A/HRC/35/40 47. As an example, relatives of persons incarcerated for crimes related to drug consumption wished to get organized in Hrodna, to raise awareness of the rights of prisoners, and to provide legal and psychological support. The State representatives in the city refused to register the group, Mothers’ Movement 328.13 48. In another instance, the Centre for Gender Studies Ruzha in the Mogilev region was denied registration on the basis of the inadequacy of its main objective, the fight against gender discrimination in Belarusian law. According to the administrative decision handed over to the Centre, the “acknowledgement of gender discrimination in Belarus does not correspond to norms of the law on equality between women and men”.14 49. Ruzha was also denied registration by a regional department of justice, on the grounds that working on gender discrimination does not fall under the competency of the Centre as equality between women and men is ensured by the State authorities. The Special Rapporteur wishes to underline that the State authorities not only deny the reality of gender discrimination in Belarus but further instrumentalize that denial to impede civil society from working freely and openly on such issues, leaving victims of gender discrimination with ineffective avenues for seeking redress. 50. The systematic denial of registration of new organizations continues to be often grounded in petty arguments. The authorities invariably find some element missing or misspelled, such as a phone number or street name, in the extraordinary amount of documents to be submitted. According to information received by the Special Rapporteur, several organizations expressed discouragement after repeated attempts to obtain registration. The Special Rapporteur wishes to sound an alert about the possible successful registration fatigue, distilled for over two decades by the authorities. 51. Unfortunately, the inter-agency plan does not foresee any activity to improve the enjoyment of freedom of association, despite repeated calls by the international community. In fact, the words “freedom of association” are absent from the plan. C. Freedom of peaceful assembly 52. The official handling of the right to peaceful assembly suffered the most dramatic deterioration during the events of February and March 2017. 53. The Special Rapporteur closely monitored the massive rallies which started in February 2017, organized to protest against the implementation of presidential decree No. 3, known as the law against social dependency (see A/HRC/32/48, para. 114), adopted in 2015. It provided for a new tax on people unemployed for more than 183 days a year, who are designated by the derogatory term of “parasites”. According to a tax inspection in February 2017, as many as 470,000 people were obliged to pay the fee amounting to $250, about two thirds of the average monthly salary. The implementation of this arbitrary and cruel measure amidst a degrading economic environment prompted the largest protests since 2010 in the streets of many cities across Belarus. 54. In March alone, more than 900 people were subjected to various forms of repression in connection with the demonstrations. Hundreds of them were temporarily deprived of their freedom of movement. On 27 March, 177 persons were swiftly sentenced to fines or detention for up to two weeks, the maximum as provided under the law. 55. The misdemeanour charges were fabricated, misrepresenting the behaviour of peaceful demonstrators against all the evidence. The majority of those detained in connection with the protests of 25 March were later released without charge, others were charged with offences such as hooliganism, resisting arrest or participating in unsanctioned protests. Many did not have timely access to lawyers and could not call defence witnesses. 13 14 See Viasna, “Human rights situation in Belarus in 2016: analytical review”, available from www.spring96.org/files/misc/review_2016_en.pdf. See www.news.tut.by/society/508632.html. 9