C Explanatory memorandum by Mr Pourgourides,
rapporteur for opinion
1. All the points raised in the draft resolution, which
focuses on the repression in the context of the recent presidential
election, deserve the full support of the Committee on Legal Affairs
and Human Rights. The Assembly’s text can be further reinforced
by adding two issues to the list of exhortations addressed to the Belarusian
authorities in paragraph 6 (to hold to account the perpetrators
of the high-profile disappearances already denounced in a separate
report of the Assembly, and to declare a moratorium on executions).
The extension of “smart sanctions” against those personally responsible
for the most flagrant acts of repression also to those member states
of the Council of Europe which are not members of the European Union
would enhance their efficiency, as would efforts to collect and
preserve information and evidence on such acts of repression. As
to the list of preconditions for reopening the special guest status
of the Belarusian Parliament in paragraph 10 of the draft resolution,
it is understood that the release of the persons arrested in the
wake of the repressive measures that were rightly denounced in paragraphs
2 and 6.1 of the draft resolution is covered by the requirement
of democratic progress already foreseen in paragraph 10.
Amendment A
2. In
Resolution
1371 (2004) on disappeared persons in Belarus,
Note the
Assembly requested the Belarusian authorities,
inter alia, to “initiate criminal
investigations with a view to clarifying, and punishing, as the
case may be:
a. the alleged
involvement of the current General Prosecutor, Mr Sheyman, the currrent
Minister for Sports and Tourism (previously Minister of the Interior),
Mr Sivakov, and a high-ranking officer of the special forces, Mr
Pavlichenko, in these disappearances” (paragraph 10.2), and held
that “[u]ntil substantial progress is made regarding its demands
under paragraphs 10 and 11 above, the Assembly does not consider
it appropriate to reconsider the suspension of Special Guest status
in favour of the Belarusian Parliament, as decided by the Bureau
on 13 January 1997” (paragraph 12).
3. Whilst the high-level officials named in the Assembly’s report
were gradually removed from public view, no progress has been made
to date in holding them to account through the initiation of criminal
investigations as requested by the Assembly.
Amendment B
4. The request for a moratorium on executions is rightly
mentioned as one of the preconditions for lifting the suspension
of the special guest status for the Parliament of Belarus in paragraph
10.1. For completeness’ sake it should also appear in the list of
requests addressed to the Belarusian authorities in paragraph 6.
Amendment C
5. “Smart sanctions” (including visa bans and account
freezes) targeting those personally responsible for the most flagrant
acts of repression have been imposed by the European Union Council
on a number of high-level officials in Belarus, including those
named in
Resolution 1371
(2004) as suspects in the above-mentioned (Amendment
A) high-profile disappearance cases. In
Resolution 1606 (2008) on abuse
of the criminal justice system in Belarus, the Assembly has already
endorsed the use of targeted sanctions against Belarusian officials.
Note
6. As the Assembly pointed out in its report on United Nations
Security Council and European Union blacklists,
Note a fair and transparent
procedure must ensure the credibility and effectiveness of targeted
sanctions. With this proviso, such measures are an excellent tool
to send a clear message to the regime of Mr Lukashenko without causing
further isolation of the Belarusian people, a concern rightly raised
in paragraph 7 of the draft resolution.
7. In view of the Council of Europe’s role as Europe’s human
rights watchdog, it is only logical that all its member states,
including those which are not members of the European Union, join
the European Union’s targeted sanctions.
Amendment D
8. The call for measures to collect and preserve evidence
against perpetrators of serious human rights violations in view
of targeted sanctions and future criminal prosecutions echoes that
made in
Resolution 1606 (2008) for
the identification, in a fair and transparent manner, of officials
responsible for abuses.
Note
