CCPR/C/114/D/1902/2009 interview a well-known journalist, publicist and civil activist, Pavel Severints, and discuss his new book. At around 4 p.m., police officers entered the premises, interrupted and stopped the meeting, and apprehended 28 persons, including Mr. Bakur, the author of the present communication. Mr. Bakur was subsequently charged with the administrative offence of participating in an unauthorized meeting. 2.2 Mr. Bakur was released at 11 p.m. the same day without being provided with any documents confirming his detention. He claims that this violated the Executive Procedure Code of Belarus, as his deprivation of liberty for 6 hours and 30 minutes had not been officially documented. He claims that other participants in the meeting were released immediately, without any charges. 2.3 On 31 August 2007, Mr. Bakur’s case was heard by the Moscow District Court in Brest. On 4 September 2007, the court ordered him to pay a fine in the amount of 93,000 Belarus rubles. 2.4 On 13 September 2007, Mr. Bakur appealed the decision before the Brest Regional Court, which upheld the decision of the first instance court on 4 October 2007. 2.5 On 3 April 2008, Mr. Bakur appealed to the President of the Supreme Court, under the supervisory review procedure; his appeal was rejected on 21 May 2008. The complaint 3.1 The author claims to be a victim of violations by Belarus of his rights under articles 7, 9, 14 (1), 19 (1) and (2), and 21 of the Covenant. 3.2 He claims that his arrest and detention for 6 hours and 30 minutes on 19 August 2007 was never officially recorded by the law enforcement authorities. He also claims that his detention was arbitrary as it was not recorded, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant. 3.3 He further claims that the treatment that he was subjected to by the police during his detention amounts to degrading treatment in violation of article 7 of the Covenant. He claims that the fact that not all the participants in the meeting were charged with the same administrative offence violates his rights under article 19 (1) and (2) of the Covenant. He claims that the majority of those who were targeted were members of opposition parties or opposition activists, including one journalist. 3.4 The author also claims that, during the court hearing, he asked to call the organizer of the meeting as a witness and to have the video recordings made by the police during their intervention added as evidence. His requests were rejected by the court. He claims that the court proceedings were not independent or impartial, which violated his rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant. 3.5 The author claims that he was convicted for violating the Law on Mass Events; he notes that section 3, paragraph 2, of said law states that it does not apply to public events organized and conducted by trade unions, political parties, unions of employees, religious and other organizations in their respective buildings as established by the law and the statutes of the organizations. He states that the meeting in which he participated was held in the offices of BNF, which can be confirmed by the lease contract of the building. The fact that the meeting was organized by BNF and was open to the public was confirmed by BNF. 3.6 The author claims that the stopping of the meeting by the police, his detention and subsequent administrative fine violated his right to freedom of assembly under article 21 of the Covenant and his right to receive information under article 19 (2) of the Covenant. The author claims that neither the police nor the courts provided any justification that the abovementioned police intervention and subsequent actions against him could be considered as necessary in a democratic society. 3