A/HRC/32/48 however, that the Government of Belarus supported similar recommendations made during the first cycle of the universal periodic review (see A/HRC/15/16, paras 97.1 and 97.2), and that no tangible progress has been made since, besides the signing of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities by Belarus in September 2015. 26. In 2016, Belarus is scheduled to be reviewed by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Belarus has submitted its combined report to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the review by the Committee will be based on the replies of the State, to be submitted by 24 May 2016, to the preliminary list of issues. 27. 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 115th session, in October 2015, the Human Rights Committee adopted views on six communications with regard to Belarus, most of which concerned violations of the freedoms of expression, assembly and association. 3 28. The Special Rapporteur is aware that a number of workshops and seminars organized by the Government of Belarus have been held with the support of international partners. The practice of holding short events on human rights issues raised by mechanisms (see notably A/HRC/30/3, para. 14) has been in place in Belarus for many years; nonetheless, the Special Rapporteur does not have any information suggesting that tangible changes have ever been made to the legal framework or the practices of State officials following such gatherings. For example, a conference on the death penalty was held in Minsk on 10 March 2016. The 1-day event, co-organized with the country office of the United Nations Development Programme and the Embassy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Belarus, featured a number of high-level speakers. The Special Rapporteur was not invited. IV. Human rights concerns expressed by United Nations human rights mechanisms, and degree of compliance A. Freedom of opinion and expression, and freedom of the media 29. During the period under review, despite consistent recommendations made by the Special Rapporteur and several United Nations human rights mechanisms over the years, freedom of expression in Belarus remained severely curtailed by the only national media in Europe to be controlled exclusively by the Government, control which extends to radio, television, the press and Internet-hosted media. No legal changes have been brought or prepared to alter the oppressive governance of the media. The system of registration of media outlets remains permission-based, rather than notification-based, as recommended, making it effectively impossible for start-ups to operate without consent from the authorities. The authorities have the power to warn and suspend any type of media entity, including Internet-hosted ones, by merely referring to content as “harmful to the State”. The media entity concerned may appeal such decisions only before administrative courts, which consider only whether the authorities had the power to issue such injunctions. As a 3 See CCPR/C/115/D/2019/2010 (Anatoly Poplavny v. Belarus); CCPR/C/115/D/2016/2010, (Leonid Sudalenko); CCPR/C/115/D/2133/2012, (Marina Statkevich and Oleg Matskevich v. Belarus); CCPR/C/115/D/1996/2010 (Ivan Kruk v. Belarus); CCPR/C/115/D/2289/2013 (Pavel Selyun v. Belarus); CCPR/C/115/D/2011/2010 (Vladimir Romanovsky v. Belarus). 7