A/HRC/35/40 26. Since the previous report of the Special Rapporteur, a number of cases have been filed under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. At its 116th, 117th and 118th sessions, the Human Rights Committee adopted views on 10 communications with regard to Belarus, most of which concerned violations of the rights to a fair trial, physical integrity and freedoms of expression, assembly and association.3 27. The main addition to the national official texts dealing with human rights is the inter-agency plan to implement the accepted recommendations from the second cycle of the universal periodic review and from treaty bodies, approved by the Council of Ministers on 24 October 2016, covering the period 2016-2019. According to the Special Rapporteur’s records, the plan is not yet available to the public in English. It was presented by the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and the United Nations office in Belarus on 9 December 2016 to various partners on the occasion of Human Rights Day. 4 28. Regarding the content of the plan, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that the list of 100 activities or projects relates solely to a selection of recommendations made by the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review and by some treaty bodies. The plan ignores the various recommendations made by special procedure mandate holders who have conducted visits to Belarus since 1997 (the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers; and the Special Rapporteur on trafficking in persons, especially women and children), in addition to the recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus since 2012. 29. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur is concerned that the plan does not envisage any action regarding the abolition of torture and of the death penalty. Neither does it tackle the system of criminalization of non-registered public activities, including the exercise of freedoms of peaceful assembly, association, expression and other basic human rights. Similarly, it does not envisage actions for the State organs relating to acknowledgment of and cooperation with civil society. 30. The Special Rapporteur is aware that the plan was not developed through a proper participatory process involving civil society organizations, whether registered or not registered.5 31. Belarusian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have expressed approval of the adoption of the plan. 6 They emphasize, however, that the plan falls short of taking into account the various recommendations that they had made public, in a clustered manner, in May 2016, following the second cycle of the universal periodic review of Belarus. 7 The Special Rapporteur shares the concern of the NGOs that the potential development and implementation of the plan may not be effective as long as it is not a participatory process. 32. The Special Rapporteur remains dubious as to the effects of the holding of a number of workshops and seminars organized by the Government with the support of international partners on the reality of the legal framework and the policies and practices of the State. On the issue of the death penalty, he notes a conference held in Minsk on 10 March 2016. In 3 4 5 6 7 6 See Human Rights Committee communications No. 2047/2011, S.V. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 March 2016; No. 2084/2011, V.L. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 30 March 2016; No. CCPR/C/116/D/2092/2011, Androsenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 30 March 2016; No. 2082/2011, Levinov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 14 July 2016; No. 2089/2011, Korol v. Belarus, Views adopted on 14 July 2016; No. 2093/2011, Misnikov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 14 July 2016; No. 2101/2011, Evzrezov v. Belarus, Views adopted on 14 July 2016; No. 2112/2011, K.A. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 November 2016; No. 2135/2012, Y.Z. v. Belarus, decision of inadmissibility adopted on 3 November 2016; No. 2139/2012, Poplavny and Sudalenko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 3 November 2016. See www.mfa.gov.by/en/press/news_mfa/e4d67633e1891aae.html. See www.spring96.org/en/news/85305. See www.spring96.org/en/news/85347. See www.upr.belhelcom.org/docs/indikatory-k-rekomendaciiam-upo.pdf.