Advance unedited version CCPR/C/133/D/2619/2015 3.7 The author also claims Mr. Statkevich’s rights guaranteed by articles 14 (5) have been violated as he was denied the right to appeal because the appeal court did not provide any explanation on the reasons it rejected the appeal and did not examine substantive deficiencies of his conviction. Cassation review was nothing but a mere formality. He was not allowed to be present during the cassation court hearings. 3.8 The author claims a violation of article 17 of the Covenant arguing that the State party unlawfully recorded and published the transcripts of her husband’s phone calls during his presidential campaign in 2010. The taping was not necessary, legal or justified and was therefore a violation of Mr. Statkevich’s right to privacy. 3.9 The author further claims a violation of Mr. Statkevich’s rights under articles 19, 21 of the Covenant since the restrictions such as the confiscation of campaign property, recordings of his phone conversations and his detention, imposed by the State party on the exercise of these rights were not necessary in order to achieve the goals defined by a permissible restriction such as protecting interests of national security, public safety or public health. Moreover, the restrictions imposed by the State party on these rights were not in conformity with the law. His participation in the demonstration of 19 December 2010 was an expression of the rights enshrined in the Covenant because the sole purpose of the demonstration was to peacefully express opposition to fraudulent election results with the aim to promote democracy. 3.10 The author claims a violation of Mr. Statkevich’s rights under article 22 of the Covenant arguing that he was arrested because he exercised his right to freedom of association. 3.11 Finally, the author claims a violation of her husband’s rights under article 25 of the Covenant as all he suffered was a consequence of his exercising his right to participate in the political process. He notes that he wanted to advocate for a multi-party system and democratic electoral reforms but he was harassed, arrested, beaten, tortured and, subsequently, sentenced to six years in prison due to his political activities. In this connection, he notes that the link between these reprisals and his efforts to engage in public affairs and, particularly, in the election process in 2010 has been clearly acknowledged by the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention 9. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 By note verbale of 12 June 2015, the State party returned the communication as it was not in Russian or Belarussian languages. By note verbale of 6 October 2015, the State party requested to be provided with the complete communication including annexed documents in Russian or Belarussian languages. 4.2 By note verbale of 3 December 2018, the State party informed that the communication was submitted without the required documentation, which proves that Mr. Statkevich authorised the author to represent him and submit the communication to the Committee. The State party contends that the registration of communications should strictly uphold and be in strict conformity with the provisions of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 4.3 By note verbale of 20 May 2019, the State party challenged the registration of the communication since it was registered in violation of article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The State party stated that there was no power of attorney for Marina Adamovich. Furthermore, the State party noted that the author and Mr. Statkevich authorised a U.S.-based organisation “Freedom Now” and a US based law firm “Hogan Lovells” to represent her and her husband, while both organizations are not under the jurisdiction of Belarus but of a third country. The state party claimed that at the time of the submission of the observations, 10 nothing prevented Mr. Statkevich from presenting personally his interests before the Committee. In view of the above, the State party was of 9 10 The author refers to paragraph 9 of the WG report ‘A/HRC/WGAD/2011/13’ accessible at : http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/111/78/PDF/G1211178.pdf?OpenElement. Mr. Statkevich was released from prison August 22, 2015 after receiving a presidential pardon. 5