English 

Freedom of Association in the Republic of Belarus: access to funding

kakawajazz

International Frameworks and Commitments

  1. The Republic of Belarus has acceded to a number of international instruments guaranteeing freedom of association. Specifically, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 22) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 8).
  2. In Communication No. 1274/2004, the Human Rights Committee noted that «the right to freedom of association is not only related to the right to form associations but also guarantees the right of such an association to freely carry out its statutory activities. The protection provided by Article 22 extends to any activity of the association […]» [1]. Thus, fundraising activities are protected under Article 22 of the ICCPR, and funding restrictions that hinder associations’ ability to carry out their statutory activities constitute violations of Article 22. In Resolution 22/6, the Human Rights Council urged states to ensure that reporting requirements «do not hinder the functional independence [of associations]» and that «discriminatory application of restrictions on potential sources of funding» is not permitted [2].
  3. During the third cycle of the UPR for Belarus, several recommendations were addressed to the Belarusian government concerning freedom of association and the legal conditions for civil society organizations (138.141, 138.142, 138.144, 138.145, 138.146, 138.147, 138.149, 138.150, 138.152, 138.162, 138.163, 138.174, 138.181, 138.183). These recommendations were not implemented.

General Provisions

  1. Civil society organizations (hereinafter referred to as CSOs) are significantly restricted in their ability to seek, receive, and utilize resources to achieve their goals, both at the legislative level and in law enforcement practices.
  2. Restrictions apply to foreign funding and donations from Belarusian corporate donors (monetary or in-kind), while private donations from individual Belarusian residents are less restricted.
  3. Public associations are prohibited from independently engaging in entrepreneurial activities. They are also forbidden from holding bank accounts and storing funds abroad.
  4. Access to resources for CSOs has been severely restricted as a result of the mass liquidation campaign against non-profit organizations (hereinafter referred to as NPOs) from 2021 to 2024. This includes criminal liability for leadership and participation in the activities of unregistered organizations (Article 193-1 of the Criminal Code). A similar article was previously removed from the Criminal Code in July 2019, partly as a result of recommendations made under the UPR procedure. It was reinstated in the Criminal Code by Law No. 144-Z “On Amending Codes” on January 4, 2022.
  5. A striking example of significant restrictions on access to funding is the case of the Human Rights Center “Viasna”. The Leaders of Viasna Ales Bialiatski, Valiantsin Stefanovich; lawyer Uladzimir Labkovich; and human rights defender Dzmitry Salauyou were sentenced to lengthy prison terms ranging from 7 to 10 years. The sentence was based on alleged violations of Part 4 of Article 228 of the Criminal Code. The authorities qualified the receipt of legitimate amounts of funds from foreign states intended for the organization’s activities as “smuggling” (illegal movement of large amounts of cash across the customs border of the Eurasian Economic Union by an organized group). The human rights defenders were also fined heavily, with a ruling to recover a total of 752.438,62 Belarusian rubles (nearly $300,000) which they allegedly “acquired by criminal means” through “smuggling by an organized criminal group.”
  6. In 2021, a wave of mass searches swept across the country, targeting the offices and residences of leaders and members of CSOs. Large amounts of financial documentation, technical equipment, and other materials were confiscated. Bank accounts of many CSOs were frozen, and offices were sealed. As of the end of March 2025, many organizations have not had their equipment or documentation returned, and their bank accounts remain blocked.
  7. During 2023-2024, mass summonses for “conversations” at the State Security Committee (the KGB) became a common practice in connection with donations made to solidarity funds assisting victims of repression and other structures. Donors are often encouraged to formally admit guilt for a criminal offence and to pay an informal, extralegal “compensation” amounting to tenfold, sometimes fiftyfold or more. These payments are generally directed to special accounts benefiting state social infrastructure entities such as hospitals or orphanages.
  8. Punishment for donating to solidarity funds is inconsistent: criminal cases are initiated against donors, and even forced payments to special accounts designated by law enforcement agencies do not always exempt them from criminal liability. For example, a political prisoner Aliaksandr Ziyazetdzinau was sentenced in the autumn of 2022 to three years in a penal colony under Part 1 of Article 361-2 (financing extremist activity) for transferring cryptocurrency to the BYPOL organization [3]. In mid-October 2023, he appeared in a propaganda film stating that he had compensated for damages related to a newly discovered episode. In February 2024, the Minsk City Court sentenced him to 9 years of imprisonment for the newly discovered episode of transferring funds under Part 1 of Article 361-2 (financing extremist activity) and Part 2 of Article 290-1 (financing terrorist activity).
  9. In early 2021, a criminal case of fraud was initiated against the leadership of the Office for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The Office operated as part of a joint initiative with the UN in Belarus to assist people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups.

Recommendations:

Abolish the ban on the activities of public associations without registration, set such provisions out in the Law ‘On Public Associations’, cancel criminal responsibility for organising and participating in the activities of an unregistered organization (Article 193-1 of the Criminal Code) and review the sentences imposed under this article.

Stop the campaign aimed at liquidating NPOs and restore the rights of liquidated organizations by annulling all court decisions and decisions by local authorities on liquidation made during the period 2020–2025.

Cease the persecution of CSO representatives based on their association membership, including activities related to providing funding on behalf of or for the benefit of CSOs and their target groups. Hold accountable those responsible for interfering in the activities of CSOs.

Access to Foreign Funding

  1. The legislation imposes a complex and burdensome procedure for receiving, registering, and using foreign gratuitous aid, including detailed plans for distributing such aid.
  2. Foreign gratuitous funds may only be received for a very narrow list of purposes explicitly listed in Presidential Decree No. 3 of May 25, 2020, “On Foreign Gratuitous Aid”.
  3. All foreign aid, regardless of amount, must be registered with a special body – the Department for Humanitarian Activities under the Presidential Administration. Registration can be denied for any reason, including a vague justification of “inexpediency of registration.”
  4. Decisions on exempting received aid from taxes are made on a case-by-case basis for each received amount, based on the opinion of the state body operating in the area where the aid will be used.
  5. The system of foreign funding to the country prioritizes state bodies, creating unhindered conditions for them and introducing additional permissible purposes for receiving such aid. The possible purposes for other recipients are continuously reduced at both the legislative and practical levels.
  6. Decree No. 7 introduced amendments to Decree No. 3 of May 25, 2020, “On Foreign Gratuitous Aid” [4]. Any anonymous donation received by a NPO is considered foreign aid that must be registered with the Department for Humanitarian Activities. NPOs have been effectively placed in the position of regulatory bodies, forced to verify information about all individuals who have provided them with support, which is technically impossible in practice [5].
  7. Legislation establishes administrative (Articles 24.14 and 24.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses) and criminal (Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code) liability for violating foreign gratuitous aid legislation.
  8. Stigmatization and criticism of CSOs receiving foreign funding remain widespread. State media and propaganda resources continuously publish and broadcast materials discrediting CSOs that receive foreign support, as well as donors.

Recommendations:

Abolish the restrictive list of purposes for which CSOs can receive foreign gratuitous aid.

The transition from a permissive registration system for foreign aid to a notification-based system, establishing a reasonable threshold for foreign donations below which registration is not required. Eliminate the requirement to register anonymous donations.

Repeal Article 369-2 of the Criminal Code, which provides for liability for violating the procedure for using foreign aid.

Cease the practice of criminal and other forms of persecution, discreditation, and stigmatization of CSOs and individuals for receiving foreign funding, fundraising for legal assistance, and other types of lawful civic activity or charitable work.

Access to Domestic Funding

  1. The receipt and use of gratuitous aid from domestic corporate donors are regulated by Presidential Decree No. 300 of July 1, 2005, “On Gratuitous (Sponsorship) Aid” [6]. This decree defines the purposes for which gratuitous (sponsorship) aid can be used.
  2. On March 27, 2024, a decree [7] was adopted, significantly expanding the purposes for which NPOs can receive and use financial resources from Belarusian entities. The decree does not abolish restrictive norms on the access of NPOs to domestic funding, such as the purposes of using gratuitous aid in general [8].

While the expansion of purposes for receiving and using gratuitous aid domestically can be certainly noted as a positive step towards amending Belarusian legislation – an issue that CSOs have been highlighting for a long time – the suppression of civic activity, mass liquidation of CSOs, pressure on businesses, and the overall repressive atmosphere make it difficult to view these unsystematic changes as genuinely positive or impactful in improving the exercise of freedom of association.

Recommendations:

Cancel the presidential decree of July 1, 2005 No. 300 “On gratuitous (sponsorship) aid.”

State Support

  1. State support for CSOs is underdeveloped and primarily aimed at specific pro-government organizations.
  2. According to the budgeting legislation [9], public associations may receive funds from the republican budget by presidential decision. The law provides funding to two pro-government organizations: the Belarusian Writers’ Union and the Belarusian Republican Youth Union (BRSM), with the latter receiving nearly 4 million euros in annual direct budget financing.
  3. The National Register of Youth and Children’s organizations receiving state support includes 18 public associations. In practice, only a few of them (mainly BRSM) benefit from state support. Two of these organizations were forcibly liquidated in the summer of 2024 [10].
  4. In 2022–2023, several laws were adopted in Belarus to provide support to NPOs, including those with unregistered status. They allow civic initiatives, including unregistered ones, to receive funding from local budgets based on competitions.

While the adoption of such legislation can be seen as a progressive step, the context of mass repression, lack of free access to information, liquidation of NPOs, persecution for activism, criminal liability for organizing or participating in unregistered organizations, and state control of the non-profit sector turns this legislation into a basis for abuse and discrimination against some initiatives in favour of others.

  1. Since late 2021, the list of organizations eligible for rental benefits has been significantly reduced [11], with only 22 Belarusian NPOs currently benefiting from such privileges. At the time of the list’s approval in 2010, around 500 NPOs were eligible for rental benefits, and before the introduction of this list, all public associations had such rights.
  2. Legislation does not incentivize the support of CSOs by domestic businesses, granting benefits only for financing the selected organizations. Article 181 of the Tax Code [12] stipulates those profits transferred to 16 specifically named NPOs and religious organizations are exempt from profit tax (up to 10% of gross profit).

Recommendations:

Stop the practice of providing targeted benefits and direct funding to specific CSOs by explicitly naming them in budgetary and tax legislation. Ensure rental benefits are extended to all CSOs and establish a competitive state funding mechanism accessible to all CSOs, including unregistered ones.

Abuse of Legislation on Combating Extremism, Terrorism, and Money Laundering

  1. Among the measures that the Belarusian state should take to prevent the financing of terrorist activity is the prohibition of financial transactions involving organizations and individuals involved in terrorist activity [13]. To determine the circle of such persons and communicate it to financial transaction entities, a List of organizations and individuals involved in terrorist activities is maintained.

Until the end of 2020, this list only included foreign nationals, who were added based on the Sanctions List of the UN Security Council Committee, approved by relevant resolutions. At the end of 2020, Belarusian citizens were included in the list for the first time, and their number has been steadily increasing since then. It is obvious that the inclusion of citizens in the list is primarily aimed at depriving individuals in places of detention of the right to receive money transfers and serves to further stigmatize those who are opponents of the current government.

  1. In line with the anti-terrorism legislation, a requirement was introduced for public associations to publish reports on their activities, the receipt, and expenditure of funds starting in 2021 [14]. Since 2022, public associations and foundations, in their public information about their activities, must list all events they have held over the year, specifying the purposes and content of these events, as well as their participants, including bloggers, journalists, and social media community moderators [15].

Public reporting applies to all public associations and foundations, regardless of the number of members, the nature of their activities, or the volume of attracted funding. They are required to publish an excessive amount of information that is in no way related to aspects of combating terrorism financing and which duplicates other existing reporting forms to justice and tax authorities.

  1. The presence of such public reporting requirements is unreasonable within the country’s legislation, which severely restricts access for a wide range of CSOs to funding and virtually provides them with no benefits or preferences. In the prevailing socio-political crisis, public reporting has predictably become an additional instrument of pressure on CSOs. Violations of reporting requirements, including such insignificant violations as slight delays in submitting reports or breaches of the order for publishing these reports, have become one of the main formal reasons for decisions to forcibly liquidate public associations. Liquidation on such grounds is a vivid example of the abuse of international AML/CTF standards when the state uses these standards and mechanisms for its purposes [16].
  2. In mid-June 2020, access to the two largest crowdfunding platforms, MolaMola and Ulej, was blocked. According to the explanation provided by the Financial Monitoring Department of the State Control Committee, the platforms’ activities were «…suspended under Article 11 of Law No. 165-Z.”
  3. Legislation on combating extremism is widely used to suppress civic activity, with the authorities justifying the application of anti-extremism legislation by citing issues of national security and international standards.
  4. In November 2020, a mass blocking of accounts [17] of recipients of assistance from the BY_help fund began. Subsequently, in the spring of 2021, the Investigative Committee office for Minsk [18] initiated a criminal case against Andrei Stryzhak and Aliaksei Lyavonchyk, co-founders of the BY_help and BYSOL initiatives, which provide assistance to victims of the regime.
  5. As evidence of alleged financing of extremist activities, Belarusian banks’ data on transfers, as well as the results of communication device inspections, are used. Any donations made via Facebook during the summer and autumn of 2020 are interpreted as being directed to extremist formations, since during that period, human rights initiatives and mutual aid groups supporting victims of repression collected significant amounts of transfers through this social network. A striking example of punishing citizens for allegedly financing extremist activities is the criminal case against participants of the live broadcast “Solidarity Marathon with Political Prisoners ‘We Care’” [19].
  6. In 2023-2024, the authorities began actively persecuting those who support political prisoners, including financially, publicly labeling them as sponsors of extremism [20]. In January 2024, through searches, interrogations, and detentions related to aid from the INeedHelp initiative (which provides food assistance to political prisoners, including former prisoners and their families), more than 300 people were affected. Search warrants cited criminal articles for “financing extremist activities” (Article 361-2 of the Criminal Code) and “facilitating extremist activities” (Article 361-4 of the Criminal Code). At least 150 relatives and close associates of political prisoners faced prosecution under Part 2 of Article 24.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses for “using foreign gratuitous assistance for engaging in terrorist and other extremist activities or other actions prohibited by law” [21].

Recommendations:

Repeal the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On Combating Extremism” and all subordinate acts adopted in its development, including criminal and administrative liability for financing extremism (Article 361-2 of the Criminal Code, Article 24.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses), as well as the list of extremist formations.

Align anti-terrorism and anti-money laundering legislation, including reporting requirements for NPOs, with international standards and recommendations.

Restore the system of crowdfunding platforms operating without external interference from banks or law enforcement agencies, and ensure their availability for collecting funds by CSOs and informal groups for civic activities or charitable purposes.

References:

[1] Human Rights Committee, Communication No. 1274/2004, Korneenko et al. v. Belarus, Views adopted on 31 October 2006, para. 7.2.

[2] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session23/A-HRC-23-39_ru.pdf

[3] Human Rights Center «Viasna» https://spring96.org/ru/news/117432

[4] Department for Humanitarian Activities of the Office of the President of the Republic of Belarus. https://dha.gov.by/zakonodatelstvo/

[5] Human rights organization Lawtrend https://www.lawtrend.org/freedom-of-association/izmenenie-zakonodatelstva-ob-inostrannoj-bezvozmezdnoj-pomoshhi

[6] National Legal Internet Portal https://pravo.by/document/?guid=3961&p0=P30500300

[7] Presidential Decree of the Republic of Belarus No. 112 of March 27, 2024, «On Amending Presidential Decrees of the Republic of Belarus»

[8] Human rights organization Lawtrend https://www.lawtrend.org/freedom-of-association/novosti-zakonodatelstva/bezvozmezdnaya-sponsorskaya-pomoshh-osnovnye-izmeneniya-zakonodatelstva

[9] The Law of the Republic of Belarus “On the Republican Budget for 2024” (and similar laws in previous years). National Legal Internet Portal https://pravo.by/document/?guid=12551&p0=H12300328

[10] Ministry of Education of the Republic of Belarus https://edu.gov.by/molodezhnaya-politika/obedineniya/reestr/

[11] Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 205-Z of October 5, 2022, “On Amending the Law of the Republic of Belarus ‘On the Fundamentals of State Youth Policy’. http://world_of_law.pravo.by/text.asp?RN=H10900065

Law of the Republic of Belarus No. 281-Z of July 12, 2023 “On Amending the Laws on Local Government and Self-Governance”. The National Legal Internet Portal https://pravo.by/document/?guid=12551&p0=H12300281

[12] Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus No. 761 of December 27, 2021, «On Amending the Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus No. 327 of April 30, 2013»; Resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus No. 787 of November 17, 2023, «On Measures to Implement Presidential Decree No. 138 of May 16, 2023»

[13] Law of the Republic of Belarus of June 30, 2014, No. 165-Z “On Measures to Prevent Legalization of Illegally Acquired Proceeds, Financing of Terrorist Activities, and Financing of the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction”. National Legal Internet Portal. https://pravo.by/document/?guid=12551&p0=H11400165&p1=1

[14] National Legal Internet Portal https://pravo.by/document/?guid=3871&p0=hk0200166

[15] Resolution of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus No. 209 of December 7, 2021, «On Amending the Resolution of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus No. 153-1 of October 30, 2020»

[16] CSO Meter. Belarus 2021. Country Report. CSO Meter Belarus Country Report ENG 0-2_0.pdf

[17] https://reform.by/178997-nachalis-blokirovki-schetov-belarusov-poluchivshih-pomoshh-ot-by-help

[18] Minsk-News. https://minsknews-by.turbopages.org/minsknews.by/s/sk-vozbudil-ugolovnoe-delo-na-soosnovatelej-by_help-i-bysol-ih-obyavili-v-mezhgosudarstvennyj-rozysk/

[19] Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus https://www.mvd.gov.by/pda/ru/news/11600

[20] Telegram channel of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus: https://t.me/skgovby/10877

[21] Human Rights Center «Viasna» https://spring96.org/ru/news/117167

UPR 2025Download