New arguments in favor of abolishing the death penalty: threats and benefits for the Lukashenka regime
On October 10, the world celebrates the International Day against the Death Penalty. Belarus is still the only country in Europe where this type of punishment is applied. The campaign "Human Rights Defenders against the Death Penalty in Belarus" has developed arguments based on the experience of 140 countries and conducted research. They have been used in discussions for the abolition of the death penalty for many years. Today, Viasna human rights activist Aleh Matskevich is looking for new arguments in favor of the abolition of the death penalty in the context of new events and challenges in the world. Here is his commentary.
I think that right now, at this time, some developments, analytical materials and calculations concerning the abolition of the death penalty are being considered by the Belarusian government without unnecessary attention from prying eyes. That's how it should be. And here is why.
Since 1994, when the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus was adopted and Aliaksandr Lukashenka came to power, and for about 15 years, the existence of the death penalty has benefited the current government, symbolizing its firm, cruel and unshakable character, as well as the popular consensus on the existence of this institution.
The situation, in my opinion, changed during a broad public discussion, which took place mainly in independent media and arose as a reaction to the swift and legally controversial execution of Dzmitry Kanavalau and Uladzislau Kavaliou, accused of the terrorist attack in the Minsk metro (2011). For the next ten years, the death penalty existed in the legislative system of Belarus as a vestige of Sovietism, which did not give any advantages, but also did not bring any special inconveniences to the authorities and society.
Starting in 2022, the institution of the death penalty in Belarus became no longer necessary or safe for various reasons, including for the current government.
What threats exist for the Lukashenka regime while the death penalty exists in Belarus?
In May 2022, after two months of fierce fighting on the territory of Azovstal in occupied Mariupol, hundreds of Ukrainian soldiers of the Azov regiment were captured by the Russian occupation armed forces. The victory of the aggressor was immediately used by Kremlin propaganda in order to inflict maximum information damage to Ukraine and its leadership, leading to the discussion an "international tribunal" for “war criminals."
Supporters of the war proposed to try the prisoners on the territory of the neighboring union state. The main and only leitmotif of this appeal was the existence of the death penalty in Belarus.
Due to the fact that the case did not go beyond loud statements, the story of the "international tribunal" quickly subsided.
But what could have happened if the trial of Ukrainian prisoners of war had been held in Belarus?
Now we can confidently say that both for the ruling regime and for the image of the country, this hypothetical event would be a very serious challenge.
Firstly, it would most likely lead to a complete rupture of diplomatic relations between Belarus and Ukraine, and would also aggravate their relations in the future, potentiating an open military confrontation.
Secondly, the "judges" themselves — the Belarusian authorities — could have fallen under international criminal law for another additional reason: according to the provisions of the Geneva Convention, prisoners of war can only be convicted of war crimes, but not of participation in an armed conflict. In reality, contrary to international humanitarian law, Russia, with the participation of Belarus, was going to hold a public show of execution of those who dared to resist its aggressive plans. By the way, the "tribunal" never happened.
It is clear that both the first and the second expected results did not correspond to the interests of the ruling regime of Belarus. And it would be possible to avoid a negative scenario only if there is no death penalty in the legislation of the Republic of Belarus.
The second similar event happened in the spring of 2024.
On the evening of March 22, 2024, a group of armed men attacked visitors to the Crocus City Hall concert venue in Krasnogorsk, Moscow region. The terrorist attack occurred before the start of the performance of a band Piknik. 145 people died.
Following the tragedy, a discussion began in the upper echelons of the Russian government on lifting the moratorium on the death penalty (in force in Russia since 1997), in order to punish those accused of the crime as harshly as possible. Having come to the conclusion that it would not be possible to do this quickly and in accordance with the law, State Duma said that the alleged criminals could be transferred to Belarus for trial.
In the end, as in the previous case, the suggestions led nowhere.
But what could have happened if the trial of the accused had been held in Belarus? Such a development of events did not significantly threaten the authorities. But in the eyes of the world community, our country would turn into a "firing squad ground" of Russia. Let's face it, it is not a favorable outcome for the international reputation of a sovereign state.
But even this could be avoided if the death penalty had not existed in Belarus.
The third situation happened severak months after the second one, in the summer of 2024.
At the moment, we can only guess how the entire operation was conducted to capture, sentence to death, and subsequently extradite German citizen Rico Krieger for the purpose of exchanging him for killer Krasikov and other Russian spies.
However, the culmination of the tragic event did not come.
Who, where, and when detained the German citizen, who was later accused of committing a terrorist attack, what exactly did he do to "deserve" death, why a convict in Belarus became a bargaining chip in the game between the United States and Russia — there is still no clear answer to these questions. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the existence of the death penalty in Belarus was precisely the factor that allowed the Kremlin to once again, ignoring the interests of the Lukashenka regime, to play its part. This also could be avoided if the death penalty had not existed in Belarus.
The fourth situation.
Observing the changes in Belarusian legislation concerning the introduction of lifetime security guarantees for the president, his family members, and even affecting such a specific area as taxes, we can say with confidence: now the government is busy with taking precautions for the future.
On March 17, 2023, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights published a Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Belarus in the Run-up to the 2020 Presidential Election and in Its Aftermath. A notable aspect in the document was the new phrasing, which has not yet been expressed at such a high level: "some of the violations may amount to crimes against humanity."
Identifying the actions of the Belarusian authorities as international crimes in accordance with the principles of universal jurisdiction and the norms of the international criminal court makes it possible to bring alleged criminals to justice. This responsibility has no statute of limitations and practically has no geographical boundaries. Responsibility can be enforced through both international and national tribunals.
The same OHCHR report states that the High Commissioner is aware of the initiation of relevant criminal cases in at least six national jurisdictions outside Belarus on the basis of the principles of universal or extraterritorial jurisdiction. One of the results of this kind of activity has become known quite recently. On September 30, the Lithuanian government handed over to the office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICJ) in The Hague materials concerning the commission of cross-border crimes against humanity against Belarusians by representatives of the Lukashenka regime (read the case materials in English).
The participation of the Belarusian authorities in the forced displacement of Ukrainian children from the occupied territories of Ukraine for the purpose of their re-education and military training should also be mentioned. These facts were reflected in a report by the Humanitarian Research Lab (HRL) at the Yale School of Public Health in the United States. These actions have not received final legal classification, although they have already been presented to ICJ by various subjects of international law. But, by and large, it does not matter which crimes will lead to the arrest warrant for representatives of the Belarusian authorities. After all, responsibility will come one way or another.
Criminal prosecution can occur both internationally and nationally. There are enough examples in history. At one time, the new Rwandan Government, responding to the creation of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) for Crimes against humanity (the 1990–1994 genocide in Rwanda), protested the absence of the death penalty in the list of punishments which the tribunal could sentence the accused to. As a result, a significant part of the trials of criminals took place on the territory of Rwanda itself. And in three years of operation, 61 death sentences were handed down by national courts.
In Belarus, the Criminal Code also contains the death penalty (Article 59) for the corresponding crime (Article 128).
Why can the abolition of the death penalty benefit the Lukashenka regime?
On September 27, 2024, at a meeting with students at BSUIR, Aliaksandr Lukashenka, in response to a question whether he would continue to pardon prisoners (political prisoners in particular), said that pardoning is the constitutional duty of the president and this practice will continue.
Creating an image of a humane "father" is another new trend in the internal politics.
Apart from loud but hollow ideological narratives like the year or the day of "national unity", as well as attempts to humanize the regime by releasing small groups of political prisoners, pro-government ideologues are yet to come up with anything else.
The abolition of the death penalty could be a relatively small and safe "sacrifice" that the authorities could make without losing their trump cards. On the contrary, now such a step will allow the Lukashenka regime to receive additional bonuses both in foreign policy and in the domestic field.
It is worth mentioning separately about the possible reaction of Russia. It is unlikely that the Kremlin will express rejection or even misunderstanding in the event of the abolition of the death penalty in Belarus. One should not expect a positive reaction from the Kremlin, but there will be no negative response either.
