Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world. It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments in the field.
This past June, Minsk City Court convicted Aksana Valvachova on national security and “insulting the president” charges based on her critical Telegram posts. In one, she described herself as “a Ukrainian from occupied Minsk.” In other cases, a screenshot of an article posted on Telegram by the outlawed media Nasha Niva led to prosecution, as did a subscription to a social media page of the outlawed media Charter’97.
That is only a fraction of repression in Belarus, where at least 9,914 people, including journalists, have faced politically motivated criminal prosecution since 2020. The scale of expression that the state targets is vast. “For example, the red-white-red flag and the Pahonia coat of arms have become very prominent symbols of the democratic movement since 2020,” UN Special Rapporteur on Belarus Nils Muižnieks told CGFoE. “Though these symbols are not banned, the authorities began to penalize their display during the broader crackdown over the last few years.”
This week, as CGFoE continues to analyze the UN Human Rights Committee cases on freedom of expression violations in Belarus, Senior Legal Researcher Lautaro Furfaro interviews Special Rapporteur Nils Muižnieks about the country’s unabating crackdown on dissent—and what accountability mechanisms remain. Find an abridged excerpt below. Read the full interview on our website.
Photo: Courtesy of Nils Muižnieks
Lautaro Furfaro: At CGFoE, I have been closely reviewing the Human Rights Committee’s Views on Article 19 of the ICCPR, of which, according to my estimates, around one-third concern Belarus. What explains this concentration?
Nils Muižnieks: The large number of cases to the Human Rights Committee can be attributed to both the scale of repression in Belarus and the professionalism of its human rights defenders. Belarusian human rights defenders, led by organizations such as Viasna and the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, are extremely well-versed in all the major regional and international human rights mechanisms and use them all regularly. I think they see the Human Rights Committee as one of their main avenues for advocacy.
Given Belarus’s limited cooperation with UN human rights mechanisms and its denunciation of the First Optional Protocol to the ICCPR, what mechanisms remain available to document violations and seek accountability?
The Group of Independent Experts on Belarus, created alongside my mandate, and the International Accountability Platform for Belarus, a non-governmental support body created by a number of European countries, have a huge amount of evidence that can be used for proceedings in international justice mechanisms, such as the International Criminal Court or the International Court of Justice, both of which are examining referrals regarding Belarus submitted by Lithuania. There are additional avenues for possible accountability, such as universal jurisdiction cases, the newly created special tribunal for the crime of aggression against Ukraine (which may examine cases where Belarus was complicit in or facilitated the aggression), or possible hybrid tribunals.
Read the full interview here.
United Nations Human Rights Committee
Kachurets v. Belarus
Decision Date: May 11, 2026
The United Nations Human Rights Committee found that Belarus violated the right to freedom of expression of fifteen Belarusian citizens who, between 2020 and 2021, were sanctioned for displaying the white-red-white flag and related symbols—the former national flag of Belarus before 1995, widely used as a symbol of political opposition following that year’s presidential elections—on private property, vehicles, and in public spaces. The petitioners were charged under article 23.34 of the Code of Administrative Offences for violating regulations governing public events, and fined in varying amounts, with all decisions upheld on appeal. They argued that the sanctions were imposed solely on account of the political meaning of the symbols, without any assessment of necessity or proportionality, in violation of article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Relying on its established jurisprudence in Nikolaichik v. Belarus, Gryk v. Belarus, among others, the Committee concluded that by sanctioning the petitioners for displaying colours symbolizing opposition to the current regime, without assessing the necessity and proportionality of the restrictive measures under the relevant provisions of the Covenant, the State Party violated their rights under article 19 of the ICCPR. As a remedy, the Committee ordered Belarus to reimburse the current value of fines and any legal costs incurred, and recommended that the State revise the Public Events Act to ensure that the rights under article 19 of the ICCPR may be fully enjoyed in the State Party.
Remnyov v. Belarus
Decision Date: March 11, 2026
The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Belarus violated the right to freedom of expression of thirteen Belarusian citizens who, between 2010 and 2021, were sanctioned for publishing articles, posting audio and video interviews, and distributing media content on national and foreign online media platforms without official journalist accreditation. The petitioners were charged under article 22.9 of the Code of Administrative Offences and fined in varying amounts, with all decisions upheld on appeal; one petitioner was additionally sanctioned under article 23.34 for participating in a peaceful protest. They argued that the accreditation requirement constituted a blanket restriction on journalistic expression that failed to satisfy the necessity and proportionality requirements of article 19 of the ICCPR, while Belarus maintained that the Law on Mass Media’s regulatory framework did not restrict freedom of expression within the meaning of the Covenant. Relying on its established jurisprudence in similar cases, the Committee held that Belarus violated article 19 in all cases by sanctioning the petitioners without assessing the proportionality of the restrictive measures under article 19 of the ICCPR and that the petitioner in communication No. 3609/2019 suffered a separate violation of article 21 for participating in a peaceful—albeit unauthorized—protest. As a remedy, the Committee ordered Belarus to reimburse the current value of all fines and legal costs and recommended that the State revise the Law on Mass Media and the Public Events Act to ensure that the rights under articles 19 and 21 may be fully enjoyed in Belarus.
Fedorova v. Belarus
Date of Decision: October 24, 2022
The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Belarus violated the right to freedom of expression of Viktoria Fedorova by refusing to share information on the conditions of detention. The petitioner had requested information from the police department on the conditions of detention at five temporary detention facilities, as part of her professional work with the Human Rights Defenders against Torture initiative. The State refused to give her that information, arguing it was classified. The Committee held that, as a human rights defender, the petitioner had the right to access this information on public affairs, similarly to journalists, based on the exercise of the same watchdog functions. Thus, restrictions on that right should have been justified under article 19 of the ICCPR. However, according to the Committee, the State did not give pertinent explanations to demonstrate that the restriction was necessary and proportionate, nor did it explain on which grounds under article 19 this restriction was permissible. Therefore, the Committee concluded that Belarus had violated article 19 of the Covenant. As a remedy, the Committee held that the State party was under an obligation to provide the petitioner with the requested information and reimburse any legal costs incurred.
Chile: Landmark Victory for Investigative Journalism—with CGFoE Intervention. CGFoE welcomes the recent unprecedented ruling by the Seventh Criminal Court of Guarantees of Santiago, which convicted a judge from the Chilean Judiciary and a general from the Chilean Army for designing and carrying out illegal surveillance of investigative journalist Mauricio Weibel Barahona. In an amicus curiae brief submitted before the Court, CGFoE argued the case “serves as a paradigmatic example that highlights the structural risks facing investigative journalism in Latin America.” CGFoE urged the Court to reaffirm, in accordance with the international human rights standards that Chile is bound to uphold, that “surveillance of journalists without a legal basis constitutes a serious form of censorship and an unacceptable interference with the exercise of fundamental rights.” More on this historic decision to come.
● Belarus: Hidden Repression 2020-2026. In its latest report, the Human Rights Center Viasna highlights a change in repression tactics in Belarus. Following the 2020 protests, the authorities conducted mass arrests on the streets and high-profile trials. Yet in the past two years, the persecution of dissent has been harder to detect, though not less active. “Unlike the period of 2020–2021, when state coercion and violence were demonstrative,” the report states, “the current model strives for minimal publicity with maximum control.” In recent cases of transnational repression, the passports of eight former Belarusian political prisoners, expelled from the country, have been invalidated, and cyber attacks have targeted seven exiled Belarusian media websites.
● EU: Pegasus in the European Parliament, Civil Society Urges Action. Over 30 organizations and individual signatories call on EU institutions to ensure accountability for the abuse of spyware. Last week, Citizen Lab’s forensic analysis revealed that former EU Parliament Member and investigative journalist Stelios Kouloglou was targeted with Pegasus spyware—while serving as a member of the Parliament’s PEGA Committee, “the very committee mandated to investigate spyware abuse in Europe.” Noting other incidents of illegal surveillance, the joint statement emphasizes “a structural failure to adequately and seriously respond to the spyware crisis.”
● IACHR: States Must Guarantee the Rights of LGBTIQ+ individuals to Freedom of Expression and Participation in Public Life. The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) and the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression reaffirm states’ obligations to ensure that LGBTIQ+ people can fully enjoy their right to freedom of expression, including the ability to assemble peacefully, participate in public affairs, and freely share opinions and ideas on issues of public interest. Across the Americas, the IACHR observes obstacles to the exercise of this right and expresses concern over the restrictions imposed on the first Pride march in Antigua Guatemala last month.
This Week in Protests
Last Wednesday, July 1, in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, dozens of medical students demanded the reopening of the shuttered General Hospital; anti-riot police blocked the road; one protester was shot in the arm. On Thursday in Tirana, Albania, month-long anti-government protests escalated into violent clashes with the police, at least 18 detentions, and attacks on journalists; on Saturday, tens of thousands called for the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama. On Friday, in the occupied West Bank, Israeli forces fired live ammunition and stun grenades at protesters opposing a new settlement outpost near Bethlehem. On Saturday in Erfurt, Germany, tens of thousands of anti-fascist protesters rallied against the AfD party conference; some protesters clashed with police and attacked journalists. On Sunday, in London, the UK, 14 activists, including an 84-year-old retired priest, were arrested while rallying to mark one year since the Palestine Action ban. On Tuesday, in Nairobi, Kenya, the police blocked an anti-government rally that marked Saba Saba Day, detaining protesters.
Find our new web tool documenting protests since January 2026 here.
Tanzania: October 2025—July 2026
Nationwide anti-government protests were planned for July 7, Saba Saba Day, a national holiday commemorating a milestone in the country’s fight for independence. The authorities orchestrated a pre-emptive crackdown, as part of a repression cycle ongoing since the October 2025 protests that left hundreds dead.
Background & Demands: In the October 2025 presidential election, with main opposition candidates in prison or barred from running, incumbent Samia Suluhu Hassan won in a landslide. The African Union condemned the vote. Nationwide protests erupted. Under a complete internet shutdown, between October 29 and November 3, security forces fired live ammunition at protesters and bystanders. At least 700 were killed, including three journalists. The authorities banned all Independence Day rallies on December 9, 2025, and detained activists. Ahead of March 8, 2026, an opposition party’s women members were barred from protesting, detained, and tear-gassed. The July 7 protest organizers, mobilizing online, demanded democratic reforms and the release of an opposition leader.
Significance: Over the past nine months, protests were met with the same toolkit—bans, pre-emptive arrests, and mass security—which suppressed turnouts.
State Response: The authorities banned all political rallies “until further notice” on June 26, 2026, and followed with a mass deployment of troops and police in Dar es Salaam and other cities, installing checkpoints in working-class districts. Dozens were pre-emptively arrested. On July 7, Central Dar es Salaam was largely deserted.
FoE Violations: Tanzania remains in a severe freedom of expression crisis, intensified by digital repression (over 80,000 web takedowns in 2025). In April 2026, Jambo TV was suspended for questioning the state’s inquiry into the protest killings. The nationwide rally ban directly conflicts with domestic jurisprudence: in Mtikila v. the Attorney General, Tanzania’s High Court previously ruled that requiring a permit for public assembly is unconstitutional, with the presiding judge finding that the measure “infringes the freedom of peaceful assembly and procession.”
Two Decades Ago, Belarus Forced a Top University into Exile. Now, the Lukashenko Regime Is Targeting Its Students, by Iryna Khalip. Novaya Gazeta Europe reports on a new crackdown against the students, alumni, and former professors of the exiled European Humanities University.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.