CCPR/C/126/D/2989/2017
the communication in view of non-exhaustion of domestic remedies and to lift the request
for interim measures.
1.4
On 29 December 2017, the Committee, acting through its Special Rapporteur on
new communications and interim measures, decided to renew consideration of the
communication and to reinstate the request for interim measures in view of new
developments in the case.
Factual background
2.1
The author was a director of a private company in Belarus. On 8 June 2009, he was
charged under articles 210 (3) and (4) of the Criminal Code of Belarus (appropriation of
property in large and particularly large amounts by an abuse of office). On 10 June 2009, an
investigator of the department of interior of the Moscow district in Minsk ordered the
author’s pretrial detention in SIZO No. 1 in Minsk, which was approved by the Moscow
district prosecutor’s office in Minsk. The author left Belarus on an unspecified date in 2009.
On 23 June 2009, a national arrest warrant was issued for him. Also in 2009 an inter-state
warrant was issued for him and in April 2014, an international arrest warrant was issued.
On 16 October 2013, the charges against the author were modified under articles 209 (3)
and (4) of the Criminal Code of Belarus (fraud with appropriation of assets of large or
particularly large amounts committed through an abuse of office).
2.2
In 2012, the author arrived in Lithuania. In December 2013, he obtained a temporary
residence permit there. On 11 November 2014, the author was detained by the Vilnius
police department. On 12 November 2014, he was released on bail on condition of regular
registration with the police. On 17 November 2014, the Office of the Prosecutor General of
Lithuania received an extradition request from the Office of the Prosecutor General of
Belarus. The request was based on the 1992 agreement between Lithuania and Belarus on
legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal cases.
2.3
On 23 December 2014, the author applied for asylum and subsidiary protection with
the Migration Department of the Lithuanian Ministry of the Interior. The main claim in his
application was persecution by the Belarusian authorities, owing to his business activities
between 2007 and 2009, and renewed persecution in 2014. He claimed that the criminal
charges against him were fabricated and that he belonged to a social group of entrepreneurs
who were widely persecuted in Belarus. The Migration Department rejected his request on
27 October 2016 having found no grounds to consider that the criminal prosecution of the
author was based on political motives or that there was a general threat of persecution of
businessmen in Belarus.
2.4
The author appealed to the Vilnius regional administrative court on 15 November
2016. He alleged that the Migration Department had failed to assess his claims, in particular
whether he would have a fair trial if returned to his country of origin and whether the
conditions of detention in Belarus were humane. On 3 February 2017, the Vilnius regional
administrative court rejected his appeal. The Court noted, inter alia, that in his initial
interview on 31 December 2009, the author had mentioned that he left Belarus to do
business in Lithuania and that according to border records, he returned to Belarus after
2009 on numerous occasions. The Court found that the author had failed to establish a
personal risk of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment, which he claimed he would be
subjected to on the grounds of being a businessman. It also observed that the criminal
investigation in the author’s case did not reveal signs of being disproportionate or
discriminatory and that the Lithuanian law provided similar sanctions for the criminal
offence in question.
2.5
On 16 February 2017, the author filed an appeal to the Supreme Administrative
Court. He clarified that he wanted to do business in Lithuania because he considered it a
safe country, but that he left Belarus because of the threats and avoiding a crackdown. He
returned to Belarus on several occasions only to obtain new visas for Lithuania. He had not
been back to his country of origin since 2013, when he received his residence permit for
Lithuania. On 17 May 2017, the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the author’s appeal
in a final judgment. The author claimed that after his request for asylum and subsidiary
protection was rejected, he would be extradited to Belarus.
2