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/189/11(b)-R.1), and to the resolution adopted at its 188th session (April 2011),

Recalling among the extensive case file data the following:

• A report, published in 2004, of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe into disappearances for allegedly political reasons in Belarus (Pourgourides report) gives ground to believe that "steps were taken at the highest level of the State actively to cover up the true background of the disappearances, and to suspect that senior State officials may themselves be involved in these disappearances";

• 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"; the German authorities have nevertheless denied this; moreover, Mrs. Krasvosky has denied that her husband had any business problems;

• In July and August 2010, a documentary entitled "The Nation’s Godfather" was aired on a TV channel in Russia and was also available in Belarus; the film dealt with, inter alia, the involvement of State authorities in the disappearance of politicians, including Victor Gonchar; that, on 7 July 2010, the President of the opposition United Civil Party (UCP), Mr. Anatoly Lebedko, made an application to the Prosecutor General to investigate the evidence presented in the documentary and to initiate criminal proceedings against the persons mentioned in the film as the masterminds and perpetrators of abductions and killings; that, although under Belarusian law, the Prosecutor General’s Office should have responded to Mr. Lebedko’s application within one month, he has to date received no information about his application,

Noting that, apart from the fact that the investigation has been extended to 24 September 2011, the letter contains no new information, in particular no response or observation on the specific questions and considerations raised in its previous resolutions, most recently in that of April 2011, and only reiterates that various lines of investigation have been pursued, that no details regarding the investigation may be disclosed before the closure of the investigation, that the House of Representatives lacks supervisory authority over the Prosecutor General’s Office, which precludes any possibility of studying the case material under investigation by that Office,

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,

1. Thanks the Chairman of the Standing Committee on National Security for his letter; regrets, however, that it is a mere formal reply which in no way responds to the specific questions and concerns it has constantly raised in this case;

2. Reiterates therefore once again its wish to ascertain the views and response of the authorities on the following questions:
   1. Why does parliament not question President Lukashenko about the statements he made regarding the reasons behind the disappearance of Mr. Gonchar and Mr. Krasvosky, as it would be entitled to do?

   2. How could information released by the Prosecutor’s Office lead to an undue disclosure of information? By shrouding the investigation in secrecy, is there not a risk of fuelling suspicion that the authorities are unwilling to establish the truth and in fact not actually investigating the case?

   3. Why has the Prosecutor General’s Office so far failed to respond to Mr. Lebedko’s application for an investigation of the allegations made in the Russian documentary "Krestny Batka" on disappearances in Belarus?

   4. Why are no documents or other evidence produced to sustain the assertion of the authorities that they have convincingly refuted the Pourgourides report, which is based on information provided by the Belarusian authorities initially in charge of investigating the disappearance?

3. Is aware that parliaments do not normally have authority over the Prosecutor’s Office, but recalls that in the past the parliamentary authorities reported that they were monitoring the case, were regularly briefed by the Prosecutor’s Office, had access to investigation documents and, according to information they provided in September 2002, even considered setting up a parliamentary working group;

4. Notes therefore that the Belarusian parliament has the power to inquire after the progress made in the investigation; sincerely hopes that it will finally take serious account of its considerations and requests for information so as to facilitate a more substantive dialogue; and requests the Secretary General to seek their full cooperation in this regard;

5. Is convinced that the work of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in Mr. Krasovsky’s case will be crucial to helping elucidate the fate of Mr. Gonchar; and requests the Committee to keep abreast of its work and decisions on this case;

6. Requests the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held during the 126th IPU Assembly (March/April 2012).

Note: you can download a complete electronic version of the brochure "Results of the 125th IPU Assembly and related meetings" in PDF format (file size 718 Kb approximately). This version requires Adobe Acrobat Reader, which you can download free of charge.

HOME PAGEHUMAN RIGHTSMAIN AREAS OF ACTIVITYIPU STRUCTURE AND DOCUMENTS