Territorial scope of European Convention on Human Rights Wikipedia article does not include Belarus.

Human rights issues are confirmed by multiple articles such as this one:

The government continued to refuse to accept the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on human rights in Belarus. Several individuals seeking international protection were returned to countries where they were at risk of torture and other ill-treatment. Heavy legislative restrictions on media, NGOs, political parties and public assemblies remained in place. One person was executed and four were sentenced to death.

Coming back to European Convention on Human Rights country list, I see that many, if not almost all Post-Soviet states (e.g. Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Russia) have ratified several or all the protocols (some exceptions may occur) from the Convention.

So, being a Post-Soviet state does not seem to be an important factor when ratifying ECHR protocols.

Question: Why does Belarus not seem to have ratified any protocol from European Convention on Human Rights?

  • 4
    Why would you ratify a treaty if you don’t intend to follow it? – chirlu May 18 '18 at 11:08
  • @chirlu - good point, but it is strange anyway. I do not know for sure, but I think that all other European countries (including Russia) have at least partially ratified ECHR. Some of these countries have had human-rights related issues and yet have signed at least one protocol from ECHR. – Alexei May 18 '18 at 11:15
  • 4
    This is really not a real question. Can someone expect a dictator to allow its citizens to enjoy human rights? Also: independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/… – user17569 May 18 '18 at 21:06
  • @yahoo.com your comment seems like an attempt at an answer. – grovkin May 19 '18 at 1:15
  • 1
    Worth noting that (unlike the other countries listed), Belarus is not a member of the Council of Europe. Which (non-membership, and non-ratification of the ECHR) is cause, and which is effect, I do not know. – owjburnham May 20 '18 at 12:06

Because so called conventions on human rights are just a scam to weaken, subjugate and possibly even destroy smaller countries. Let's us examine what each of this rights actually mean :

  • "Freedom of press" - Allowing global capital with almost unlimited resources to come in a country, create their own media and spread their own version of truth. We are all aware how global media like CNN for example uses their influence to spread their agenda. They were caught lying multiple times, even US president calls them fake news. How could small country like Belarus combat those lies if they came in, create their own affiliates and use their own enormous financial resources for propaganda ?

  • "NGOs" - Similar case to media, so called non-governmental organizations in reality have backing of globalist elite. Belarus is not only country that want their shady dealings curbed - recently Hungary (EU member) banned some of them .

  • "Death penalty" - Europe and especially EU has very lenient outlook on criminals, with slap on wrist penalties which naturally encourage repeated offenders. Belarus wants to keep its option open on this matter.

  • "Prevention of torture" - Europe tends to turn blind eye on torture in for example Guantanamo Bay, so there would be no public outcry if someone is extradited to US, or countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel. But to cooperate with let's say Iran or Syria in similar matter would cause the ire of EU bureaucrats.

Edit : Added official statement of Belarus foreign minister on human rights.

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    "EU bureaucrats" have nothing to do with enforcement of the ECHR, which is instead associated with the Council of Europe. – owjburnham May 20 '18 at 12:05

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .