Decree No.2: a new instrument of pressure on the civil society in Belarus

These grounds, in the opinion of human rights defenders, are the most offensive. They are related to those individuals against whom it is not possible to bring any charges, who have never been administratively liable.

Thus, paragraph 3 of article 29 of the Law stipulates that the preventive registration is carried out in relation to the citizens whose acts can represent danger to national security of the Republic of Belarus, bring harm to state and public interests, rights, freedoms, legitimate interests of other citizens and cause commitment of an offence; and the information about these acts has been received in the process of operational and pre-trial investigation of criminal cases.

The decision on preventive registration is made by the head of above-mentioned bodies and it does not require the respect of procedural legislation, presumption of innocence. An official subjectively decides whether someone’s acts can represent danger to national security…

The preventive case on a citizen is opened, his/her way of life is studied and activities are controlled. In case this person changes his place of residence, the “case” also moves. If the person does not arrive to his new place of residence, the measures to identify the whereabouts of the person are taken.

Only the decision of the head can take an individual out from the preventive register. Unless a person dies or sentenced to imprisonment, he/she can be unregistered only “once the reasons that can create a danger to national security of the Republic of Belarus, lead to bringing harm to state or public interests, rights, freedoms of other citizens, or cause consequently commitment of an offence (part 3 of article 31 of the Law) are eliminated”. Time frames of such a registration are not noted.

It is possible to conclude the following: grounds for the preventive registration, as well as for the non-registration are subjective and unclear.

The Law contains an indication that citizens on the preventive register have the right to “know the legal consequences of the general and individual offences prevention measures applied in relation to them, to study the materials of opened preventive cases in relation to them, to appeal against the actions (inaction) of responsible bodies to superior state bodies, prosecutor, or court”. It is interesting that the deadline of notification about the registration is not written down in the mentioned articles.

Several questions arise when analyzing these two Laws.

None of the legislative acts require from a citizen (including members of association, head of non-profit organization) who is on the preventive register to notify anyone about it, including the owner of property. As it is noted above, the citizen him-/herself can learn about such a registration with a delay. Why can be liquidated an organization that failed to take the necessary measures during the period of 2 months from the preventive registration date if it was not notified about it?

It is well-known that labor relations with the heads of organizations are regulated with a contract. The Labor Code and other legislation do not stipulate that the preventive registration can serve as a ground for termination of labor relations. Which legislative measures to replace a head can be taken?

In which way, in the opinion of the legislator, can the head of named types of non-profit organizations take measures to replace the owner? How can the owner be forced to refuse the property? In which legitimate way can a member of association (union) leave it?