A group of human rights organisations, including the World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) and FIDH (see Co-signatories), called on 27 October 2023 for the release of the human rights defender Nasta Loika after more than 396 days of her detention.
Nasta Loika is a prominent human rights defender, one of the founders of Human Constanta. For years, she has been promoting human rights education, raising awareness about the repressive “anti-extremist” legislation in Belarus, and protecting foreign citizens and stateless persons in Belarus. She was named Human Rights Defender of the Year 2022 by the Belarusian human rights community. Yet, in the eyes of the repressive Belarusian authorities, she is a criminal and earlier in October, the government put her on a “terrorist” list.
Since 6 September 2022, Nasta has served a total of six 15-day consecutive administrative sentences on trumped-up “petty hooliganism” charges. On 24 December 2022, she was charged with “incitement of racial, national, religious or other social enmity or discord” under notorious Article 130 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus and on 20 June sentenced to 7 years in prison. [see also: https://humanrightsdefenders.blog/2023/08/11/nasta-anastasia-loika-in-belarus-sentenced-to-7-years-in-a-penal-colony/]
She was tasered, threatened, and featured in a forced “confession” video as a form of digital degrading treatment which was spread across pro-government channels before she was even charged. Her home was searched two times. Her mother’s home was searched too. She spent 93 days in detention, repeatedly sentenced to “administrative arrests” while the authorities looked for a reason to bring criminal charges against her. The charge was ultimately found, and Nasta was accused of inciting hatred for preparing a human rights report in 2018 on the persecution of anarchists and leftists in Belarus. According to the prosecution, the group she was allegedly inciting hatred against was the police.
Belarusian state authorities continued to ignore both the letter of allegation sent by five Special Rapporteurs and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention following Human Constanta’s appeal to these mandates, as well as the decision on interim measures, adopted by the Human Rights Committee in Nasta’s case.
Her lawyers were repeatedly arrested, disbarred, forced out of the country, and intimidated – hardly a surprising occurrence given en masse persecution of independent lawyers and outlawing of human rights work in Belarus. Disbarment of human rights lawyers is one of the tools the authorities consistently employed to intimidate and persecute lawyers who represent human rights defenders, activists, democratic politicians, and survivors of torture and state-perpetrated human rights violations.
Any assistance to Nasta is punished as well: two people were arrested for 15 and 30 days for bringing her parcels with food and essentials. Now that she has been sentenced, she is only able to receive parcels from her 76-year-old mother, her only family member. Moreover, as she was designated a “terrorist,” it would be impossible to make monetary transfers as those would be characterized as “financing terrorism.”
Nasta also continues her human rights work from behind bars: she helped dozens of other women cellmates to file complaints related to their cases. She also drafted a concept of prison reform in Belarus. This is a powerful reminder that persecution and imprisonment cannot force human rights defenders to stop their work.
In fact, their voices can be amplified not just through letters, but through technology and social media. While the authoritarian government is set on silencing human rights defenders, the Human Constanta team used AI to create Nasta’s animated digital avatar to raise awareness about human rights violations and political persecution of human rights defenders, demand accountability, and support those in detention. The “Human Show” podcast called “Waiting for Nasta” featuring her colleagues and friends also reminds the world about her work and unjustified detention.
“A young girl came up to me [at an event in honor of a human rights award] and said: “Hello, my name is Nasta. I graduated from law school, I’ve entered law school, and I would really like to do human rights work, but I don’t know how. Maybe you could give me some advice?” […] I told her, yes, of course, come to our Committee. She came to the Committee a couple of days later and we hired her. That became her first human rights work.”
Excerpt from “Waiting for Nasta” podcast, episode 1
“And then I asked, “Do you know exactly what you’re doing? This may be the last chance [to flee Belarus].” And Nasta replied very calmly that she was aware of all the risks, that she understood the situation, and that it was not blind stubbornness. In my mind, Nasta lives her life as a person with very high values, who is ready to stand by them to the end.”
Excerpt from “Waiting for Nasta” podcast, episode 2
We call on the Belarusian authorities for Nasta Lojka’s immediate and unconditional release and condemn the physical and psychological torture Nasta was subjected to by state agents. Nasta Lojka’s arrest, torture, and imprisonment are retaliation by the Belarus government for her peaceful and legitimate human rights work.
We continue to call upon the international community to take measures to urge the Belarusian authorities to respect their obligations towards human rights defenders, by raising awareness in various fora, publicly condemning human rights violations, requesting visits to human rights defenders in detention, and inquiring with the Belarusian authorities about their health and detention conditions, demanding the release of imprisoned human rights defenders in bilateral and multilateral fora, exploring additional targeted measures against the individuals allegedly responsible for the torture, ill-treatment, arbitrary detention and harassment of human rights defenders, and keeping the situation of defenders in Belarus high on the political agenda.
We also call to utilize and explore available mechanisms for holding the Belarusian authorities account for human rights abuses against human rights defenders, inter alia, by means of extraterritorial and universal jurisdiction and inter-state complaints under relevant treaties, and through strengthening existing accountability mechanisms.
https://www.fidh.org/en/region/europe-central-asia/belarus/belarus-nasta-loika-human-rights-defense-behind-bar
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 
Christof Heyns discusses new UN Comment on Right of Peaceful Assembly
July 30, 2020On 29 July, 2020 Just Security published a lengthy interview of World Justice Project Executive Director Elizabeth Andersen with Christof Heyns, Professor of Human Rights Law at the University of Pretoria and member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee. This is particularly important as a new new General Comment was issued just this week by the United Nations Human Rights Committee providing guidance on this topic at a critical moment, with protest movements on the rise across the globe, and many countries grappling with the appropriate response—something that has become even more complicated with the COVID-19 pandemic and public health restrictions on large gatherings.
The audio podcast is available at WJP. For those who pefere to read there is text version in the link below. Here a teaser:
Christof Heyns [00:13:17] I think the main idea is that peaceful assemblies are a legitimate use of the public and other spaces. If one thinks on a very sort of practical level, streets are used for vehicles, but they also are used for marathons and for markets and so forth. And they’re closed off on a Saturday or whatever the case may be for that purpose. And peaceful assemblies, like these other social gatherings, are a legitimate use of space. So a number of domestic courts–Spain and Israel and others–have said the public space “is not only for circulation but it’s also for participation”. And I like that quote; even in the translation it comes across. So that’s the underlying idea. It is, as you say, part of democracy.
It is also part of the message of the General Comment that peaceful assembly is an individual right. So one should not in the first place think about the entire assembly exercising the right — and is it violent or is it not, or does it cause damage, and as a result that everybody’s responsible — the focus is on the individual. And even if there are some individuals in a larger group who are, in an isolated way, engaged in violence, this cannot be attributed to the group as a whole. Every individual has that right. As far as possible, they should be treated as individuals.
I think also the underlying philosophy is to say that the right of peaceful assembly should be dealt with by the authorities in a “content neutral” way. As you will know, this idea is strongly present in the US jurisprudence, for example. So the idea is, even if those who are engaging in assemblies are your political opponents or you don’t like their particular message for whatever reason, they are still allowed to do so. There may be some exceptions and maybe we can talk about that. But in principle, the approach should be content neutral.
People should be allowed also to exercise the right “within sight and sound” of their target. So by doing that, they can demonstrate to others that they feel strongly enough about this to gather around this. But they can also, for themselves, see what is the support that they have. So if you organize an assembly, if you think you’re going to have a million people and it’s only yourself who shows up, that’s a message to yourself about the popularity and the support for your idea. In fact, Gandhi had this idea that what he did were “experiments with truth”. And I think to some extent that’s true for peaceful assemblies today. It’s a way of testing ideas and then seeing what is the response. Putting your toe in the water, putting up a trial balloon. And in many cases, this can diffuse a situation. So the society as a whole can take note and they can internalize the fact that there are people who feel very strongly about a certain cause and then they can do something about it. So it’s almost the idea of precaution. Even if I’m not persuaded, now, I know that these people feel like that, and I can do something about it instead of it blowing up into a massive problem.
….
Elizabeth Andersen [00:21:06] Well, it’s certainly an ambitious project you undertook and covers a lot of ground, with lots of standards and recommendations detailed. I think it’s interesting to think about how that all plays out in a concrete setting. And so you mentioned the Black Lives Matter movement and current protests, particularly here in the United States where I’m from. I’d be interested if you can share with our listeners how you see the Committee’s guidance helping us evaluate the response to that protest movement here in the United States. What’s appropriate? What’s not?
Christof Heyns [00:21:53] Well, I think a number of the themes of the General Comment are relevant in the United States and in other societies now as well. So the starting point is that this is an individual right. If there are members of a particular group of an assembly who are engaging in violence, this cannot be attributed to all members. In some cases, interventions are needed, not only permitted but actually required, if there is danger to the lives of people, for example, or to property. The state has a duty to protect, but that should be targeted as far as possible to the individuals concerned. These should be targeted interventions
I think the other overriding issue is the one of de-escalation. There are two approaches. One is to escalate the situation and to show superior force, so to speak. And, of course, if that’s done by the state, the other side also tries to show superior force, and it escalates. But the police themselves, and also the politicians, have a duty of de-escalation and to accommodate, to tolerate, some level of disruption, and to work towards preventing the situation from getting out of hand.
Perhaps more particularly, the General Comment also focuses on the use of military staff to do law enforcement – and I think much of that applies to paramilitaries as well. We don’t say this can never be done. But if it’s done, it is under exceptional circumstances, if there is no other way of doing it, and it should be on a temporary basis. And those who are involved must have the necessary training, including the human rights training, because, of course, the training of police and military staff differs very much. And then in the last place, they are bound by human rights standards. So the same standards that apply to the police also apply to military and paramilitary staff.
There’s also the issue of plainclothes police officers and the question of wearing identification. The General Comment emphasizes that law enforcement officials must wear clear identification. This is important for accountability purposes. If plainclothes police are used — and again, it’s not completely excluded, it may be the only way to have a positive intervention — before they use any force or arrest anybody, they have to identify themselves…..
https://www.justsecurity.org/71736/interview-with-christof-heyns-unhrc-general-comment-37-on-the-right-of-peaceful-assembly/
Posted in books, Human Rights Defenders, UN | 1 Comment »
Tags: Christof Heyns, Comment, Elizabeth Andersen, freedom of assembly, freedom of demonstration, Just Security, peaceful protest, podcasts, UN Human Rights Committee, USA, World Justice Project