Source: http://en.prava-by.info/archives/2059
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 02:59:21+00:00

Document:
As reported by the activist of HRC “Viasna” Aliaksiey Lapitsky, on 24.03.2011 at 6 p.m. criminal investigator of Zhodzina TDIA Tsiulmankou phoned him about the urgent forced dactylographic registration which was has to be conducted untill 01.04.2011 according to a special list and only A. Lapitsky remained unregistered.
As well as the last time (14.02.2011), he mentioned an administrative punishment for a person who refuses forced dactylographic registration in Zhodzina. He tried to find out the current mobile number of human rights activist for having no problems with drawing up an administrative protocol in the future because of Lapitsky’s refusal to “fulfill the legal demands of militia”.
Human right defender explained that “compulsory” doesn’t mean “forced”. It necessarily has to be of free will (as is stated in law) – it has to give a person free choice (a person not accused for a crime) and whether to undergo this doubtful procedure. A law-abiding citizen can’t be putted in similar disrespectful and discriminating conditions with people who are to undergo this compulsory dactylography. This is violation of art.23 of Constitution and the correspondent article of the International Covenant (ICCPR). It is obvious when we take into account inherent constitutional rights of citizens to freedom of conscience, religion and opinion, right to individual untouchability and lack of discrimination.
Indeed, any provision of law, subordinate legislation or authorities’ order can’t violate or ignore rights of every citizen for freedom of conscience and religion (art.31), individual untouchability (art.25) and the right not witness against self (art.27 of Constitution of Republic of Belarus) which totally corresponds international law standards formalized as law imperatives obliged for realization by every subjects of law in Belarus. Moreover, art.31is described in art 63 of Constitution and as the correspondent art.18 of ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) can’t be restricted and abrogated even in extraordinary situation in the country.
On the assumption that article 27 of Constitution in fact forbids taking forced statements from a witness against him- or herself, forbids compulsory dactylographic registration as it is legislated in the instruction #35 (which prescribes getting all fingerprints and even palm prints), creates legal collision where Constitutional norms but not some instructions must work. This urgent compulsory dactylography gives “penal organs” (most of citizens are really sure that they are penal and militia officers themselves prove this) much more information about a person than a simple identification requires.
In its turn it contradicts aims and goals of dactylography registered in the legislation and statutory provision of Constitution. However, it’s clear that suchlike approach is unacceptable towards law obedient citizens who don’t have any status of suspected of accused to a criminal case. They can only be treated as witnesses – witnesses of themselves, their abilities, inclines etc. …, which can be read in dactylographic finger prints and palm prints.
This personal information in suchlike conditions and status of a citizen taking into account his or her law obedience, can’t be an object of a forced and compulsory registration by militia organs because it violates art. art. 23; 25; 27; 31 and also art. 63 of Constitution.
Thus, groundless and lacking any alternative obligation which can be equated to refusal of one’s own beliefs, obligation to witness about or against self is lawless and penal procedure against law obedient citizens, public society activists or any other free-thinkers who know their rights. It mustn’t be applied as it is now to such a wide category of citizens,” – claims Aliaksiey Lapitsky.
-It all contradicts art. 23 of Constitution or a correspondent norm of the Covenant (ICCPR) and it doesn’t answer the question – what juridical goals require such restriction of constitutional rights of citizens who aren’t criminals and are not suspected to be criminals…!?
Moreover the legal agencies which now unfortunately act not as law enforcement organs but as penal ones (clearly seen on the events of the period after 19.12.2010) and carry out political persecution or repressions in the country – can’t be trusted neither by a politician nor a human right defender even in a such simple question as guaranteeing confidentiality required by the Law “About state dactylographic registration”.
He noted that he had an intention to lodge a complaint about this lawless practice of an urgent and compulsory dactylographic registration and the correspondent legislation.
-	No law can abandon my civil rights described and explained in the correspondent articles of Constitution of Republic of Belarus. And no one has a right to force me to deny my beliefs and individual untouchability as a citizen of a European country I which Constitution is the Supreme Law of the country, – stressed the human right activist.

References: art.23
 art.31
 art 63
 art.18
 art. 23
 art. 63
 art. 23