A/HRC/29/43 18. Owing to the Government’s continued refusal to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur, he has yet to have access to the country; nevertheless, he has continued to seek the cooperation of the Government in order to engage in a constructive dialogue. He sought meetings with the Permanent Representatives of Belarus to the United Nations in New York and Geneva, and submitted requests for an official visit to the country. The Special Rapporteur has received no response to any of his correspondence, and again deplores that this situation limits the collection and analysis of first-hand information from in-country sources, including from the Government. 19. Notwithstanding such constraints, the Special Rapporteur endeavoured to collect information from primary sources, which is crucial to ensure that his report is as accurate, time-bound and measured as possible. He frequently undertook consultations with victims of violations, representatives of civil society, human rights experts and diplomats. If the Special Rapporteur were authorized to visit the country, he would be able to develop findings on the proclaimed successes in the sphere of economic and social rights, including through a dialogue with the Government and other stakeholders. 20. The Special Rapporteur is grateful for the cooperation received from many stakeholders living in Belarus. In the present report, he refers to cases that are emblematic of the nature of the human rights violations in Belarus. They do not, however, reflect the full list of allegations submitted to the Special Rapporteur. II. Rule of law 21. As in previous reporting periods, presidential decrees continue to be used as the main legislative mechanism in Belarus (A/HRC/23/52, para. 37; A/HRC/26/44, para. 21). While Parliament is responsible for developing and adopting legislation, it is the Presidential Administration that prepares the drafts. President’s decrees can overrule existing legislation, including constitutional law, on any issue. The Special Rapporteur for example noted this in the context of Presidential Decree No. 6 of 29 November 2013 on the improvement of the judicial system, as confirmed by information given on the website of the Brest Regional Court (www.oblsud.vbreste.by). 22. A recent example is Presidential Decree No. 18, which outlines how courts should apply legislation on the recognition and execution of judgements handed down by foreign courts and arbitral awards, issued on 23 December 2014 by the Plenary of the Supreme Court. The purpose of the decree, as described in the preamble thereto, was to ensure “the unity of legal practice in the application of international treaties and to improve the administration of justice during the consideration of cases concerning the recognition and execution of judgements handed down by foreign courts or arbitrages (arbitral courts) in the Republic of Belarus by courts of general jurisdiction of the Republic of Belarus.”2 23. The introduction of new or revised legislation or adoption of amendments does not result from a consultative process, despite frequent requests by civil society organizations to be included in the process. 24. A law on the judicial proceedings of the Constitutional Court (www.kc.gov.by), which came into force on 17 April 2014, allows bodies other than those listed in article 116, part 4 of the Constitution, including government bodies, other organizations and citizens collectively or individually, to submit requests to the Court for an advisory opinion on 2 Belarusian Helsinki Committee et al, Analytical review of the human rights situation in Belarus, October–December 2014 (available at http://belhelcom.org/en/node/19697), p. 15. 5