Photo via newlife.by

The Court in Belarus refused to investigate 50 000 citizens appeal

On March 1, 2008 the Constitutional Court’ reply in regard to 50 000 citizens appeal on introduction of modification in religious legislation was received at the New Life church address (Minsk, Kovaleva st., 72), reports New Life Church press centre.

Its been mentioned that for the Constitution conformance evaluation of certain law it is necessary to appeal to the Constitutional Court on the part of state authorities: the President, Council of Ministers, etc. Hereafter the court explains that citizens have no such opportunity, but they can appeal to the above authorities asking «to take their privileges and submit a proposal to the Constitutional Court on behalf of citizens’ appeal».

As the coordinator of the Campaign «Protecting the rights of freedom of conscience» Sergei Lukanin mentioned, the appeal to the Constitutional Court did not have a mean to evaluate the Law «On freedom of conscience and religious organizations» in regard to its compliance to the Constitution. At the same time its been noted in the appeal that in regard to the Article 22 of the Law Code of the Republic of Belarus the Constitutional Court of Belarus is entitled to bring to the President, to the chamber of National assembly, to the Council of Ministers and other state authorities a proposal for modifications introduction in certain legislative acts and (or) new legal acts addendums.

Its important to note that in accordance to the Article 99 of Belarusian Constitution citizens have a possibility to take the privilege of law initiatives upon collecting 50 0000 signatures. Nothing is mentioned in the Constitution in regard to any additional procedures citizens must accomplish to take this privilege. Belarusian legislation does not prohibit the Constitutional Court by its own initiative to evaluate certain laws in accordance to the Constitution.

As Sergei Lukanin underlined, having the lawful ability to find a compromise with citizens and for the first time in the country history create a precedent of rule-making dialog between competent state authorities and society, the Constitutional Court simply ignored this initiative.

New iPad POLL! VOTE NOW! Will you buy new iPad?

[03/06/2008]

Print Version