A/HRC/35/40 99. The Special Rapporteur recalls that Belarus is the only country in Europe and the former Soviet area which retains the death penalty. 100. The Special Rapporteur publicly condemned these executions and has repeatedly recommended that the authorities adopt a moratorium on capital punishment. He has also pointed to the ambiguous discourse of the authorities, which on the one hand organize, with the support of international partners, discussions on the issue of capital punishment and on the other not only continue the practice of executions but also bluntly violate their international obligations: three of the individuals who have been executed had cases pending before the Human Rights Committee. 101. The same ambiguity can be seen in the way the authorities of Belarus have approached recommendations on the abolition of the death penalty made during the second cycle of the universal periodic review. While Belarus accepted a recommendation to carry out public campaigns explaining the arguments for the abolition of the death penalty with the aim of ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty (see A/HRC/30/3, 127.1), it rejected the numerous recommendations to consider ratifying that Protocol or to adopt a moratorium on the death penalty (see A/HRC/30/3, 130.1-130.17). 102. The Special Rapporteur refers to the report published by the International Federation for Human Rights and Viasna on the issue of the death penalty in Belarus. 27 He fully shares the conclusions in the report that convicted persons and their families have a number of their human rights violated. The lack of a fair trial and of the independence of the judiciary in Belarus renders any sentence of capital punishment highly disputable. 103. In addition, the conditions of detention amount to torture and ill-treatment. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the secrecy surrounding executions and the fact that no details on executions or places of burial are given to the families also amount to torture. 28 104. Furthermore, the Special Rapporteur questions the argument put forward by the authorities that capital punishment serves as a deterrent to criminality, when in fact no information on executions is publicly communicated. The secrecy surrounding executions goes against paragraph 7 (c) of General Assembly resolution 71/187 on a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. 105. In a system where the President has the power to commute sentences, avoiding executions would be an easy step to undertake. The Special Rapporteur understands that an omnibus referendum, to take place in 2018, could address the issue of the abolition of the death penalty. Given that official discussions on the issue of the death penalty do not include the best-known NGO working on this issue and that no official awareness-raising campaigns are taking place in the country, the stated goodwill of the Government towards shaping public opinion in relation to abolition is clearly missing. 106. The Special Rapporteur regrets that the inter-agency plan does not include any action aimed at supporting the abolition of the death penalty or the adoption of a moratorium. H. Rule of law and the independence of judges and lawyers 107. The Special Rapporteur has noted no positive changes in the administration of justice in Belarus over the past three years. Despite repeated recommendations to separate the judiciary from the executive branch, the system for appointing and dismissing judges remains under the full control of the President, in accordance with decree No. 6 of 29 November 2013. The fact that the term for judges is time-bound for five years and that it 27 28 “Death penalty in Belarus: murder on (un)lawful grounds”, available from www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/belarus683angbassdef.pdf. See, for example, Human Rights Committee communication No. 886/1999, Schedko v. Belarus, Views adopted on 3 April 2003. 15