CCPR/C/122/D/2212/2012 Commission. He contends, in that regard, that the incriminating statements were, in fact, true, as confirmed by the numerous reports of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights on elections in Belarus.18 The author further states that the State party’s authorities prosecuted him and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment for exercising his right to freedom of expression. He adds that such a punishment is manifestly disproportionate, especially given that the investigating bodies failed to show that there was a direct causal link between his incriminating statements and the unlawful actions of the unidentified individuals who stormed the House of Government on 19 December 2010. 3.8 The author states that he was one of the co-organizers of the unauthorized peaceful public gathering on 19 December 2010. He adds that, according to the international standards concerning the exercise of the right of peaceful assembly, as guaranteed under article 21 of the Covenant, the State party’s authorities have a positive duty to ensure the security of peaceful assemblies even when they have not been formally authorized. The author contends that the State party’s authorities failed to comply with that duty when they failed to quickly contain the unlawful actions of a small, isolated group of individuals who stormed the House of Government at 9.45 p.m. on 19 December 2010 (see paragraph 2.6 above). The author submits that his own actions were entirely peaceful, and that he never called on his supporters to storm the House of Government. Rather, he publicly called on them to keep calm and to avoid carrying out any violent acts. Despite the fact that the demonstration organized by the author and other opposition candidates was meant to be a peaceful gathering, it was dispersed by the State party’s authorities in violation of article 21 of the Covenant, using disproportionate force. The author himself was subsequently found guilty, under article 293, part 1, of the Criminal Code, of having organized mass disorder. The author argues in great detail that the provisions of article 293 of the Criminal Code are too vague and broad to be able to foresee the legal consequences of one’s actions and that domestic law contains no definition of “mass disorder”. The author concludes that, by sentencing him to five years’ imprisonment under article 293, part 1, of the Criminal Code for having organized an unauthorized but peaceful public gathering, the State party disproportionately interfered in the exercise of his right of peaceful assembly under article 21 of the Covenant. Furthermore, such interference is not provided by law, i.e. the law has gaps. 3.9 The author claims that the acts qualified by the courts as “organization of mass disorder” in his case (including, encouraging supporters to join the peaceful demonstration on Oktyabrskyaya Square and to proceed to Nezavisimost Square, criticizing the current Government and attempting to approach the House of Government in order to start negotiations with law enforcement bodies) had also been “committed” by the other opposition candidates.19 However, some of them were found guilty of having committed less serious crimes, 20 while others were not prosecuted. 21 The author submits that it is unclear why the same acts committed by different individuals resulted in different legal consequences. He argues that, in violation of article 26 of the Covenant, the State party’s authorities discriminated against him on the ground of his political opinion, thus depriving him of equality before the law and the equal protection of the law. Lack of cooperation by the State party 4. By notes verbales of 26 November 2012, 29 January 2014, 19 November 2014 and 16 February 2015, the Committee requested the State party to submit to it information and observations on admissibility and the merits of the present communication. The Committee notes that this information has not been received. The Committee regrets the State party’s failure to provide any information with regard to admissibility or the substance of the author’s claims. It recalls that article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to 18 19 20 21 See OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, election observation mission reports of 4 October 2001, 7 June 2006, 10 December 2010 and 22 February 2011. The author mentions, for example, Vitaly Rymashevsky, Grigory Kostusev and Yaroslav Romanchuk. For example, Vitaly Rymashevsky was found guilty under article 342, part 1, of the Criminal Code (organization and preparation of acts gravely violating public order). The author mentions, for example, Grigory Kostusev and Yaroslav Romanchuk. 9