The International Committee for the Investigation of Torture in Belarus was created as a reaction of Belarusian and foreign human rights organizations

to torture and brutality towards civilians after the presidential elections on August 9, 2020.

The Committee’s objectives

1. Documenting  torture,  brutality,  use  of  weapons  and  special  equipment against civilians.

2. Searching for witnesses and evidence of torture.

3. Identification of suspects in torture and inhuman treatment.

4. Processing of the information received.

5. Preparation of lawsuits and legal support of torture victims.

6. Communications with and appeals to international organizations.

7. Preparation of reports on the col ected information for the general public of Belarus, as wel  as for international organizations and institutions.

8. Interaction  with  governmental,  non-governmental  actors,  for  example, national and international courts, the Investigative Committee, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Belarus.

Principles of the Committee

The activities of the Committee are based on the Principles of Activity of Human

Rights  Defenders  of  Belarus.   In  addition,  for  this  purpose,  we  adhere  to  and emphasize the following in our work:

•  confidentiality of information and security for its members;

•  interaction of all stakeholders;

•  work according to unified methodology and concentration of information in a single database.

2

The Committee’s members include

1. “Legal Initiative”

2. Human Constanta

3. Center for the Promotion of Women’s Rights “Her Rights”

4. Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union

5. Public Association “Zvyano”

6. Belarusian Documentation Center

7. Public organization Thruth Hounds

8. Charitable foundation East-SOS

9. Association of Ukrainian Human Rights Monitors on Law Enforcement

10.  Human Rights Center ZMINA (Ukraine)

11.  World Organization Against Torture (OMCT)

12.  Moscow Helsinki Group

Contacts

belarus.torture@gmail.com

http://torture.tilda.ws/

3

Table of contents

Table of contents

4

Summary

5

Overview

6

The reaction of officials in the media

to the detention and torture of citizens

7

Reaction of international organizations

to the events in Belarus

14

International standards: the prohibition of torture

and the effectiveness of the investigation

19

Applicable national legislation:

offenses and criminal procedure

24

Analysis of the effectiveness of the investigation

29

Recommendations to the state

36

4

Summary

1. Prohibition of torture is one of the few absolute and inalienable human rights. The Republic of Belarus has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. In this connection, it is obliged to ensure the protection of any person from torture and to ensure prompt and impartial investigation of torture and other cruel treatment.

2. During four days from August 9 to 13, 2020, according to official data, more than 7000 people were detained. As a result of the actions of law enforcement agencies, the death of at least four people was recorded, thousands of detainees received physical and psychological trauma and had to undergo medical treatment, physical and psychological rehabilitation.  Such  large-scale  manifestations  of  power  abuse  due to its extremely high social danger are considered by the criminal law not as ordinary professional misconduct, but as a particularly grave crime against the safety of mankind, provided for in Art. 128 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus.

3. Neither the current President, nor the General Prosecutor’s Office, nor the Ministry of the Interior have issued a single public and unequivocal statement condemning the use of all forms of torture, nor have they issued a clear warning that any person involved in such actions will bear responsibility according to the Criminal Code.

4. As  of  October  5,  2020,  neither  the  Investigative  Committee  nor the  interviewed  applicants  have  any  updates  about  the  initiation  of criminal cases on the facts of torture, as well as criminal cases on the  facts  of  the  death  of  people  during  the  protests.  Currently,  the ongoing checks do not meet the standards for effective investigation of allegations of torture in terms of speed, thoroughness, impartiality, victims’ access to investigation and transparency.

5

Overview

The 2020 presidential elections in the Republic of Belarus were marked by fear, intimidation of voters and observers. They were not recognized by the international community as fair and democratic. On August 9, after the closure of polling stations and posting of the protocols of election commissions, peaceful protesters took to the streets throughout the country demanding non-recognition of the official election results and holding new fair elections. The authorities responded to the peaceful protests with a wave of mass repressions, unprecedented, brutal and massive violations of human rights: torture, violence, enforced disappearances, rape, destruction of the property of protesters, and murder of protesters.

Over the four days from 9 to 13 August 2020, according to official data, more than 7000 people were detained. Among them there were random citizens who did not take part in the protests, including journalists, medical workers, observers, human rights defenders who were fulfilling their professional and public duties. Human rights  organizations  note  that  almost  every  detainee  reported  disproportionate and unlawful use of force by law enforcement officers, unjustified use of weapons and ammunition, use of torture and ill-treatment in detention centers, and inability to inform relatives and lawyers of their whereabouts.

The actions of law enforcement agencies let to the death of at least four people, thousands of detainees were physically and psychologically injured and had to undergo medical treatment or physical and psychological rehabilitation.

More than 1000 people filed claims to the territorial departments of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus, the Prosecutor’s Office to initiate criminal cases  against  law  enforcement  officers,  temporary  detention  centers,  police stations, and other places of detention on the grounds of torture, abuse of power and malfeasance.

6

The reaction of officials in the

media to the detention and torture

of citizens

On  August  9–12,  2020,  Belarus  experienced  a  large-scale  Internet  shutdown.

Access to a number of independent sites and to instant messengers was blocked, mobile Internet was disconnected at night from August 9 to 12 (moreover, at the state level it was claimed that this was the result of external DDоS attacks). Thus, on  the  indicated  days,  most  Internet  users  in  Belarus  were  in  the  information blockade.

During this period, state media and television channels paid very little attention to  the  events,  and  the  protesters  were  almost  always  presented  in  a  negative way, as immoral and marginal elements (alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes and criminals),  whose  purpose  is  to  destabilize  the  situation  in  a  peaceful  country.

According to the state media, protests were sponsored by foreign states. Brutal and violent detentions were portrayed as a necessary reaction of law enforcement agencies to the destructive, violent actions of the protesters that were characterized as riots.

Already on August 10 Ivan Noskevich, the head of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus, announced that 21 criminal cases on riots and violence against the police on the night of August 9–10 were initiated.

There were no reports of unjustified infliction of bodily harm, violence, or torture of detainees.1

On August 11–12, with the first releases of the detained citizens from detention centers,  the  facts  of  torture  became  public  knowledge  by  the  word  of  mouth.

Independent media published testimonies of victims of torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment not only during detention, but also in police wagons, places of detention (police departments, the Center for Isolation of Offenders, temporary detention centers). Lack of reaction from government agencies, officials of law enforcement agencies was no longer possible.

1 https://www.belta.by/incident/view/vozbuzhdeny-ugolovnye-dela-po-faktam-massovyh-

besporjadkov-i-nasilija-v-otnoshenii-militsii-noskevich-402269-2020/

7

On  August  13,  the  Minister  of  Internal  Affairs  Yuri  Karaev  commented  on  the situation. In particular, he emphasized that the citizens participating in the protests used violence against the police officers.

Comments  regarding  the  “accidental”  victims:  “It happened so that someone could not jump away timely, got accidentally hit, got in the way ... For such, as they call it, violence, I, as a commander, military leader, want to take this responsibility, I must take personal responsibility, I’d like to apologize to these people, it’s a human thing to do... ”2

It is important to emphasize that apologies were made only to people who were accidentally  detained  (however,  according  to  the  minister,  it  is  the  protesters to  blame  for  deliberately  choosing  places  near  shops,  etc.  in  order  to  “frame”

innocent citizens). The minister deliberately outlined that physical violence was used only in the act of detention. Everything that happened next, in the places of detention, was not commented on.

Numerous facts of torture, inhuman and degrading treatment already known to the public (it is obvious that the minister of the security department should have been notified of them) not only were not evaluated, but were not even mentioned by him. The high-ranking official Mr. Karaev did not comment on the gross violations of the Convention against Torture, the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus by the officers of the security agencies, especially the OMON, Belarusian riot police.

On August 16, Yuri Karaev again assessed the current events. He focused on the fact that protests were unauthorized and expressed regrets about the beatings of citizens, but most of all — of his injured officers. Addressing torture and humiliation as due by law was not brought up in his speech.3

It should be noted that after the numerous facts of the use of violence by the security agencies became public and the victims appealed to the Investigative Committee, riot police atrocities have somewhat decreased since August 14.

Mr. Karaev noted in a few days that many protesting women were just standing peacefully  and  there  was  no  need  to  detain  them.  However,  the  events  of  the following days showed that the police officers again began to detain both men and women, standing with flowers, in festive clothes, and this was often done very harshly, sometimes with beatings.

2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=333&v=UKg-SrGvDes&feature=emb_title

3 https://news.tut.by/economics/696888.html#ua:main_news~2

8

On  September  15,  it  became  known  that  the  Minister  of  of  Internal  Affairs Yuri Karayev appealed to the Parliament proposing to amend the Procedural and Executive Code on Administrative Offenses. In particular, he suggested legalizing anonymous witness testimonies of police officers in courts, releasing them from the duty to physically appear in court, closing court sessions, prohibiting release of  information  about  police  officers  for  their  protection.  In  the  protocol  of  the procedural action, it was proposed to indicate the fictitious personal data of such employees.4

Already  on  September  25,  2020,  at  the  court  hearing  of  an  administrative offense of lawyer Lyudmila Kazak in the Oktyabrsky District Court of Minsk, both witnesses from the prosecution testified under fictitious first and last names. On the request of the defenders to ascertain the identity of the witnesses Ivan Ivanov and Aleksandr Aleksandrov, the judge replied that the court had established their identities, and their personal data had been changed, since they were “constantly receiving threats”.5

The  hypocrisy  of  another  high  ranking  official —  Alexander  Barsukov,  Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus, was most clearly manifested. He came to the Center for Isolation of Offenders on the night of 14 August. Leaving the Center for Isolation of Offenders in Minsk at 36 Okrestin Street (hereinafter CIO), he assured the relatives and friends of the detainees that no one was beaten or tortured in the cells.6

One  month  after  the  elections,  on  September 9,  2020,  Alexander  Lukashenko was interviewed by Russian journalists.7 Regarding the actions of the riot police and the observance of the rule of law, he said (words are quoted close to the text):

“I cannot blame these guys who defended not only the country, but also me personally. ... riot police and internal troops are working in the streets. It is their job — to stabilize the situation. Did they break the law? No! The only thing I didn’t like about it was that they beat someone lying on the ground. And then I saw the photo where he [a protester] had done something wrong somewhere.

Of course, he tried to escape, and he got beaten. I openly said, like a true man, that I do not welcome it. ”

4 https://www.intex-press.by/2020/09/16/karaev-poprosil-zashhitit-silovikov-vystupayushhih-

svidetelyami-v-sudah/

5 https://news.tut.by/economics/701822.html

6 https://www.kp.by/daily/217169.5/4269983/

7 https://news.tutby.news/society/699864.html

9

Lukashenko denied presence of riot police officers in detention centers, although none  of  the  officials  dared  to  do  so,  because  their  presence  in  the  detention facilities was obvious and is confirmed by numerous testimonies of the victims.

The  violence  that  took  place  there  was  presented  as  a  confrontation  between

“convicts” and “cops”:

“The biggest clash between convicts and ‘cops’ is that they hate each other.

And a lot of people got to Okrestsin Street, whom I call “cons”, convicted 12 times and more. And when they were all drunk and stoned, and there were 60 % of them, they rushed at these guys [the guards at Okrestsin Street], and of course, they pushed back. And of course, someone was protecting someone there, they also got beaten. But not riot police, there were no riot police in Okrestsin Street…”

The bottom line of this interview is that the riot police OMON was right to act as they did. Their gruesome actions in detention facilities were denied, and the

“bruises” of the victims were explained to have been inflicted by the “cons”. There is a direct distortion of facts, understatement of the degree and severity of the injuries  inflicted  upon  the  detained.  The  violence  was  hushed  up,  turned  into a farce. As for cruel treatment, torture, humiliation of human dignity, it was not brought up whatsoever. In fact, police officers have already been pardoned for allegedly saving the country and the President personally, and “this page” of their atrocities  can  be  turned  over.  Lukashenko’s  vague  promise  to  revisit  the  issue when the dust has settled, but not to immediately start criminal cases as required by law, may well be forgotten.

Earlier, on August 18, at a meeting of the Security Council, Alexander Lukashenko spoke out more unambiguously: “I want to warn you once again: cool down.

Then there will be no second round of sobs and bruises in the media”, — he stressed.8

Such attitude of the top state officials to the actions of security forces gives reason to assume that there will be no objective investigation of the tortures.

Now former Prosecutor General Alexander Konyuk said on August 15 on the air of “Belarus-1” that all mass events must be approved by local authorities. He did not publicly discuss police violence and did not comment on the grave legal crisis that had developed in the country.9

8 https://news.tut.by/economics/697175.html

9 https://news.tut.by/society/696844.html

10

On September 13, the state TV channel STV aired a story about the Center for Isolation of Offenders in Okrestsin Street. The head of the CIO of the Municipal Department of Internal Affairs of the Minsk City Executive Committee, Yevgeny Shapetko, said: “Given that thousands were delivered to our institution, there was not a single death”.

In the same footage, a representative of the STV asked Gleb Dril, the deputy head of the CIO of the Municipal Department of Internal Affairs of the Minsk City  Executive  Committee,  about  whether  there  were  tortures,  bul ying,  and beatings in the institution. The deputy head of the CIO said: “There was no torture or humiliation here. There was an overflow problem, of course. The building is not designed for so many people. The detainees were handled accordingly”.

The  representative  of  STV  also  spoke  with  the  policeman,  “who  was  on  duty here  when  a  large  number  of  the  detained  arrived,  on  the  9–10th  of  August.”

This policeman, without showing his face and without giving his last name, said

“Nobody was beaten here. They brought people here, put them in a cell, and that was it”. When the reporter asked whether there had been any rough treatment and humiliation, the incognito policeman replied: “There was nothing like this in here, because they brought a lot of people. We had to come, accommodate people and deal with other newcomers. Physically there wasn’t enough time for anything”.10

On September 9, the chair of Prosecutor General was taken by Andrei Shved (Chairman  of  the  State  Committee  for  Forensic  Expertise).  The  President, introducing him to the Prosecutor General’s Office, publicly stated that sometimes laws can be violated.11

On September 24, Andrei Shved said that the prosecutor’s office would develop a strategy for implementing the president’s instructions and ensure law and order:

“All those responsible wills be punished sooner or later. Not a single blogger, not a single person who has committed a crime not only at unauthorized events, but also on the Internet, will escape responsibility. Today, very active work is underway to identify such persons and bring them to justice”, — said he.12

10 https://news.tut.by/society/700316.html

11 https://www.belta.by/president/view/lukashenko-vlast-ne-dlja-togo-daetsja-chtoby-ee-

vzjal-brosil-i-otdal-406208-2020/

12  h t t p s : / / w w w. b e l t a . b y / s o c i e t y / v i e w / s h v e d - n i - o d i n - o r g a n i z a t o r- i - u c h a s t n i k -

nesanktsionirovannyh-aktsij-ne-ujdet-ot-otvetstvennosti-408042-2020/

11

Once again, the selective approach of the prosecutor’s office to ensuring law and order is alarming, as there is no discussion about revealing the criminal actions of the security forces against the detained citizens.

The  statements  by  Alexander  Lapshin,  Deputy  Prosecutor  General,  on September 17 at a meeting with students of the Law Faculty of the Belarusian State University, are very indicative. Addressing the question why the Prosecutor General’s Office has not seen a single violation on the part of the police since August  9  (after  al ,  there  is  stil   no  information  about  a  single  criminal  case), Mr. Lapshin explained: in accordance with Article 174 of the Criminal Procedural Code, decisions to initiate investigation on crimes committed by officials of the internal  affairs  bodies  in  connection  with  their  official  or  professional  activities are  taken  exclusively  by  the  Investigative  Committee.  The  Committee  is  now conducting a thorough verification of the claims, but a lot of work must be done, so there are no solutions yet.13

Such a qualified professional, however, must know that in accordance with part 3

of Article 4, part 2 of Article 174, part 4 of Article 34 of the Criminal Procedural Code  of  the  Republic  of  Belarus,  the  prosecutor  has  the  authority  to  conduct investigation of statements or crime reports , initiate a criminal case or refuse to initiate it. During pre-trial proceedings on a criminal case, the prosecutor takes over  the  criminal  case  and  investigates  it  in  full,  exercising  the  authority  of  the investigator.

Under such circumstances, it is hardly possible to believe Mr. Lapshin’s statements about  keeping  a  close  watch  on  investigations  (“But we are not washing our hands of this”).  On  the  contrary:  the  prosecutor’s  office  does  not  consider  it necessary  to  carry  out  investigations,  initiate  criminal  proceedings  against  the security forces who used torture and disproportionate violence, as well as those who gave orders to use torture and such violence or persons with whose tacit consent this happened.

On  October  2,  2020,  highest  officials  of  the  Ministry  of  Internal  Affairs  and representatives of other state bodies met with Joanna Kazana-Wisniowiecki, the UN Resident Coordinator in Belarus.

“The negative assessment given by the international community of the situation in Belarus is based on inaccurate information. Unfortunately, specific facts of violence, specific facts of torture, rape, etc. are not named. Everything is somehow general, ” —  said  Deputy  Minister  of  Internal  Affairs  Gennady 13 https://news.tut.by/society/701026.html

12

Kazakevich. According to Mr. Kazakevich, the UN representative was provided with information refuting fake news about torture and rape by law enforcement officers. “At first we had rapes of women — they were not confirmed. Then there were rapes of men — they were also not confirmed. Step by step, examining the circumstances of each such statement, we came to the understanding that this was not the case, ” — the first deputy minister emphasized.14

Thus, neither the current President, nor the General Prosecutor’s Office, nor the Ministry of Internal Affairs have made a single public and unequivocal statement condemning the use of al  forms of torture, nor have they issued a clear warning that  any  person,  participating  in  such  actions,  wil   incur  personal  criminal responsibility for this.

14 https://www.belta.by/society/view/mvd-otsenka-mezhdunarodnogo-soobschestva-

situatsii-v-belarusi-osnovana-na-nedostovernoj-informatsii-409281-2020/

13

Reaction of international

organizations to the events

in Belarus

Already  on  August  10,  the  OSCE  Chairmanship  (Albania)  expressed  concern about the events in Belarus after the presidential elections on August 9, called for full compliance with OSCE commitments, including the right to peaceful assembly, and for restraint at this critical time.15

On the same day, August 10, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human  Rights  (ODIHR)  reported  evidence  of  excessive  use  of  force  by  police throughout Belarus, leading to a large number of detainees and victims, including independent election observers and journalists. ODIHR has called for an immediate and effective investigation of any police brutality and for the release of all those detained for their participation in the protests.16

On  August  10,  the  Chairman  of  the  Parliamentary  Assembly  of  the  Council  of Europe  (PACE)  Rick  Dems  noted  with  deep  regret  that  the  last  elections  were far  from  free  and  fair.  The  candidates  did  not  have  the  opportunity  to  freely nominate themselves and campaign; there were severe restrictions on freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, including mass detentions of peaceful protesters,  activists  and  journalists;  the  integrity  of  the  early  voting  procedure was questioned. He urged the authorities to exercise maximum restraint and to ensure  the  unhindered  exercise  of  fundamental  human  rights  and  freedoms  in accordance with Belarus’ national and international obligations.17

On  August  12,  UN  High  Commissioner  for  Human  Rights  Michelle  Bachelet condemned the violent measures taken by the Belarusian authorities in response to the peaceful protests that took place across the country after the presidential elections,  and  called  for  the  authorities  to  listen  to  the  people’s  discontent.

15 https://www.osce.org/chairmanship/459649

16 https://www.osce.org/odihr/belarus/459664

17 https://www.coe.int/ru/web/portal/news-2020/-/asset_publisher/JgmLwXY88pXi/

content/presidential-election-in-belarus-statement-by-pace-president?_101_INSTANCE_

JgmLwXY88pXi_viewMode=view/

14

The High Commissioner called for the immediate release of all those unlawfully detained and for a timely, thorough, independent and impartial investigation of all allegations of human rights violations.18

On August 13, over ten Belarusian human rights organizations sent a joint appeal to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on  the  situation  of  human  rights  in  Belarus,  Special  Rapporteur  on  the  right to  freedom  of  peaceful  assembly  and  association,  Special  Rapporteur  on  the issue of on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Special Rapporteur on the impartiality of judges and lawyers.

This  appeal  described  current  human  rights  situation  in  Belarus  and  called  for urgent  measures  to  assist  in  its  improvement,  requesting  the  government  of Belarus to take urgent measures to fulfill its international human rights obligations and end violence against civilians and protesters.19

On  August  13  UN  human  rights  experts  (Special  Rapporteur  on  the  rights  to freedom  of  peaceful  assembly  and  association;  Special  Rapporteur  on  the situation of human rights in Belarus; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of rights to  freedom  of  opinion  and  expression,  UN  Special  Rapporteur  on  extrajudicial executions) criticized Belarus for police violence against peaceful protesters and journalists, as well as large-scale detentions following a controversial presidential election, and called on the international community to put pressure on Belarus to end attacks on its own citizens.20

On  August  13,  OSCE  Parliamentary  Assembly  President  George  Tsereteli expressed concern over reports of excessive use of force after the presidential elections,  including  the  use  of  rubber  bullets,  water  cannons,  flashbangs  and mass arrests, and called on Belarus to end its repressive policies and fully respect international human rights standards.21

On August 17, the government of Belarus was officially offered a visit of OSCE

Chairman-in-Office,  Prime  Minister,  Minister  of  Europe  and  Foreign  Affairs  of 18 https://www.ohchr.org/RU/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26162

&LangID=R

19 https://belhelcom.org/ru/news/pravozashchitniki-obratilis-k-verhovnomu-komissaru-oon-

po-pravam-cheloveka-i-tematicheskim

20 https://www.ohchr.org/RU/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26164

&LangID=R

21 https://www.osce.org/parliamentary-assembly/459997

15

Albania  Edi  Rama  and  the  new  OSCE  Chairman-in-Office,  Minister  of  Foreign Affairs of Sweden Ann Linde to meet with the government and representatives of the opposition.22

On August 19, the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) called for the immediate release of all unlawfully detained and a prompt and impartial investigation into alleged human rights violations. ODIHR is deeply alarmed  by  arbitrary  arrests  and  allegations  of  torture  and  other  forms  of  ill-treatment by the Belarusian authorities in which detainees are held incommunicado and denied access to medical assistance and legal advice. ODIHR is particularly concerned  about  reported  incidents  of  sexual  and  gender-based  violence, including threats of rape, and stresses the absolute prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment.  ODIHR  called  on  the  authorities  to  immediately  end  any  practice amounting  to  torture,  bring  all  perpetrators  to  justice  and  provide  victims  with appropriate compensation.23

On August 25, 2020, the Viasna Human Rights Center, the Belarusian Helsinki Committee,  the  World  Organization  Against  Torture,  and  the  International Federation of Human Rights appealed to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture with  a  call  to  intervene  in  the  situation  with  the  torture  of  peaceful  protesters detained  at  protests  against  the  falsification  of  the  results  of  the  presidential elections.24

On  August  26,  in  their  joint  statement,  the  three  leaders  of  the  Council  of Europe —  Deputy  Minister  of  Foreign  Affairs  of  Greece  and  Chairman  of  the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Miltiadis Varvitsiotis, Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly Rick Dems and Secretary General Marija Pejinovi Buri — called on the authorities of Belarus and all stakeholders to “immediately start an extensive and inclusive national dialogue, fully involving civil society representatives, in order to ensure a peaceful solution to the current crisis and create opportunities for the necessary reforms in the best interests of all citizens of Belarus”. The leaders of the Council of Europe called for “immediate release of all detained protesters, an end to all acts of ill-treatment and an urgent open investigation of the brutality by law enforcement officials”.25

On  August  28,  the  OSCE  Chairman-in-Office,  Prime  Minister  and  Minister of  Europe  and  Foreign  Affairs  of  Albania  Edi  Rama  proposed  that  the  OSCE

22 https://www.osce.org/chairmanship/460384

23 https://www.osce.org/odihr/460693

24 https://belapan.by/archive/2020/08/25/ru_1056683/

25 https://www.coe.int/ru/web/portal/-/belarus-joint-statement-by-committee-of-ministers-

presidency-pace-president-and-secretary-general?inheritRedirect=true

16

becomes the coordinator of the necessary dialogue to help Belarus get out of the current crisis.26

On September 1, UN human rights experts (Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus; UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances; Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of  the  right  to  freedom  of  opinion  and  expression;  Special  Rapporteur  on  the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association; UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention) called on Belarus to end torture of detainees and bring police officers,  who  reportedly  unlawfully  humiliated  and  beat  protesters  in  places  of detention, to justice.27

On  September  3,  the  Committee  on  the  Elimination  of  Discrimination  against Women  (CEDAW)  expressed  deep  concern  over  reports  of  violence  against women  in  Belarus,  including  sexual  abuse  and  rape,  received  by  UN  human rights experts.28

On  September  4,  the  Human  Rights  Center  “Viasna”  and  “Belarusian  Helsinki Committee”, representing 47 victims at peaceful protests, appealled to the UN

Committee against Torture to conduct an investigation into the systematic use of torture in the Republic of Belarus.29

On September 4, Estonia initiated a hearing in the UN Security Council on the situation in Belarus together with the permanent members of the United States and Great Britain, as well as Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Ukraine. The meeting was chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Estonia Urmas Reinsalu.30

On September 8, Secretary General of the Council of Europe Maria Peichinovich-Burich on behalf of the Council of Europe called on the leadership of Belarus to put an end to repressive actions.31

26 https://www.osce.org/chairmanship/461854

27 https://www.ohchr.org/ru/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26199

&LangID=R

28 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26206&

LangID=E

29 https://belapan.by/archive/2020/09/04/ru_1058309/

30 https://news.tut.by/economics/699346.html

31 https://www.coe.int/ru/web/portal/-/secretary-general-gravely-concerned-by-human-

rights-violations-in-belarus

17

On September 9, the Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on Legal Affairs and Human Rights adopted a statement on the human rights situation in Belarus and proposed to establish an international investigative body to collect information and evidence about violations in Belarus.32

On September 14, the UN Human Rights Council decided by 25 votes against 2

and 20 abstentions to approve a request by Germany on behalf of the European Union member states that are members of the Human Rights Council to hold an urgent discussion on the “human rights situation in Belarus”.33

On  September  17,  seventeen  OSCE  member  States  (Belgium,  Canada, Czech  Republic,  Denmark,  Estonia,  Finland,  France,  Iceland,  Latvia,  Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, United Kingdom and the United States) engaged the OSCE Moscow Mechanism to investigate alleged violations of human rights in Belarus.34

On September 18, the Human Rights Council held an urgent discussion of the human rights situation in Belarus. After the discussion, a resolution was adopted on the human rights situation in Belarus on the eve of the 2020 presidential elections and after them. The resolution, adopted by 23 votes to 2 and 22 abstentions, calls on the Belarusian authorities to create conditions for independent, transparent and impartial investigations of all human rights violations allegedly committed in the context of elections, including allegations of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment of detainees and protesters, and enforced disappearances, and guarantee victims access to justice and compensation, and holding the perpetrators fully accountable.35

On  September  23,  President  of  the  OSCE  Parliamentary  Assembly  George Tsereteli (Georgia) and Secretary General Roberto Montella held an online meeting with the head of the Belarusian delegation Andrei Savinykh, presidential candidate Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and members of the OSCE PA Bureau.36

32 https://pace.coe.int/en/news/7992/statement-on-the-human-rights-situation-in-belarus

33 https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=26260&

LangID=E

34 https://www.osce.org/odihr/464001

35 http://undocs.org/ru/A/HRC/45/L.1

36 https://www.osce.org/parliamentary-assembly/464589

18

International standards:

the prohibition of torture and the

effectiveness of the investigation

The prohibition of torture is one of the few absolute and non-derogable human rights.  Article 2  of  the  Convention  against  Torture  states  that  no  exceptional circumstances,  whatever  they  may  be,  be  it  a  state  of  war  or  a  threat  of  war, internal political instability or any other state of emergency, can justify torture.37

In the 1998 Prosecutor v. Furundzhia case, the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia stated that “the nature of the prohibition of torture jus cogens articulates the view that this prohibition has become one of the most fundamental standards of the international community. Moreover, this prohibition is intended to create a deterrent effect, as it signals to all members of the international community and those over whom they have authority that the prohibition of torture is an absolute value from which no one should deviate.”38

In  its  2012  judgment  on  Issues  Concerning  the  Obligation  to  Prosecute  or Extradite  (Belgium  v. Senegal),  the  International  Court  of  Justice  indicated  that the prohibition of torture is a part of customary international law and a peremptory norm (jus cogens), based on widespread international practice and on the opinio juris of states.39

Thus, it can be stated that the prohibition of torture belongs to the category of peremptory norms of general international law, the violation of which is considered unacceptable, since it can cause damage to the rights and interests of all states.

The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, ratified by the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Belorussian SSR “On the Ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights” of 1973 in article 2 establishes the following general obligations of the state:

37 https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/torture.shtml

38 https://www.icty.org/x/cases/furundzija/tjug/en/

39 https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/144/144-20120720-JUD-01-00-EN.pdf

19

•  the obligation to respect and ensure the rights recognized in the ICCPR;

•  the  obligation  to  take  the  necessary  steps  to  take  such  legislative  or other measures as may be necessary for the implementation of the rights recognized in the ICCPR;

•  the obligation to provide an effective remedy.40

Specifying the provisions of Article 7 of the ICCPR, which prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, the Human Rights Committee (HRC), in 1992 General Comment No. 20, noted that the State party is obliged, through the adoption of legislative and other necessary measures, to protect any person  from  acts  prohibited  in  Article 7,  regardless  of  whether  these  acts  are committed by persons acting within the framework of their official powers, outside these powers, or in their personal capacity.41

The  1984  Convention  against  Torture  and  Other  Cruel,  Inhuman  or  Degrading Treatment  or  Punishment,  ratified  by  the  1987  Decree  of  the  Presidium  of  the Supreme Soviet of the Belarusian SSR, establishes the following obligations of the state:

•  take  effective  legislative,  administrative,  judicial  and  other  measures  to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction;

•  ensure that all acts of torture are dealt with in accordance with national criminal law;

•  to establish appropriate penalties for such crimes, taking into account their grave nature;

•  establish jurisdiction over crimes of torture;

•  to take into custody or take other legal measures to ensure the presence of the accused of the crime of torture;

•  to conduct a preliminary investigation of the facts;

•  ensure that a prompt and impartial investigation of torture and other ill-treatment is carried out by the competent authorities.

The  duty  to  investigate  allegations  of  torture  is  of  particular  importance  to  the implementation of the prohibition against torture. Only as a result of an investigation 40 https://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/pactpol.shtml

41 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2f

CCPR%2fGEC%2f6621&Lang=ru

20

can it be established whether the fact of torture has taken place and, if there are grounds,  to  ensure  that  the  guilty  are  brought  to  justice  and  the  rights  of  the victims are restored.

The  HRC,  in  General  Comment  No. 20,  indicated  that  domestic  law  should recognize the right to lodge a complaint with respect to treatment prohibited by Article 7 of the ICCPR. Complaints must be investigated promptly and impartially by the competent authorities in order to ensure the effective use of this remedy.42

The prohibition of torture imposes an obligation on the state to respond to signs of torture and complaints of torture, and to conduct an effective investigation. In the 1998 case Assenov v. Bulgaria, the ECtHR indicated that the investigation must be capable of leading to the identification and punishment of those responsible.

Otherwise, a general legal prohibition against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment, despite its fundamental importance, would be ineffective in practice.43

The practice of the Human Rights Committee, the Committee against Torture and the European Court of Human Rights has formulated the following standards for an effective investigation of allegations of torture:

1. The speed and timeliness of the investigation.  This standard is one of the most important conditions for the effectiveness of an investigation, since its implementation contributes to the detection and consolidation of evidence, as well as the identification of those responsible. First of all, the standard of promptness and timeliness of the investigation implies the speed of the state’s response to reports of torture: upon receipt of a complaint or other information about torture, the  competent  authorities  should  start  an  investigation  as  soon  as  possible, without any delay. The ECtHR, in its Bati and Others v. Turkey judgment of 2004, indicated that “whatever method of investigation is chosen, the authorities should take action immediately after the complaint has been lodged.”44 The principle of speed also requires that the necessary investigative actions be carried out without undue delay and that the overall duration of the investigation is not excessive.

2. The thoroughness of the investigation.   This  standard  requires  that the ways in which a torture report is investigated leads to the fulfillment of the basic  objectives  of  the  investigation.  The  public  authorities  in  charge  of  the investigation are required to take steps to locate and record all evidence relevant 42 http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2f

CCPR%2fGEC%2f6621&Lang=ru

43 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58261

44 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-61805

21

to  establishing  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Termination  of  an  investigation before all necessary steps have been taken to gather evidence will be considered a  violation  of  the  principle  of  thoroughness  of  the  investigation.  This  position is  set  out  in  the  2006  ECtHR  judgment  in  the  case  of  Boychenko  v. Moldova:

“The investigation of substantive complaints of ill-treatment must be thorough. This means that the authorities must always make a serious attempt to establish what happened and not rely on hasty or unfounded conclusions in order to discontinue an investigation or rule a case. They should take all available steps to consolidate evidence relevant to what happened, including, inter alia, eyewitness statements and medical documents”.45

3. Independence of the investigation. This standard requires the body or person conducting the investigation to be both formally and practically independent.

First, the independence of investigators from those allegedly guilty of torture must be ensured. Secondly, independence from the bodies and structures to which the  alleged  guilty  of  torture  are  subordinate  must  be  ensured.  This  standard, in  particular,  is  enshrined  in  the  Guidelines  for  the  Effective  Investigation  and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: “Investigators must be competent and impartial, they are independent from suspects and from the authorities to which the latter are subordinate to”.46

An  investigation  into  a  torture  report  will  not  be  considered  independent  if  the investigation  is  entrusted  to  persons  allegedly  responsible  for  torture  or  those connected with them in service. The independence standard also requires that the  findings  of  an  investigation  should  not  be  based  solely  on  the  testimony and explanations of the suspects. Thus, the ECHR, in its 2005 judgment in the Afanasyev v. Ukraine case, noted that “in response to the applicant’s complaint, the authorities conducted a superficial investigation, questioning only the alleged offenders. They accepted the denial [of guilt] by the police officers for the truth and refused to institute criminal proceedings against them, despite the applicant’s allegations and his undeniable bodily harm”.47

4. Access of the victim to the investigation.  In the Views of the Committee against Torture in the cases of Harizi Jemile et al. V. Yugoslavia, 2000,48 Dragan Dmitrievic v. Serbia and Montenegro, 2002,49 failure to comply with the requirement to inform the alleged victims is considered a violation of the standards of effective investigation. The standard of victim access to an investigation also includes the 45 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-76295

46 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training8Rev1ru.pdf

47 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-68711

48 http://juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/175

49 http://juris.ohchr.org/Search/Details/141

22

ability of victims to present evidence or request that some kind of investigative action be taken. For example, the Guidelines for the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment indicate that alleged victims of torture and their legal representatives are provided with information and access to any hearings, as well as all information related to the investigation, the right to present other evidence is also given.50

5. Publicity of the investigation.   The  need  for  public  oversight  of  the investigation  was  reflected  in  the  practice  of  the  ECHR,  for  example,  in  the judgment in the case “Menesheva v. Russia” 2006: “The minimum standards of effectiveness established in the case-law of the ECHR also include the requirement that the investigation must be independent, impartial and under public control”.51

Given the particular danger of such a crime as torture and the extreme importance of investigating such complaints, the principle of publicity applies to the results of  a  completed  investigation,  which  must  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the public in one way or another. The requirement for publicity is also enshrined in the Guidelines for the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which states that investigative  methods  must  meet  the  highest  international  standards,  and  that findings must be made public.52

50 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training8Rev1ru.pdf

51 http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-72700

52 http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/training8Rev1ru.pdf

23

Applicable national legislation:

offenses and criminal procedure

As noted above, acts of violence by law enforcement agencies against civilians were massive and widespread.

For  a  correct  criminal  law  understanding  and  assessment  of  violent  actions committed by representatives of the state, it is necessary to proceed from the following.

Every  unlawful  single  act  of  violence  committed  by  a  representative  of  the authorities or an official in the exercise of his official powers is considered by the national criminal law as a crime against the interests of the service, provided for in Part 3 of Art. 426 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) — abuse of power or official powers.

The specified corpus delicti in relation to the situation under study is formulated in the Criminal Code as follows:  deliberate commission of actions by an official that clearly go beyond the rights and powers granted to him in the service, associated with violence, torture or insult of the victim or the use of weapons or special means.

For the commission of such acts, the law provides for a penalty in the form of imprisonment for a term of three to ten years with or without a fine and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities.

However, as already noted, the actions noted in the report were really massive —

according to the estimates of human rights defenders, volunteers and the media, only in Minsk during August 9–13, 2020, there were hundreds of acts of violence by the security forces.

The  demands  of  civilians  about  A. Lukashenko’s  resignation  and  re-election  of the President of the country continue to be suppressed by the authorities with brutal force to this day.

Under such circumstances, such large-scale manifestations of abuse of power, due to their extremely high social danger, acquired a new quality and are considered by the criminal law no longer as an ordinary crime against the interests of the 24

service, but as a particularly grave crime against the safety of mankind, provided for in Art. 128 of the Criminal Code.

The specified corpus delicti is contained in Chapter 17 of the Criminal Code “Crimes against the Peace and Security of Humanity”, Section VI “Crimes against Peace, Security of Humanity and War Crimes” and is formulated as follows: deportation, illegal detention, conversion into slavery, mass or systematic executions without trial,  kidnapping  followed  by  their  disappearance,  torture  or  acts  of  cruelty committed in connection with the race, nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs and religion of the civilian population.

Persons  found  guilty  of  committing  this  crime  may  be  punished  by  a  court with imprisonment for a term of seven to twenty-five years, or sentenced to life imprisonment or death penalty.

By the Law of the Republic of Belarus dated 05.01.2015 to Art. 128 of the Criminal Code  there  was  introduced  a  note  that  fully  copies  the  definition  of  “torture”

contained in article 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (New York on 10.12.1984).

According to this note, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him  for  an  act  he  or  a  third  person  has  committed  or  is  suspected  of  having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions.

It  should  also  be  noted  that  in  accordance  with  the  norms  of  international criminal  law  and  Part 3  of  Art. 6  of  the  Criminal  Code  criminal  liability  under Art. 128  of  the  Criminal  Code  occurs  regardless  of  the  criminal  law  in  force at the place of commission of the act (the universal principle of the operation of criminal law in space).

This means that citizens of the Republic of Belarus, as well as foreigners who have committed crimes against the safety of humanity in our country, can be held accountable for this crime not only in the Republic of Belarus, but also in any other country that is a party to the conventions on combating international crimes.

It is also very important that, given that the crime under Art. 128 of the Criminal Code,  refers  to  the  most  dangerous  crimes  against  the  peace  and  security  of mankind, art. 85 of the Criminal Code establishes that persons guilty of committing 25

this crime are not subject to release from criminal liability or punishment due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

The criminal procedural legislation of the Republic of Belarus regulates in detail the procedure for actions of state bodies and officials carrying out criminal prosecution when they get reports on committed crimes.

In the Republic of Belarus, the bodies given the right to carry out criminal prosecution include the prosecutor’s office, investigative divisions, as well as inquiry bodies.

A preliminary investigation in the Republic of Belarus is carried out by investigators of the Investigative Committee and state security bodies; the same right is given to the prosecutor in accordance with the law.

State bodies and officials authorized by law to carry out inquiries are the bodies of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, commanders of military units and divisions, heads of correctional institutions, border service bodies, customs authorities, financial investigation bodies of the State Control Committee of the Republic of Belarus and some others.

The reasons and grounds for initiating criminal cases, as well as the procedure for their initiation, are spelled out in chapters 20 and 21 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter CPC).

In accordance with Art. Art. 166 and 167 of the CPC, the reasons for initiating a criminal case are statements by citizens, reports of officials of state bodies and other organizations, reports of crimes in the media, direct detection by the criminal prosecution body of information indicating signs of a crime, and the grounds for initiating a case are the presence of sufficient data indicating signs of a crime.

Citizens’ statements about a crime can be oral or written.

Reports of officials of state bodies, as well as other organizations about the crime must be made in writing. They may be accompanied by documents and other materials confirming the reliability of the crime report.

The official of the mass media who disseminated the message about the crime, at the request of the criminal prosecution body, is obliged to transfer the documents and other materials at its disposal, confirming the message made.

The  criminal  prosecution  body  is  obliged  to  accept,  register  and  consider a statement  or  report  of  any  committed  or  impending  crime.  The  applicant  is issued  a  document  on  registration  of  the  accepted  statement  or  report  of  the crime, indicating the official who accepted the application or message and the time of their registration.

26

The decision on the application or message must be made no later than three days, and if it is necessary to check the sufficiency of the presence or absence of grounds for initiating a criminal case, no later than ten days.

Before the initiation of a criminal case, explanations can be obtained, additional documents requested, an inspection of the scene of the incident, corpse, terrain, objects,  documents,  examination,  expertise,  detention  and  a  personal  search during arrest can be carried out, and the corpse can also be removed from the burial place (exhumation).

If it is impossible to make a decision within 10 days, this period may be extended, but not more than up to 3 months.

In practice, the extension of the terms of pre-investigation checks is carried out, as a rule, in response to allegations of crimes in the field of financial and economic activities.

Upon the received application or report of a crime, or upon direct detection of signs of a crime, the body of inquiry, the investigator or the prosecutor make one  of  the  fol owing  decisions:  to  initiate  a  criminal  case;  on  refusal  to  initiate a criminal case; on the transfer of an application, a message under investigation; to  terminate  the  examination  and  explain  to  the  applicant  the  right  to  initiate a private prosecution in the court.

Making  decisions  on  received  applications  or  reports  of  crimes  related  to  the death of a person, with violence against employees of the internal affairs bodies; about crimes committed by officials of the prosecutor’s office, the Investigative Committee,  internal  affairs  bodies,  state  security,  financial  investigations  in connection  with  their  official  or  professional  activities,  belongs  to  the  exclusive competence  of  the  preliminary  investigation  bodies  in  accordance  with  their jurisdiction and the prosecutor.

The applicant is informed of the decision taken and at the same time about the right to appeal the decision.

However, the adoption of this or that decision on the received message about the committed crime is not only the right of the criminal prosecution body.

Initiation of a criminal case in the presence of sufficient data indicating signs of a crime is also the responsibility of these bodies.

This need arises directly from Art. 27 of the CPC, which instructs the criminal prosecution  body,  within  its  competence,  to  initiate  a  criminal  case  in  each case of detection of signs of a crime, to take al  measures provided by law to 27

establish a social y dangerous act, to expose persons guilty of the crime and to punish them.

Thus, according to the law, the obligation to initiate a criminal case under Art. 128

of the Criminal Code lies with the investigators of the Investigative Committee and the prosecutor’s office.

At  the  same  time,  it  should  be  noted  that  under  the  current  circumstances,  it does not take much time and effort to resolve the issue of initiating a criminal case under this article of the Criminal Code.

The  reasons  and  grounds  for  such  a  decision  are  about  2000  statements  by citizens  and  reports  in  the  media —  victims  of  violence,  their  explanations  to the  investigating  authorities,  numerous  video  materials  and  forensic  medical examinations,  which  are  undoubtedly  at  the  disposal  of  the  Investigative Committee.

Nevertheless,  neither  the  Investigative  Committee,  nor  the  prosecutor’s  office have  initiated  a  single  criminal  case  against  the  law  enforcement  who  used violence against citizens.

It seems that the reasons for the non-response of the investigative bodies and the prosecutor’s office to the arbitrariness perpetrated in the country — mass torture, abductions and murders — is not the legal, but political issue.

In  this  regard,  it  is  important  to  note  that  in  itself  the  failure  by  officials  of  the Investigative  Committee  and  the  Prosecutor’s  Office  to  initiate  criminal  cases against the law enforcement officials, to arrest them and to investigate the crimes they have committed is a criminal offence.

In the actions of these officials, there are signs of corpus delicti under Part 3 of Art. 425 of the Criminal Code (inaction of an official).

With regard to the situation under consideration, the composition of this crime is formulated as follows: deliberate, contrary to the interests of the service, failure by an official out of selfish or other personal interest to perform actions that he should and could have performed due to the official duties assigned to him, committed by  an  official  in  a  responsible  position,  or  entailing  grave  consequences  are punishable by imprisonment for a term of two to seven years with or without a fine and deprivation of the right to hold certain positions or engage in certain activities.

Thus,  the  investigating  authorities  criminally  evade  the  fulfillment  of  their  direct duties to initiate and investigate criminal cases, and the prosecutor’s office, which have to ensure supervision of the implementation of laws in the course of pre-trial proceedings, criminally evade this supervision.

28

Analysis of the effectiveness

of the investigation

On August 15, lawyer of the Viasna Human Rights Center Pavel Sapelko appealed to the prosecutor of the city of Minsk with a statement about the disproportionate use of physical force, weapons and special means, torture, cruel and inhuman treatment of detained participants of peaceful protest actions by law enforcement officials. The human rights activist asked to initiate a criminal case on numerous facts of acts falling under the Part 3 of Art. 426 of the Criminal Code (Abuse of power  or  official  powers)  and  p. 3  of  Art. 455  of  the  Criminal  Code  (Abuse  of Power,  exceeding  of  authority  or  Inaction  of  authorities),  committed  by  police officers and military personnel.53

On August 22, the Minsk city prosecutor’s office sent an answer, signed by the deputy  prosecutor  D. Kostyukevich,  about  the  redirection  of  the  application regarding the arguments about the illegality of the actions of the militia officers and crimes they committed under Articles 426 and 455 of the Criminal Code to the head of the Minsk Investigative Committee.54

On August 16, human rights defenders of the Viasna Human Rights Center filed a statement to the Prosecutor General’s Office, demanding the immediate initiation of a criminal case on the facts of arbitrary detention of citizens, torture and acts of  cruel,  inhuman,  degrading  treatment  from  August 9  to  13,  2020  in  different places of Minsk and other cities of Belarus, on the basis of Articles 128, 426, 455

of the Criminal Code.55

On  August  19,  “Belarusian  Helsinki  Committee”  addressed  the  Head  of  the Investigative  Committee  of  the  Republic  of  Belarus  with  a  report  on  the  crime (in  accordance  with  Article 170  of  the  CPC).  Human  rights  activists  draw  the attention of the Investigative Committee to the facts of mass torture committed by  law  enforcement  officials,  as  well  as  to  the  facts  of  deaths  during  peaceful protests.  “It  is  known  that  at  least  three  people  died  as  a  result  of  the  use  of 53 http://spring96.org/ru/news/99061

54 http://spring96.org/ru/news/99197

55 http://spring96.org/ru/news/99077

29

special means and weapons — Alexander Vikhor (Gomel), Alexander Taraikovsky (Minsk), Gennady Shutov (Brest)”. Human rights activists demand: 1. To initiate a criminal case on the basis of Article 128 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus on the facts stated in the appeal.

2. In accordance with Art. 131 of the CPC, in the prescribed manner, suspend suspects  from  office,  work,  since  there  is  reason  to  believe  that,  while remaining in office, they will interfere with the preliminary investigation and trial of a criminal case, compensation for harm caused by the crime, or continue to engage in criminal activity related to staying in this positions.

3. Not to hinder lawyers in their professional activities, including in the right to publicly  respond  to  procedural  violations  and  procedural  decisions  during the preliminary investigation.

4. To  provide  maximum  information  to  the  public  about  the  progress  of  the investigation of this criminal case on the facts of mass torture, cruel treatment and violence on political grounds.56

On  September  2,  the  Central  Office  of  the  Investigative  Committee  of  the Republic of Belarus sent a response signed by the head of the main department of procedural control S.P. Tishuk stating that the there are no grounds to hold the investigation by the Investigative Committee on this appeal and make decisions in  accordance  with  the  procedure  established  by  the  CPC  of  the  Republic  of Belarus, since the appeal does not contain information about specific crimes and other circumstances.57

On August 24, a collective application was submitted to the Gomel city department of  the  Investigative  Committee  with  a  request  to  initiate  a  criminal  case  under Art. 128  of  the  Criminal  Code  of  Belarus —  “Crimes  against  the  security  of mankind”. 843 people signed the statement. The statement noted that “the facts of beatings and the use of torture” were recorded in the Central, Zheleznodorozhny militia  departments  of  Gomel  and  other  regional  departments —  in  relation  to the  detained  participants  of  peaceful  protests  against  the  official  results  of  the presidential elections.58

On August 25, “Belarusian Helsinki Committee” appealed to the Chairpersons of the Chambers of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, deputies of 56 https://belhelcom.org/sites/default/files/predsedatelyu_sk_st._128_uk.pdf

57 https://belhelcom.org/sites/default/files/otvet_sk_02.09.2020_no_np-114-2020.pdf

58 https://www.kp.by/daily/217172.5/4275470/

30

the House of Representatives, members of the Council of the Republic to create a parliamentary commission to investigate mass torture.59

On  August  26,  the  Belarusian  Helsinki  Committee  appealed  to  the  General Prosecutor’s  Office  of  the  Republic  of  Belarus  on  the  facts  of  gross  violations in  the  administration  of  justice  by  the  judges  who  carried  out  administrative procedures for the detainees. According to the victims, information from social networks, and other sources, the trials took place with the presence of judges in the places of detention (temporary detention centers, centers for isolation of offenders and others), several teams of judges worked in the premises, in fact it  was  a  “judicial  conveyor”.  The  administratively  arrested  were  brought  before the judges by the officers of the places of detention wearing special equipment, many of the detainees had beatings on the visible parts of bodies, wounds (on the head, face, arms, torso, legs) and torn clothes on visible parts of their bodies.60

On September 8, Belarusian human rights organizations filed an application to the Minsk Investigative Committee to initiate a criminal case against the officers of the internal affairs bodies who beat a person after the September 6 rally. The statement was signed by Legal Initiative, Zveno, Human Constanta, Belarusian Documentation  Center,  FORB  Initiative,  Legal  Transformation  Center  and Belarusian PEN Center.61

On September 10, the International Committee for the Investigation of Torture in Belarus, represented by a number of human rights organizations, appealed to the Prosecutor General with a demand to respond to the abduction of people by unknown subjects wearing balaclavas without uniforms and other insignia.

Human  rights  activists  noted  that  it  is  the  impossibility  for  the  detainee  and eyewitnesses to identify the officers of the internal affairs bodies among al  the persons carrying out the abductions that provokes a feeling of permissiveness and, as a result, torture.62

The Prosecutor General’s Office ignored this statement. The answer was received from the Main Department of Law Enforcement and Prevention of the Ministry of  Internal  Affairs.  In  the  response  of  the  Ministry  of  Internal  Affairs,  the  issue of  abduction  of  people  by  incomprehensible  subjects  in  balaclavas  remained without attention. For the rest, the Ministry of Internal Affairs referred to cases of 59 https://belhelcom.org/sites/default/files/nacionalnoe_sobranie_parlamentskaya_komissiya_

po_rassledovaniyu_pytok.pdf

60 https://belhelcom.org/sites/default/files/generalnomu_prokururu_otmena_postanovleniy_2.

pdf

61 http://www.legin.by/posts/270

62 http://www.legin.by/posts/271

31

the need to immediately suppress offenses, to detain those who committed them and trying to escape.63

According to the official data of the Investigative Committee already by August 17, more than 600 citizens filed applications about bodily harm during the detention by law enforcement officers, and about 100 people — about bodily harm in places of temporary detention.64

As of October 5, 2020, both the Investigative Committee and the interviewed applicants have no information on the initiation of criminal cases on the facts of torture.

Applicants  receive  only  notice  of  extension  of  the  examination  period.  Little  is known about the progress of the examinations themselves — the Investigative Committee  does  not  inform  either  the  applicants  or  the  public  about  this.  The applicants  report  that  they  were  questioned  by  the  investigators  and  sent  for a  forensic  medical  examination.  In  some  cases,  the  applicants’  clothes  were removed and saliva samples were taken.

At the same time, some applicants say about threats and repressions related to filing applications to initiate criminal proceedings against law enforcement officials: threats to children, subsequent initiation of criminal cases under Art. 293 of the Criminal Code (Mass Riots), phone calls from anonymous phone numbers with

“advice” to drop the charges, warnings “not to go anywhere.”

On August 26, the General Prosecutor’s Office announced that the units of the Investigative  Committee  continue  to  conduct  pre-investigation  checks  on  the applications of citizens about the use of physical force and special means during mass events. Each such check is taken under the control of the prosecutor’s office.

In order to coordinate and support the study of the circumstances described in the corresponding appeals, an interdepartmental commission was created under the auspices of the General Prosecutor’s Office. It includes representatives of the Prosecutor General’s Office, the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, and the State Committee for Forensic Expertise. Deputies of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly wil  also take part in the work of the commission.65

63 http://www.legin.by/posts/277

64 https://t.me/skgovby/2945

65 https://t.me/prokuraturabelarus/343

32

As  of  October  5,  2020,  there  is  no  information  on  the  activities  of  this interdepartmental commission in the public domain, as well as information on the structure of the commission.

The above facts indicate that the current examinations do not meet the standards for  effective  investigation  of  allegations  of  torture:  speed,  thoroughness, independence, victims’ access to investigation and publicity.

Despite the fact that information about beatings and torture with the testimonies of the victims began to appear in the media as early as August 12, not a single criminal case has been initiated against the law enforcement officers.

It is worth noting that before the initiation of a criminal case, explanations can be obtained, additional documents requested, an inspection of the scene of the incident, corpse, terrain, objects, documents, expertise, detention and a personal search during detention can be carried out, and the corpse can be removed from the place of burial (exhumation).

That is, during the examination there is no authority to carry out such investigative actions as an investigative experiment; search; seizure of documents; interrogation; confrontation; presentation for identification; on-site verification of testimonies.

Such restrictions related to the extension of the timelines for examinations do not make it possible to take al  available steps to consolidate evidence related to torture.

Despite  the  fact  that  one  of  the  principles  of  the  Investigative  Committee  in accordance with Art. 3 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus” of 2012 is independence in the exercise of  its  powers  from  the  activities  of  other  state  bodies,  political  parties,  other public  associations  and  other  organizations,  in  accordance  with  Art. 1  of  the above  law,  the  Investigative  Committee  is  subordinate  to  the  President  of  the Republic of Belarus.

Since  the  torture  was  used  against  citizens  participating  in  protests  against falsification of the presidential elections held on August 9, 2020, it is difficult to talk about any independence.

With  regard  to  the  victim’s  access  to  the  investigation,  it  is  important  to  note that the CPC in Art. 50 provides for a fairly wide range of rights for the victim.

In accordance with Art. 49 of the CPC, an individual is recognized as a victim if a socially dangerous act stipulated by the criminal law has inflicted physical, property or moral harm and in relation to whom the body conducting the criminal proceedings issued a resolution (ruling) recognizing him as a victim.

33

Until such a decision is made, the victim remains in the status of an “applicant”

whose rights are not regulated.

Despite  the  public  outcry  regarding  the  acts  of  violence  that  have  occurred (including numerous chains of solidarity and actions against violence), the state does not consider it necessary to investigate torture publicly.

It is important to note that, as of October 5, 2020, there is no public information about  the  suspension  from  their  official  duties  of  employees  who  are  being examined  for  the  use  of  torture,  if  indeed  it  is  carried  out,  accordingly,  these employees are still working in law enforcement agencies and continue to detain demonstrators.

This situation is inconsistent with the Guidelines for the Effective Investigation and Documentation of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which explicitly states that persons who may be involved in torture or  ill-treatment  should  be  removed  from  any  position  that  provides  directly  or indirectly, control or authority over plaintiffs, witnesses and their families, as well as those conducting the investigation.

The deliberate delay in the terms of inspections, the absence of initiated cases of torture demonstrates a clear reluctance to bring the guilty to justice. In this regard, the following facts look especially cynical:

•  According to the information of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of September 16, from August 9 to September 14, the Main Directorate of Security of the Ministry of Internal Affairs instituted 143 pre-investigation examinations on the facts of encroachments committed against the police officers and their relatives — 43 criminal cases were initiated.66

•  On June 19, in Molodechno, there was a clash between protesters and riot  police  officers.  Already  on  June 23,  the  Ministry  of  Internal  Affairs published information on the initiation of a criminal case.67

•  On September 29, the Molodechno District Court sentenced Pavel Peskov and Vladislav Evstigneev under Part 2 of Art. 363 of the Criminal Code for resisting riot police officers using violence. Pavel Peskov was sentenced to three years and three months in prison, Vladislav Evstigneev — to three years in a colony of a general regime.68

66 https://t.me/pressmvd/2101

67 https://t.me/pressmvd/1674

68 https://news.tut.by/society/702160.html

34

•  Already  now  some  applications  to  the  prosecutor’s  office  about  the initiation of a criminal case against the actions of the investigators of the Investigative  Committee  who  threaten  to  torture  are  sent  back  to  the Investigative Committee, which does not find grounds for conducting an examination in accordance with the CPC.69

•  On  October  3,  Denis  Kuznetsov  died  in  the  intensive  care  unit  of  an ambulance hospital, who was admitted to the hospital on September 29

from the temporary detention facility in Minsk on the Akrestin Street 36

with many injuries: fractures of the skul  bones, numerous hematomas, open craniocerebral trauma of moderate severity, rib fractures, fractures of the right ilium and other injuries. At the same time, the police officers reported  that  he  fel   from  the  second  tier  of  the  bed.  The  multiplicity of  injuries  gives  rise  to  doubt  about  the  nonviolent  infliction  of  such traumas.  Also,  according  to  doctors,  Denis  himself  said  that  he  was beaten by the police.70

69 http://www.legin.by/posts/280

70 https://belsat.eu/ru/news/izbityj-na-okrestina-denis-k-segodnya-umer/

35

Recommendations to the state

1. The  highest  officials  of  the  state  to  unequivocal y  condemn  the  use  of torture  and  warn  about  criminal  liability  for  al   acts  of  torture,  including failure to report torture.

2. The Investigative Committee toimmediately institute a criminal case under Art. 128 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus on the facts of mass and systematic torture and acts of cruelty that took place in the Republic of Belarus after the presidential elections on August 9, 2020 and recognize the applicants as victims.

3. Prior to making a decision on a criminal case, suspend the persons involved from their duties, including the Minister of Internal Affairs Yuri Karaev, the head of the OMON GUVD of the Minsk City Executive Committee Dmitry Balaba and  the  heads  of  the  OMON  in  regional  centers,  the  head  of  the  center for  isolation  of  offenders  of  the  Minsk  City  Executive  Committee  Yevgeny Shapetko and the heads of other places of detention, in which, according to victims’ statements torture was used.

4. The Investigative Committee should immediately initiate criminal proceedings on the facts of the death of Alexander Taraikovsky, Alexander Vikhor, Gennady Shutov, Denis Kuznetsov.

5. Stop threats and repressions, including criminal prosecution against victims of torture who file complaints to initiate criminal proceedings against the law enforcement officers.

6. Regularly  provide  information  on  the  progress  of  the  investigation  to  the media  and  periodically  hold  briefings  inviting  non-state  media  and  human rights organizations.

36

Table of Contents

Table of contents

Summary

Overview

The reaction of officials in the media

Reaction of international organizations

International standards: the prohibition of torture

Applicable national legislation:

Analysis of the effectiveness of the investigation

Recommendations to the state