus.
According to the 2019 census, 84.9 per cent of the country's inhabitants were Belarusians, while 15.1 per cent of the population represented other nationalities, including Russians, Poles, Ukrainians, Armenians, Tatars, Roma, Azerbaijanis, Lithuanians and Turkmens. As of 1 January 2024, 3,592 religious organizations of 25 denominations and religious trends were registered in the country. More than 140 organizations of national minorities were registered in the country. All ethno-cultural associations received on an equal basis, regardless of their size and nationality, constant financial, legal, organizational and methodological support from the State.
Belarus had consistently pursued a policy aimed at the free development of the cultures, languages and traditions of all ethnic communities, and the suppression of all manifestations of racial discrimination. In 2023, the law on freedom of conscience and religious organizations established a ban on religious organizations engaging in political activities. It was also prohibited to post texts and images aimed at promoting social, national, religious and racial hatred and other extremist activities, including those that offended the religious feelings of citizens. In 2023, the ban on the creation and activities of political parties, unions, as well as public associations that incited hatred was clarified.
An important innovation in national legislation was the adoption of the 2021 law on the protection of personal data, aimed at ensuring the rights and freedoms of individuals in the processing of their personal data. The processing of special personal data without the consent of the person was prohibited. In 2023, the law on the foundations of civil society was adopted, which provided for the interaction of State bodies, organizations and civil society. One of the main tasks of interaction was fostering respect for all nationalities, religions and cultures. According to amendments made in 2021 to the law on mass media, it was prohibited for a journalist to use his rights to defame a citizen or certain categories of citizens by disseminating false information.
The National Minorities Act guaranteed equal political, economic and social rights and freedoms to national minorities. The State did not interfere in the private practice of a particular religion. Institutional mechanisms had been created in Belarus that provided an opportunity for all ethnic communities and religious denominations to participate in the development of the country. There was an Interethnic Consultative Council, an Interconfessional Consultative Council, as well as public associations for Roma, Poles, Armenians, Azerbaijanis, Ukrainians, Jewish persons and others. A programme was also in place to support nationals living abroad. The Government was committed to promoting peace and 2023 was declared the Year of Peace and Creation in Belarus. The State had invested a significant amount of resources in ensuring a decent standard of living and social protection for all representatives of the country's population.
Belarus was hampered by illegal unilateral coercive measures, which were actively used by Western countries in violation of the United Nations Charter and international law. Information wars had led to the creation of border tensions and provocations that were aimed at undermining national sovereignty. Regarding the difficult situation on the Western border of Belarus, observed since 2021, the accusations of the West were unfounded.
Belarus had taken the necessary measures to minimise the negative consequences, including in the interest of the rights of asylum seekers. Appropriate shelters for migrants had been created on the territory of Belarus, visa restrictions had been introduced, and flights had been organised as part of return programmes. Fifty-five migrants had died because of expulsions. The State party planned to hold an international conference in Minsk in November 2024 on countering illegal migration in the region. Members of the Committee needed to consider this topic in an impartial manner.
The Committee needed to go beyond the politicised and deceitful information created by the West around Belarus. Belarus was a developed State in the centre of Europe, with a highly educated, hardworking and hospitable people. It had a high human capital index according to the United Nations. Constructive dialogue with the Committee would help the State party to further improve national efforts to ensure the development of Belarusian society.
Questions by Committee Experts
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Belarus had worked to submit the State party report close to the timeframe, despite the difficult situation in the country since 2020. The Committee sought a constructive dialogue without value judgements. Its goal was to improve human rights protections for the benefit of all citizens of Belarus.
The report was drafted by the Foreign Ministry in partnership with other State bodies. Was there a permanent or ad-hoc mechanism that dealt with such reports? Was there a body that was following up on the Committee’s previous concluding observations?
Under what framework was the State party considering creating a national human rights institute? Had the State party sought the advice of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in this process?
The programme for the development of relations sought to promote ethnic harmony and national identity. What were the pillars of the programme? Had civil society representatives participated in the design of the programme? The 2007 law on combatting extremism was amended in 2021 to address political and ideological hatred, but it did not contain a definition of racial discrimination, which was not a criminal offence. Motives for discrimination listed in the Convention were not addressed in domestic laws. What were the obstacles to adopting specific legislation against racial discrimination? The State party had adopted an interinstitutional plan for implementing United Nations treaty bodies’ recommendations. What results had this plan had? The National Centre for Legal Studies had proposed a law to address discrimination. What follow-up had been carried out for this proposal?
Complaints of racial discrimination could be lodged with various bodies, including the courts. How many such complaints had been received and what follow-up had been carried out?
The Criminal Code prohibited deliberate acts that incited racial hatred. What potential sentences could be issued for such acts? How many cases involving racial hatred had been received and what reparations were provided to victims?
There were reports of persons being prosecuted for sharing their opinion. How was the State party ensuring freedom of expression? What reparations were granted to victims of online hate speech? The State party was reportedly promoting racist propaganda and ideas hostile to Polish and Ukrainian persons. How was the State party addressing this? How many cases had been brought against public officials for inciting racial hostility?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Foreign Ministry was the lead agency involved in preparing State reports, in cooperation with other State agencies. There was no permanent body responsible for preparing treaty body reports. The Religions and Nationalities Commission, which included representatives of civil society, was involved in creating the report. The Commission worked to address issues involving national minorities.
In the 2019 census, the State party included a voluntary question on ethnicity. Two per cent of respondents had declined to declare their ethnicity. Representatives of associations of national minorities had met with State agencies to discuss how to implement the Committee’s previous concluding observations. These associations had also been involved in preparing the report.
The fourth national programme for development was currently being implemented. This was renewed every five years. Consultative interethnic and interfaith councils and the Belarussian diaspora abroad had contributed to developing the programme. The programme aimed to uphold Belarus’ cultural heritage, and preserve its national languages.
The State party was consistently working on setting up a national human rights institute. There were various State institutions working to protect different segments of society, including children and persons with disabilities. A national human rights institute would need to be integrated into this system. Belarus had also held consultations with the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights regarding establishing a national human rights institute.
The State party had considered creating an Ombudsman for children, but had concluded that a children’s Ombudsman was not needed currently. The Constitutional Court’s competence had been extended and there was a possibility to make complaints directly to it.
YURY AMBRAZEVICH, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus and head of the delegation, said that he met with citizens once a week outside of work hours to hear their requests. Officials were obliged to travel to regional areas to meet people who had requested interviews. Questions from citizens that did not require further study needed to be answered within five working days.
Questions by Committee Experts
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, called on the delegation to be clearer regarding its position on establishing a national human rights institute.
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said representatives of non-governmental organizations had complained of repression. Why were some non-governmental organization representatives placed in prison? How was the State party ensuring freedom for the activities of civil society organizations?
A Committee Expert asked about the ethnic origins of the 84 per cent of the population who identified as Belarusians.
One Committee Expert asked about the problems faced by Belarus, including with the State’s Western neighbours. Did minorities need a visa to leave the country?
Another Committee Expert asked whether people of African descent were included in the “other” category in the ethnicity statistics collected in the census.
A Committee Expert said that after the 2020 elections and the subsequent mass protests, the human rights situation had deteriorated and discrimination based on nationality had increased. Could the delegation comment on this?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said legislation was developed in accordance with the principles of international law. The State ensured the same norms and behaviour for all citizens. Social justice was one of the preconditions for ensuring rights and freedoms. The State party was responsible for the economic, social and cultural conditions of its citizens. Restrictions to rights and freedoms could only be made to protect national security. Belarus promoted the right of freedom of thought, belief and expression. However, all incitement to religious or ethnic hatred needed to be banned. The Government was working to expand the participation of citizens in public projects.
There was a general procedure for citizens to leave the country. According to State legislation, no one could be compelled to identify in any way. There was no information on the ethnic makeup of citizens identifying as Belarusian. Belarus was not convinced of the usefulness of national human rights institute over the current system of direct democracy. It did not deem setting up such an institute appropriate at this time. Belarus was a largely monoethnic country. There were very few people of African descent in Belarus. Most of such persons were students. Some stayed in the State after marrying Belarusian citizens.
Sentences handed down to civil society representatives were not related to the mandate of the Committee.
International treaties were directly applicable in Belarus and many had been implemented in domestic legislation, including the Constitution. Principles of equality were found mainly in the Constitution, which stated that all persons were equal before the law. There was a ban on discrimination based on disability. The Labour Code banned workplace discrimination based on various characteristics. Persons who believed that they had suffered from workplace discrimination could lodge complaints with the courts. The State was committed to promoting equal rights for people of all ethnicities.
A new, revised law on religious organizations had been developed which prevented them from being involved in political activities or from disseminating materials that incited racial hatred or other extremist beliefs. The law protecting personal data sought to protect data on ethnic origin, political views and biometric data. There was a special procedure for processing such data that required the permission of the owner of the data. Belarus believed that legislation dedicated to preventing discrimination was not needed, as existing legislation was sufficient. Current legislation had established complaints mechanisms.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee sought more information on the humanitarian crisis that began at the border with Hungary, Poland and Lithuania in 2021. What was the State party doing to support the tens of thousands of migrants who were unable to cross the border? What measures were in place to investigate allegations of violence by border guards? How was the State party providing migrants who were abused with access to justice and remedies? What human rights training was provided to border guards?
Could the delegation respond to allegations that there were over 5,000 stateless persons in Belarus, and that they were discriminated against in terms of access to employment? What progress had been made to ratify the statelessness conventions? A decree had been issued that prevented the issuance of Belarusian passports abroad. How did the State party respond to claims that this would lead to statelessness for citizens?
Could the delegation provide information on training activities for public officials on the provisions of the Convention? How many training activities were carried out for members of the judiciary and police officers? How were officers trained to identify instances of racial discrimination and hate speech?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said there was a situation on the border from 2021 with migrants seeking to enter the European Union. State agencies and non-governmental organizations had worked to draw international attention to this situation, with a focus on protecting the rights of migrants and identifying the abuse of migrants by neighbouring countries. Various organizations had been set up on the border to provide assistance and gather information regarding the abuse of migrants. Migrants were provided with sleeping bags, food and shelter at the border. Migrants should not be demonised; there needed to be joint work to support them. Belarus continued to engage in international talks regarding the situation. Accusations that Belarus had treated migrants badly were not true.
In November this year, the State party planned to hold an international event to find a solution to the crisis and prevent future crises. There were cases of deaths of migrants who had been thrown across the border into Belarus. Western countries were not cooperating on investigations.
Stateless persons who permanently resided in Belarus had the right to free medical assistance in State healthcare institutions, while temporary residents could pay for medical services themselves. The State party had a national system for granting asylum that was based on international law. Law enforcement agencies were studying the possibility of acceding to the statelessness conventions. Belarus had taken in a large inflow of migrants and refugees after the outbreak of war on its southern border, and there was a need to enhance legislation in this regard. The State party would take practical steps to adopt a law on statelessness.
All foreigners seeking asylum were granted entry into Belarus and could be granted international protection. The largest group of persons seeking protection were Ukrainians. Just over 2,000 applications for protection were assessed in 2022 and 2023. In total, around 7,000 foreigners had been granted temporary protection. A significant percentage of claims were accepted. The main source of illegal migration into Belarus came though the Russian Federation. Permanent and temporary residents in Belarus were covered by State social insurance and could receive maternity and childcare benefits.
A passport that had expired was not a ground for losing one’s citizenship. There were ways to return to Belarus without a passport for citizens. Belarus had been forced to scale down foreign consular operations due to economic pressure placed on it by Western countries.
After the events of 2020, amendments to the law on citizenship were made to allow courts to strip the citizenship of persons found overseas who were guilty of crimes.
The State party had worked to train judicial and law enforcement officials on human rights and the main international standards, including the provisions of the Convention. A course had been organised on migration legislation for border officials. Government agencies and international entities participated in providing training courses.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said he was pleased that Belarus had a national plan for the elimination of statelessness and that it was working to accede to the two statelessness conventions. There were citizens abroad who had been stripped of their nationality, which put them at risk of statelessness. How would the State party address this?
FAITH DIKELEDI PANSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, said she was pleased to note that Belarus had submitted its follow-up report within the time period. The Committee welcomed that the State party had provided statistics on the nationality of refugees and asylum seekers. It had not received information regarding its recommendation on the independence of the judiciary. The President determined the salaries of members of the judiciary and their appointment, raising concerns about political interference. What was the State party’s reaction to the Committee’s recommendations in this regard?
A Committee Expert asked for information on the nationality of persons who had been granted asylum. Were there investigations into allegations of gender-based violence by border officials?
One Committee Expert said there were reports that Belarusian officials had lured migrants into Belarus with the promise of easy passage into the European Union, only to face ill treatment in detention centres with poor conditions. How did the delegation respond to these reports?
Another Committee Expert asked about studies that Belarus had carried out into the importance of a national human rights institution. Would such an institution ever be established in Belarus? Had there been any studies into the population of people of African descent in the State, including among refugees?
A Committee Expert said he was very glad to hear that the Convention was directly applicable in the State party and that its provisions had been incorporated in domestic legislation. What did the head of delegation mean when he said that he would be punished if he did not meet with his constituents weekly?
Responses by the Delegation
YURY AMBRAZEVICH, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus and head of the delegation, said the Belarusian diaspora had mechanisms to return to their country. If they had broken the law, they would be subjected to due process. Direct application of the Convention was possible in Belarus, but this was not standard practice. Not all provisions of international treaties were directly covered by domestic legislation. National law was given precedence over international law. The Constitution could be directly applied by all courts in examining any case. Mr. Ambrazevich said that his performance was assessed based on his interaction with the public.
Non-academic studies had been carried out into the need for a national human rights institute. Many international organizations had appealed to Belarus to create such an institution. There were citizens of African descent, as well as refugees of African descent in the country.
The situation in Belarus had improved since 2020. Belarus had taken several measures to prevent a repeat of the events of 2020 and the influence of foreign forces. Claims that Belarus was luring migrants into the State were nonsense. The State party was doing everything it could to host migrants in decent conditions and to send them home, but it lacked the resources needed to do this due to the unilateral coercive measures imposed by Western States. Belarus had not taken initiatives to threaten its relationship with its European Union neighbours, and was ready to resume normal neighbourly relations. The Committee’s mandate should not be used to bring in political nuances.
Questions by Committee Experts
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said that the Committee welcomed that the State party had honoured its commitments despite the troubling situation since August 2020. This situation should not be overlooked.
Belarus had set up a national commission within the Ministry of Information to identify signs of extremism. Around 220 items had been added to the “list of extremist materials”. Most of these materials were from Polish and Lithuanian sources. Several individuals had been convicted for acts of terrorism over the reporting period. Were there contradictions between the laws on extremism and terrorism? Was it possible to draw a distinction between racism and extremism under current legislation?
After the 2020 election, security forces had violently beat up protesters, leading to deaths and injuries. Had there been investigations into this violence? Were officers arrested and victims provided with redress? Some protesters had received heavy sentences of 10 years imprisonment or more. Women protesters had complained of rape in detention. How did the State party ensure fair trials for protesters and protect the rights of detainees? Trials were reportedly not made public. What justified these closed-door trials?
At the end of 2020, there were over 5,000 complaints of ill treatment in response to protests, but all these complaints had reportedly been dismissed. What measures were in place to prevent and suppress wrongful use of force by the police and related sources? There were claims that extremist legislation was being enforced arbitrarily. Sentences for extremism had been handed down to a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, trade unionists and journalists. How would the State party ensure that human rights defenders were freely able to conduct their activities? How would the State party put an end to arbitrary arrests?
Judicial power was exercised solely by courts and non-professional “lay judges”. What was the role of lay judges? What were the legal provisions for the appointment and suspension of judges? The National Assembly was given the power to appoint and remove the President and Vice-President of the Supreme Court. How did this guarantee the independence of the judiciary? Were judges required to speak the two official languages, Russian and Belarusian? Was there an interpretation service for other languages? Legal assistance funded by the State was provided in certain cases. What conditions needed to be met to receive assistance? Had foreigners been provided with such assistance? Could the delegation provide disaggregated data on the ethnicity of prisoners?
Around 400 victims of trafficking had been identified since 2020. How many cases of trafficking had been investigated, how many persons had been prosecuted, and how many victims had received redress? What were the nationalities of victims?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said complaints of violations could also be referred to courts, where persons could seek redress for damages. All persons had the right to legal assistance.
Judges administered justice independently. There could be no interference in their activities. Interference in the work of a judge carried a penalty. A legal institute dealt with the appointment and extension of the terms of judges. After the Constitutional Referendum of 2022, the Belarusian National Assembly gained powers to determine the staffing of courts, including the President and Vice-President of the Supreme Court. These persons served for five-year terms and could be reappointed. The judicial community body implemented procedures for appointing judges, extending their term and implementing disciplinary measures.
No one could become a lay judge if they had been convicted by a court, were in a register of executive roles, were employed in local government, or were religious officials. Persons involved in cases could select whether the case was held in Belarusian or Russian. Interpreters were also available. The Constitution enshrined the right to legal assistance from State resources. A large category of citizens, including foreigners, had the right to receive free legal assistance. Lawyers could not, without basis, refuse a person who had requested legal assistance. Complaints of racial discrimination in legal settings had not been received by the State.
Combatting trafficking was a priority in Belarus. Since 1990, the Criminal Code had criminalised acts of trafficking. The first State programme on trafficking was adopted in 2002, and five such programmes had been implemented thus far. The programmes aimed to prevent trafficking and to rehabilitate and protect victims in cooperation with non-governmental organizations. The State had ratified the Palermo Protocol in 2003. In 2004, the Council of Europe Convention on trafficking in persons came into force in Belarus. Belarus had seven provisions criminalising different forms of trafficking. The maximum punishment for trafficking was seven years imprisonment. An official mechanism to identify victims of trafficking and support their rehabilitation had been adopted. Victims had the right to free State assistance, including temporary accommodation and food, free legal assistance, and medical and psychological assistance. Minor victims could be sent to foster families or children’s residential centres. Victims also received financial and material support. Last year, trafficking victims had received up to several million roubles in reparation.
Questions by Committee Experts
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked why the National Assembly could recall a President or Vice-President of the Supreme Court. Who could become a lay judge? Such judges were doing the same work as standard judges.
Another Committee Expert said the annual report of the Committee against Torture contained very concerning findings of an investigation into torture in Belarus. The report stated that torture was practiced systematically; detainees were held in inhumane conditions; State agents inflicted violence, including sexual violence, on victims; and authorities had failed to conduct effective investigations into torture and to prosecute perpetrators. There were reports of threats of reprisals against persons who reported torture. How many persons who reported torture belonged to ethnic minorities? Did the State party intend to address the findings of the Committee against Torture? How would the State party improve protections of persons protected under the Convention?
A Committee Expert said that a judge or magistrate could not be moved to a different jurisdiction without their will or consent. This was a good thing. Was there a disciplinary board that assessed removals of judges? How was the State party guaranteeing the independence of judges?
One Committee Expert asked if racial profiling played a role in torture practices. Was the State party using the Committee’s general recommendation 36 to train law enforcement officials and prevent racial profiling?
A Committee Expert said that the Committee was not a court of justice. It did not make statements without proof. When questions were formulated, the Committee familiarised itself with information from non-governmental organizations and others. The Committee needed to draw a distinction between allegations and information.
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said lay judges were selected out of candidates put forward by labour collectives and voluntary associations. There could be random selection of candidates. The implementation committee considered whether there were obstacles to candidates carrying out their duties. Lay judges held terms for five years. Each court needed to have at least two lay judges.
Judges’ boards and the legal institute worked independently. They needed to uphold the morals of the court. They made decisions on the appointment and suspension of judges. These entities included judges and representatives of academia.
The Government believed that the events of August 2020 were not peaceful. There was a wealth of evidence that there was widespread violence and disorder. Voting offices were burnt and there were dozens of police casualties. The police’s response to this violence was appropriate. Belarus did not agree with the findings of the Committee against Torture in this regard. All complaints regarding the treatment of civilians were reviewed in accordance with existing procedures. There were hundreds of cases of deception and slander in relation to law enforcement bodies. There was no proof of alleged sexual violence against detainees.
Allegations made by some United Nations bodies were false; some had disappeared after being published online. Complaints relating to torture that were sent to the Committee against Torture were written by the same people and did not include identifiable information about specific people. The people who did this work were receiving foreign funding and they were trying to discredit the Belarusian authorities. All investigations found complaints to not be pertinent. Law enforcement officers used the minimum necessary force required, taking into account the violent nature of the rallies. There was no streamlined procedure for carrying out court cases involving protesters. The Committee must not overlook the accounts of most Belarusians regarding these events and the peaceful outcome of these processes.
There was no torture or racial profiling in Belarus. There was a single regime for all detainees, regardless of their ethnicity. Belarus sought technical assistance regarding the Committee’s general recommendation 36 and stood ready for collective work in this regard.
There were no recognised human rights defenders in the country. There were mandatory free days in which lawyers provided legal advice to citizens. There were mechanisms for filing complaints related to all human rights violations.
The State party would gladly assess whether there was overlap between the law on extremism and the law on torture.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, said the Committee had received several reports of persistent discrimination by the State and members of society against the Roma. Roma reportedly performed poorly in education and had a lack of access to employment and health care. How was the State party addressing this? Many Roma could not obtain disability status, and thus could not access State disability services. What measures were in place to promote access to quality healthcare and State services? Mr. Diaby welcomed the repeal of the decree enforcing the underemployment tax, which disproportionately affected minority populations, including the Roma. Police officers continued to take biological samples from the Roma in home visits, reportedly without explaining their purpose. What was the purpose of these activities? Had complaints of these activities been investigated, and remedies been provided to victims?
What measures had the State party taken to allow the Committee to receive individual complaints? The Committee noted with concern Belarus’ withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on the communications procedure. Would the State party reconsider its position?
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Russian was the dominant language in Belarus and people who promoted Belarusian were reportedly discriminated against. What measures had the State party taken to promote all languages spoken in the State party, especially Belarusian? There were very few schools that provided education in Belarusian. What was the State party’s goal in preventing education in Belarusian? In 2022, two Polish schools and one Lithuanian school were closed, with Russian imposed as the language of education in the remaining one. Why was this done? There had been a wave of searches conducted in Polish educational institutions. Polish educators had been accused of promoting national hatred. How was the State party ensuring that the law on national minorities was effectively applied and that the Polish minority did not suffer persecution?
Persons living with HIV/AIDs continued to suffer from discrimination and stigmatisation. Persons with HIV who had completed treatment continued to be discriminated against in employment and job interviews. Did the State party have a human rights-based action plan to combat HIV/AIDS?
Belarus was multi-denominational, but Orthodox followers made up over 80 per cent of the populace. Members of minority religious followers reportedly suffered discrimination, with priests threatened with expulsion. Could the delegation comment on this?
Since 2020, the Government had reportedly dissolved most non-governmental organizations and independent trade unions. Associations of Polish, Lithuanian and Armenian minorities were reportedly targeted. Was the State party considering revising its position on civil society? Events commemorating the ninetieth anniversary of the birth of Polish writer Ryszard Kapuściński had been cancelled, and a blacklist on 18 Ukrainian musicians had been issued. These activities seemed to not respect the Belarusian Code of Culture. How would the State party promote cultural diversity in accordance with the Cultural Code?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said the Roma enjoyed the same rights as other ethnic groups. A Roma person was head of the Interethnic Council, and members of the Roma made significant contributions to areas of public life. The State party provided funding for Roma organizations. Roma representatives had taken part in the national cultural festival this year. The head of the Orthodox Church had held a service dedicated to all Roma victims of the Second World War and commemorative activities had been carried out regarding the genocide of the Roma. There were no reports of restrictions to the Roma’s access to State services. The State had not received reports of mistreatment of Roma students by teachers. There were also no reports of obstructing the Roma’s access to employment or healthcare.
A small portion of the Roma community continued to live without documents. This led to difficulties in accessing State services. Roma who registered with the State enjoyed all the benefits offered by the State, including access to the healthcare system, education, and disability benefits. The State party was doing what it could to encourage the Roma to receive an education. There had been an increase in the proportion of the Roma who had received up to 10 years of education. Visits to Roma persons by the police service was not for the profiling purposes. House visits intended to discover how many members of Roma families there were. Fingerprints and biometric information were taken to help identify and integrate the Roma into society.
There were no targeted payments from households to serve the social needs of the population in Belarus. Belarus had attempted to introduce such a tax, which aimed to end discrimination, but the Government had since reformulated the system to enhance employment.
A decision had been taken to denounce the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, due to the Committee’s practice of accepting complaints from citizens that had been submitted before all domestic mechanisms had been exhausted. Two individuals who received foreign funding had abused the system.
Most of the population spoke Russian, but instruction in the Belarusian language was mandatory for students of all ethnicities. There was no large demand for the use of the Belarusian language. There were no reports of discrimination against persons who used Belarusian. Libraries needed to keep books in both Russian and Belarusian. The Government approached language education on a non-discriminatory basis. Civil servants needed to be able to understand both Russian and Belarusian. Belarus was building an inclusive society.
The attempted overthrow of the President was inspired by the influence of non-governmental organizations. Many of these non-governmental organizations were engaging in political matters, with funding from abroad. Legislation had been changed to ban non-governmental organizations’ political activities and to close some non-governmental organizations. Any cancellation of cultural events was made public and clear reasons were provided.
Training of Catholic priests had taken place abroad for many years. People sent to work in Belarus as Catholic priests did not always have the proper attitude or respect for society. Such persons should not be sent to work in Belarus. Priests must not promote political narratives among their followers. Certain persons had been replaced and currently, there were no problems with the Catholic Church.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Co-Rapporteur, asked about the purpose of the home visits to Roma individuals. Was there a complaints mechanism regarding these visits?
A Committee Expert welcomed the strategies used by the State party to promote interethnic peace. What strategies had been most effective? Was human rights education part of the strategy?
Another Committee Expert said it was very positive that the Government had signed many human rights instruments. The delegation seemed to be showing resistance to change in accordance with human rights standards. The former head of the Catholic Church had been banned from returning to Belarus, and the former head of the Orthodox Church had been banned for criticising police. There were reports that it was difficult to criticise the Government within Belarus. Would the State party make commitments to improving human rights in Belarus?
One Committee Expert asked the delegation to present measures to implement the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. Was there a plan to implement the Declaration?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Belarus was doing what it could to implement its international obligations. The role of priests was set out clearly in the Catholic Church’s cannons. State development promoted interethnic unity. Belarus had a high human development level. A high portion of the population had graduated from higher education. Information technology was highly developed. Access to higher education was open to all. The Government was working to meet the needs of the population through Belarus’ long-term development strategy.
Belarus supported the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action. The approaches of the Declaration were reflected in national laws on development and religious and ethnic harmony. The national development plan included measures supporting ethnic minorities on a non-discriminatory basis. Resources were limited and the State tried to be fair in covering all interests.
Belarus had around 20,000 people who were HIV-positive. Some 80 per cent of this group were receiving anti-retroviral treatment. They received the benefits of social security. Persons denied access to employment due to having HIV/AIDS could lodge a complaint in court.
The State party was prohibited from asking citizens about their ethnicity, so it was unlikely that data on detainees disaggregated by ethnicity could be provided. The State party was working to create favourable conditions for the integration of refugees into society.
Burial sites of Polish persons had not been desecrated. What had been desecrated were signs and memorials of certain historic events. These were set up without appropriate consideration and were subsequently removed.
Concluding Remarks
RÉGINE ESSENEME, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked Belarus for its calm responses to sensitive and difficult questions raised by the Committee. She thanked all persons who had contributed to the dialogue.
YURY AMBRAZEVICH, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Belarus and head of the delegation, thanked the Committee for the constructive manner in which the dialogue was held. All citizens in Belarus believed that there was no racism in the country. Belarus’ goal was leaving no-one behind. This work required resources. Belarus had an active civil society that was an effective partner of the State. Non-governmental organizations helped to achieve the common goal of interconfessional and interethnic harmony. Mr. Ambrazevich thanked the Committee for its interest in the country and wished the Committee success in its work.
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CRPD24.015E