Election Observers Arrested, Convicted

C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 001343

SIPDIS

SIPDIS

E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/01/2015
TAGS: PHUM PGOV BO
SUBJECT: Election Observers Arrested, Convicted


Classified by Ambassador George Krol for Reasons 1.4 (B,D)


1. (SBU) Summary: Minsk police on October 29 raided a
conference held by Belarus' largest election observation
group Partnership and detained 60 participants. Most were
released after documentation checks but four senior members
were charged and convicted of organizing an illegal
gathering. The director, deputy director, and a staff
lawyer received 15 days in jail and another staff lawyer
was fined. Poloff was present at the deputy director's
hearing, which did not provide any material evidence
proving the deputy director was the organizer of the
conference or that the conference itself was illegal. The
witnesses testifying against the deputy director gave poor
testimony and contradictory statements, but apparently it
was enough for a conviction. End Summary.


2. (C) On October 29, Minsk police interrupted a conference
held by the NGO Partnership at the Central movie theater in
Minsk and detained all 60 participants. Partnership, an
independent civil initiative group funded by the National
Democratic Institute (NDI) focuses on election monitoring
and exit polling in Belarus. The conference titled the
Association of Independent Election Observers was
Partnerships first national conference in two years and
convened to choose new board members. Forty minutes into
the conference, police entered the room, declared it an
illegal gathering, and hauled all the participants to the
Moskovsky police station for document verification and
questioning. However, the group continued their meeting
during their six-hour detainment and successfully elected a
new board of directors. Most participants were released by
18:00.


3. (SBU) Director of Partnership Nikolai Astreiko, his
deputy Enira Bronitskaya, and two staff lawyers Aleksandr
Bondarev and Svetlana Konnova were charged for organizing
an unsanctioned rally and all but Konnova were held in jail
until their October 31 court appearance. Poloff attended
the hearing against Bronitskaya, who pleaded 'not guilty'
of organizing the conference and told the judge that the
conference was not an illegal gathering and did not require
permission from the regional executive committee. Judge
Gusakova asked Bronitskaya who planned the conference, how
she knew of it, why she attended, who participated, etc.,
to which Bronitskaya pleaded ignorance or a bad memory.


4. (SBU) Human rights lawyer Vera Stremkovskaya represented
Bronitskaya and protested Bronitskaya's harsh detainment,
particularly the authorities' disregard for her ulcers and
failure to provide Bronitskaya with the proper diet and
medical care. Before the trial began on October 31, the
authorities called an ambulance to take Bronitskaya to a
hospital where a doctor declared her healthy enough to
remain in jail. Stremkovskaya argued that the doctor had
not visited the jail nor knew of its conditions and
therefore was not qualified to make such a conclusion.
[Note: It was evident from Bronitskaya's appearance in the
courtroom that she had spent the last 48 hours in jail.
She was filthy from head to toe and looked like she had not
slept that entire time.]


5. (SBU) A young OMON (riot police) officer testified that
he and his OMON unit observed the conference at the Central
movie theater for 15 minutes before raiding the meeting.
However, he was unable to give a reason why they arrested
Bronitskaya as an organizer. The police colonel in charge
of the raid testified that he arrested Bronitskaya because
she was sitting at the head of the table with copies of the
conference's agenda and mission statement Q documents that
proved she was an organizer. During Stremkovskaya's
questioning, the colonel admitted that Bronitskaya's
signature was not on any of the documents and that every
participant had a copy of the conference's agenda with
them. The colonel then told the judge that he decided the
conference was an illegal mass gathering because he saw a
banner that said 'Partnership' in the room [Comment: The
judge at times chuckled at the colonel's reasoning and the
colonel's arrogant behavior, which was the highlight of the
proceedings.]


6. (SBU) Astreiko was the next to testify and admitted he
was in charge of inviting participants and putting
documents in order. He too, however, denied being the
event's organizer and often pleaded 'no comment' or
ignorance to the judge's questions. He noted that
Partnership made arrangements in advance with the movie
theater to use one of its halls and paid a flat fee of USD

465. Astreiko claimed that the movie hall did not ask
Partnership for proof of registration or permission from
the regional executive committee before renting out the
space.


7. (SBU) The Central movie theater director testified
against Partnership and claimed Bronitskaya was the
organizer who paid for the movie theater by buying out all
the conference hall's movie tickets and not paying a flat
fee. [Comment: The question surrounding the method of
payment and rent of the space was irrelevant to the
proceedings, but the judge kept pushing the issue. The
conference hall is actually a large movie theater with a
stage in front of the screen. To rent the facilities one
can buy out all the tickets or pay a flat fee.] Astreiko
claimed to have a receipt proving that Partnership paid a
flat fee, but the judge would not allow Astreiko to
retrieve it from his apartment. The director claimed that
she had asked from Partnership its registration papers and
permission from the regional executive committee, but
Partnership told her that it was not needed.


8. (SBU) The director noted that she would not have allowed
Partnership to use the conference space if she had known it
was a political meeting. During Stremkovskaya's
questioning, the director, even though she directly accused
Bronitskaya of organizing the event, admitted she was not
present when Partnership made the arrangements with the
theater. Therefore, she was not in the place to accuse
anyone of organizing the event. Secondly, the director
noted that the theater often rents out its space for
conferences and meetings and gave an example of a
Belarusian State University (BSU) student conference that
recently took place. Stremkovskaya asked the director if
BSU had permission from the regional executive committee to
hold the meeting. The director, stuttering, said no.


9. (SBU) Stremkovskaya's pointed out the necessity of the
court to determine the legality of the meeting before
convicting Bronitskaya of organizing an illegal event. She
noted the double standards in which organizations, other
than Partnership, are allowed to hold meetings at the
theater without the regional executive committee's
permission and the lack of reason behind the police
interference and Bronitskaya's arrest. However,
Bronitskaya was found guilty and sentenced to 15 days in
jail. Later in the day, Astreiko and Bondarev received the
same punishment and Konnova was fined USD 270 dollars.


10. (C) Comment: No doubt, Bronitskaya and her associates
were the conference organizers. However, the trail
ended up being a case of 'he said Q she said' with no
evidence proving wrongdoing on the part of Partnership. It
was the colonel's idiotic testimony and the director's
contradictory statements that gave the judge enough
"evidence" to convict Bronitskaya. The judge, also acting
as the prosecutor, focused many of her questions on
Partnership's organization and structure rather than on
whether Bronitskaya was an organizer.


11. (C) Comment Cont'd: The purpose of Partnership's
conference was reportedly to fulfill the Ministry of
Justice's requirement to hold such a conference prior to
legal registration. The raid on Partnership appears to
have been a planned event from the beginning. It is
doubtful that a crowd of people gathering at a movie
theater on a Saturday would arise the curiosity of a
passing policeman. According to Astreiko, the BKGB, not
the police, raided the meeting, which was videotaped by the
organization, but the video was confiscated and not
presented in court. Acting as the largest independent
election observation group in Belarus, Partnership can
expect more harassment from the authorities as the
presidential election approaches.

KROL