Decision of the Constitutional Court of Belarus on sanctions: legal precedent and signal for the UN

The Constitutional Court recognised the sanctions documents against Belarus as contradicting the generally recognised principles and norms of international law. The meaning of this recognition is global.

The sanctions imposed on Belarus in packages are immoral in their essence, destructive for the global legal architecture and simply illegal. This is the main meaning of the decision adopted by the Constitutional Court of our country on December 15th. A unique international precedent of legal confrontation has been created for those who use political and economic pressure as a tool to achieve their own goals.

Government initiative

Proceedings in this case were initiated on the basis of a proposal received from the Council of Ministers to state the position of the Constitutional Court. The Government’s proposal indicates that the European Union, as well as some states, including Great Britain, the USA, and Canada, have introduced restrictive measures against legal entities and individuals of Belarus, which affect the rights of individuals and legal entities, as well as sectors of the national economy (financial sector, insurance, the market for oil products and potash fertilisers, the production of tobacco products, Internet and telephone communications, the market for goods and technologies for military and dual-purpose, the air transportation market) and contradict the generally recognised principles and norms of international law. 

PHOTO BY BELTA


The plenipotentiary representative of the Council of Ministers in the Constitutional Court, First Deputy Justice Minister, Natalya Filippova, stated, following the announcement of the Constitutional Court’s decision, “In our opinion, the position of the Constitutional Court should be a guideline for all decision-makers among government agencies and officials without exception responsible for defending national interests, ensuring the protection of the rights and interests of all Belarusian citizens and legal entities. I believe that the conclusions of the Constitutional Court will enable us to reach out to foreign colleagues and present the unambiguous position of the Republic of Belarus and our understanding that the unilateral sanctions that have been imposed against the Republic of Belarus have been introduced contrary to all generally recognised norms and international law.”

The essence of the conclusion

As follows from the decision voiced by the Chairman of the Constitutional Court Piotr Miklashevich, the Constitutional Court considers that the documents adopted by the European Union and some foreign states in relation to separate individuals and legal entities of Belarus create certain difficulties in the activities of business entities in various sectors of the economy. They also complicate the implementation of socio-economic and civil rights and freedoms of citizens which are enshrined in the Belarusian Constitution and fundamental international legal acts, which ultimately affects the national interests of our country.

The Constitutional Court notes that the documents of the EU and foreign states envisaging the introduction of restrictive measures against the Republic of Belarus contradict the provisions of Chapters 6 and 7 of the UN Charter, which establish a mechanism for the application of preventive and coercive measures against the state only by the decision of the UN Security Council in order to maintain international peace and security.

“The Constitutional Court considers that the application of restrictive measures against the Republic of Belarus in violation of the procedure established by the UN constituent document is interference in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a sovereign state, which contradicts paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 2 of the UN Charter,” added Piotr Miklashevich.

Moreover, the restrictive measures of the EU and a number of states prevent citizens and organisations from free disposal of their property and trade in natural resources, which negatively affects the living standards of individuals and the economic activities of legal entities.

Therefore, the restrictive measures violate the provisions of paragraph 1 of Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Freedoms.

Verdict of the Constitutional Court

Documents adopted by the European Union, some foreign states, including Great Britain, the USA, Canada, and their bodies, envisaging the introduction of restrictive measures against the Republic of Belarus:
—  do not correspond to the generally recognised principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of another state, co-operation of states with each other in accordance with the UN Charter, conscientious fulfilment of international obligations, equality and self-determination of peoples, respect for human rights and their fundamental freedoms;
— do not correspond to the generally recognised principles and norms of international law in the field of human rights;
— do not correspond to the UN Charter, which provides for a mechanism for the application of preventive and coercive measures against the state only by the decision of the UN Security Council in order to maintain international peace and security.

Therefore, state bodies, officials, and heads of organisations should, within their competence, take the necessary measures to protect the national interests of Belarus, constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens based on the values and goals of the Belarusian Constitution, generally recognised principles and norms of international law.

SEQUENTIAL PROTECTION LOGIC
On December 14th, the President signed the Law ‘On Amendments to the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus’ which introduces criminal liability for calls for the application of sanctions against our country, its citizens and organisations.
Such actions will be punishable by imprisonment for up to:
• 6 years — if appeals are addressed to ordinary people;
• 10 years — if they are addressed to foreign states, international and foreign organisations;
• 12 years — if such calls are made by an official on duty or led to other heavy consequences, for example, restrictions in trade or inclusion of enterprises in the sanctions list.
The implementation of the measures envisaged by the law will act as an adequate response to attempts to harm national security by destructive forces, stresses the Press Service of the President.

By Maksim Osipov