The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union,

Referring to the case of Mr. Victor Gonchar, a member of the Thirteenth Supreme Soviet of Belarus who disappeared together with his friend Mr. Anatoly Krasovsky on 16 September 1999, as outlined in the report of the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians (CL/188/13(b)‑R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 187th session (October 2010),

Taking into account letters sent by the Chairpersons of the Standing Committees on National Security and on International Affairs and Relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), dated 6 December 2010 and 2 March 2011,

Recalling the following:

• The investigation into the disappearance, on 16 September 1999, of Mr. Victor Gonchar and his friend Mr. Anatoly Krasovsky, after they had been forcibly abducted, has yielded no result and the authorities have consistently refuted the conclusions of a report by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe into disappearances for allegedly political reasons in Belarus (Pourgourides report), which provided evidence linking senior officials to the disappearance of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasovsky; Mr. Pourgourides had gathered evidence to this effect, including a handwritten document from the then police chief, General Lapatik, the authenticity of which the Belarusian authorities have acknowledged, in which General Lapatik accuses Mr. V. Sheyman, then Secretary of the Belarusian Security Council, of having ordered the killing of Mr. Zakharenko, a former Minister of the Interior, and that the order was carried out by a special task force (SOBR unit) under the command of Colonel Pavlishenko, with the assistance of the then Minister of the Interior, Mr. Sivakov, who provided Colonel Pavlishenko with the official execution pistol temporarily removed from SIZO-1 prison; the same method was reportedly used in the execution of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasovsky;

• According to the results of the initial investigation by the Belarusian authorities, Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasovksy were forcibly abducted by an organized armed body and taken away by cars to an undisclosed location; the blood traces discovered at the crime scene proved to be the blood of Mr. Gonchar; witnesses of the abduction were found; in November 2000, after mass media reported the alleged implication of senior State officials, the Prosecutor General, the KGB Chairman and his Deputy, together with officials involved in the investigation, were removed and Mr. Sheyman,^* the main suspect at the time in this case, was appointed Prosecutor General; according to the source, as of that time the investigation slowed down and two volumes disappeared from the investigation file;

• The Belarusian authorities have consistently stressed that, despite extensive investigative work and despite examination of all possible leads, no tangible results have been obtained; however, the case has not been closed and the preliminary investigation is being regularly extended; the sources fear that such extension is automatic without any investigation taking place and that this may continue until the expiry of the statute of limitations, which is 15 years as of the commission of the crime;

• In a letter of 18 June 2010, the Chairpersons of the Standing Committees on National Security and on International Affairs and Relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), respectively, affirmed that the hypothesis of no investigation taking place is far-fetched and unsubstantiated as “the authorities of the Republic of Belarus are interested in a full and objective investigation, the establishment of all the circumstances of the disappearance of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasovsky, and the holding to account of the persons involved in it”; they have consistently affirmed that it is far-fetched and groundless to affirm, alluding to its October 2010 resolution, that the authorities have so far failed to refute convincingly the evidence produced in the Pourgourides report;

• The families of the victims, apart from receiving formal responses, have not been kept informed of the investigation throughout the 11 years it has been under way, although Article 50 (14) of the Criminal Procedure Code stipulates that the injured parties are entitled to receive copies of decisions passed which affect their rights,

Noting that, in their letter of 2 March 2011, the Chairpersons of the Standing Committees on National Security and on International Affairs and Relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States reiterate that, in accordance with prevailing legislation (including with respect to current operational search measures and inquiries in a criminal case together with their results), no particulars of an investigation may be disclosed before its conclusion, which also concerns information obtained in the course of investigating circumstances featuring in Russian documentary films; recalling in this respect that, in its resolution of October 2010, it (the Council) has expressed the view that the authorities should show to the general public, or at the very least to the families of the victims, that they are doing their utmost to reveal the truth in this high-profile case and that Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code authorizes the disclosure of data of a preliminary investigation if this is not in breach of the rights and lawful interests of those taking part in the proceedings; that, however, the Prosecutor General’s Office affirmed that showing “the general public that the authorities are doing their utmost to reveal the truth could lead to the undue disclosure of information gathered in the course of the investigation”,

Considering that, in their letter of 2 March 2011, the two Chairpersons reiterate that various scenarios explaining the disappearance of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Kravosvsky are being investigated and once again refer in this respect to “unlawful acts (committed) possibly in connection with their business activities”; recalling that, in an interview given by President Lukashenko on 10 June 2009 to the Russian Zavtra newspaper, he stated that the cases of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasovsky “were murders for business reasons; they had to buy or sell something and failed to stick to their promises, so they were killed, as is usual in ‘half-bandit’ circles; traces of a murderer have recently been found in Germany”; that the German authorities have nevertheless denied this; that, moreover, Mrs. Krasvosky has denied that her husband had any business problems,

Noting that Mrs. Krasovsky and her daughter have filed an application with the Human Rights Committee established under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is awaiting a decision as to its admissibility,

Recalling lastly that, in their letter of 18 June 2010, the two Chairpersons stated that the House of Representatives of the National Assembly was not entitled to issue any appraisal of the steps taken by the State bodies, including the Prosecutor’s Office and officials, or of the methods followed in conducting the criminal investigation, since this did not lie within its purview,

1. Thanks the Chairpersons of the Standing Committees on National Security and on International Affairs and Relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States for their consistent cooperation;

2. Regrets, however, that the information they provide is a repeat of information provided earlier and does not respond to the considerations it has consistently expressed; stresses that the Committee has to rely on genuine cooperation, whereby parliament takes into serious account the views it expresses, if progress is to be made in any given case;

3. Reaffirms that, while parliament may not be entitled to comment on an ongoing criminal investigation, it is entitled, in the exercise of its oversight function, to ask the competent authorities questions in this regard, in particular when they concern one of its former members; believes that it would be entitled to ask President Lukashenko about the statements he made regarding the reasons for the disappearance of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasvosky;

4. Strongly believes that, after 12 years of preliminary investigation, the general public and certainly the families of the victims should be informed of the results obtained thus far, and recalls in this respect that Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code clearly allows the disclosure of information, and fails to understand how information released by the Prosecutor’s office could lead to undue disclosure of information;

5. Affirms that, rather than helping the investigation, the secrecy in which it is shrouded only fuels suspicion that the authorities are unwilling to establish the truth;

6. Notes that it appears from the letter of 2 March of the two Committee Chairpersons that an investigation into the evidence produced in the Russian documentary about disappearances in Belarus is under way; wonders therefore why the Prosecutor General’s Office has so far failed to respond to Mr. Lebedko’s application;

7. Reaffirms that no documents or other evidence has been produced to sustain the assertion of the authorities that they have convincingly refuted the Pourgourides report, and notes that the report is based on information provided by the authorities initially in charge of investigating the disappearance; observes, moreover, that such disclosure would have been at odds with the affirmation of the authorities that no investigative results may be disclosed;

8. Sincerely hopes that Parliament will make use of its oversight power to ensure that the investigatory authorities indeed comply with their duty to conduct an effective investigation and to release information in accordance with Article 198 of the Criminal Procedure Code;

9. Requests the Secretary General to convey this resolution to all parties concerned;

10. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 125th IPU Assembly (October 2011).

---

Following heavy criticism of his appointment, including in a common statement issued in this respect by the Committee on Legal Affairs of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Committee on the Human Rights of Parliamentarians of the IPU, Mr. Sheyman was later removed from this post.

---

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 124th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 672 Kb approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS