CCPR/C/116/D/2084/2011

1.
The author of the communication is V.L., a national of Belarus born in 1985. He
claims to be a victim of violations by Belarus of his rights under articles 2 (3) (a), 7, 9 (1)
and 14 (1) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on
30 December 1992. The author is not represented by counsel.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
The author is a member of the European Belarus organization, which supports the
opposition. On 27 November 2009, the author was approached in the street by two police
officers who requested his identification documents. They took his passport and two mobile
phones. The author was subsequently put into a minivan with no license plates, where he
was subjected to a search. Additional personal items were taken from him, including a flash
drive and a flag of the Belarusian People’s Republic. The officers ignored the author’s
requests to identify themselves and inform him of the reason for his apprehension.
2.2
The author was handcuffed and his hat was used to cover his eyes. He was driven in
an unknown direction for about 30 minutes and then released in an unknown location. One
of the abductors, not in uniform, told him that he was being warned, and also told him to
think about the future, as his wife and children would not be happy with him as a
revolutionary, but rather with him earning a good salary. The author found himself to be
about 25 kilometres from Minsk. He claims he feared for his life during the drive.
2.3
On 3 December 2009, the author submitted to the prosecutor’s office of the Central
District of Minsk a request to open a criminal investigation regarding his abduction. His
claim was forwarded to the prosecutor’s office of the Soviet District of Minsk.
2.4
On 29 December 2009, the author filed a complaint with the Prosecutor General’s
office and the Minsk city prosecutor’s office, claiming inaction by the district prosecutor’s
office. He submitted that he had been called for questioning only once and had, for the most
part, been questioned about his political activity and affiliation rather than about his
abduction. Despite his provision of descriptions of the abductors, no investigative steps
were taken to compile composite images of the suspects. He was not shown photographs of
the Soviet District police officers for possible identification of the abductors.
2.5
On 11 January 2010, the Prosecutor General’s office informed the author that his
complaint had been sent to the Minsk city prosecutor’s office, which, in turn, sent it to the
Soviet District prosecutor’s office.
2.6
On 18 February 2010, the author received the decision of the Soviet District
prosecutor, by which the prosecutor refused to open a criminal investigation, after having
reviewed the author’s claims. Within the scope of the review, the author himself had been
questioned along with several other potential witnesses; a video recording from a nearby
shop and a printout of the author’s phone calls had also been reviewed.
2.7
On 3 March 2010, the author appealed the decision of the Soviet District prosecutor
to the Soviet District court. On 1 April 2010, the court rejected his appeal on the ground
that there was no credible evidence that a crime had been committed, referring to the
findings of the prosecutor’s office.
2.8
On 9 June 2010, the author filed a supervisory appeal, under the supervisory review
procedure, with the Minsk city court, which was rejected on 22 September 2010 on the
ground of lack of credible evidence.
The complaint
3.1
The author claims to be a victim of violations by Belarus of his rights under articles
2 (3) (a), 7, 9 (1) and 14 (1) of the Covenant.

2

Select target paragraph3