In August 2026, the situation regarding freedom of association in Belarus continued to be characterized by systematic restrictions on the activities of civil society organizations (CSOs) and pressure on their representatives.
The forced and voluntary liquidation of non-profit organizations (NGOs) continued, as did criminal and administrative prosecution of civil society representatives, the designation of information resources as “extremist materials,” and various forms of pressure on Belarusian activists residing outside the country.
At the same time, restrictive legislation is being applied to forms of collective activity not directly related to political activities. In Hrodna, legislation governing public events began to be applied to intellectual and recreational games (quizzes), which had previously been held without obtaining the relevant authorization.
A significant legislative development was the entry into force of the new Regulation on the Procedure for Public Discussion of Draft Regulatory Legal Acts. The new framework preserves the existing discretionary model for conducting public discussions and does not provide for greater transparency regarding their outcomes.
As of the end of August 2026, the cumulative institutional losses suffered by the civil society sector since the beginning of the post-election crisis in 2020 amounted to at least 2,072 non-profit organizations. According to Lawtrend’s monitoring, since 2021, at least 1,264 NGOs have been forcibly liquidated or are undergoing forced liquidation, while at least another 808 NGOs have decided to liquidate voluntarily. The forced liquidation of religious organizations that failed to undergo mandatory re-registration by July 5, 2025, is also continuing.
1. Liquidation of non-profit organizations.
During the monitoring period, decisions on the forced liquidation of at least 14 NGOs were identified: 12 public associations, one foundation, and one association. The Minsk City, Minsk Regional, and Vitsebsk Regional Courts issued the liquidation decisions. One of the liquidated public associations was registered in 2023.
None of the forcibly liquidated public associations or the foundation had submitted the mandatory public report for the previous year. At the same time, two public associations in the Vitsebsk Region against which liquidation decisions were issued had submitted such reports for 2023 and 2024. This may indicate that some forced liquidation decisions were taken against organizations that were in fact inactive. At the same time, the absence of public reporting in itself does not make it possible to establish the reasons for the termination of an organization’s activities, while the forced liquidation mechanism remains a tool that registering authorities may use against NGOs whose activities the state considers undesirable.
The forced liquidation of religious organizations due to their failure to undergo re-registration continues. On August 26, the Vitsebsk Regional Court ruled to liquidate the Religious Association of the Evangelical Lutheran Church. The Commissioner for Religious and Ethnic Affairs filed the application for liquidation because the organization failed to undergo re-registration. From late May through July 2026, the Mahiliou Regional Court liquidated[1] at least 20 religious communities in the Mahiliou Region[2].
At least four NGOs decided to liquidate voluntarily. Voluntary liquidation remains involuntary and is driven by the scale of repression, an unfavorable legal environment, risks to the organizations’ leaders, employees, and members, and the practical impossibility of continuing activities in accordance with their statutory objectives.
2. Administrative and criminal prosecution of the leadership and members of civil society organizations, as well as other forms of pressure on civil society organizations.
Criminal and administrative pressure on CSO representatives, including religious organizations, continues. Dozens of civil society representatives remain in places of detention. At least 20 representatives of independent trade unions and the labor movement remain in custody.
The practice of designating information resources of CSOs, as well as personal information resources of CSO representatives, as “extremist materials” continued. In August, the List of Organizations, Formations, and Individual Entrepreneurs Involved in Extremist Activities included, among others, the following resources:
- Telegram channel “Смяротнае пакаранне ў Беларусі” (Smiarotnae pakaranne u Belarusi; Eng. “Death Penalty in Belarus”),
- the websites and resources “belarusgreen.vision,”
- Pavel Seviarynets’ book “Пакаленьне Маладога Фронту. Гісторыя моладзі, народжанай у 1970–1985 гг.” (Pakalennie Maladoha Frontu. Historyja moladzi, narodzanaj u 1970–1985 hh.; Eng. “The Generation of the Young Front. The History of the Youth Born in 1970–1985”),
- the “ВОЛЬНЫ ХОР | VOLNY CHOR” (Eng. “Free Choir”) Instagram account,
- Telegram bots operated by the Dissidentby initiative,
- diaspora organizations’ Telegram bots: “Бот дыяспары ў Кракаве” (Bot dyjaspary u Krakavie; Eng. “Krakow Diaspora Bot”) and “Беларусы Замежжа – бот” (Belarusy Zamiezhzha – bot; Eng. “Belarusians Abroad – Bot”).
The persecution of Belarusian citizens who were forced to leave Belarus continues. Alongside such forms of transnational repression as inclusion in Interpol and other wanted-person databases, the inability to renew passports and their annulment, special (in absentia) proceedings, and pressure on relatives remaining in Belarus, Belarusian security services are actively attempting to recruit Belarusians abroad and induce them to establish contact. On the eve of the “New Belarus” Conference, held on August 7–9 in Warsaw, Belarusian security forces intensified attempts to collect information: they contacted activists from unknown accounts. They asked about their plans to participate in the conference.
The Investigative Committee initiated special proceedings against the founders of the Dissidentby initiative, Viachaslau Kasinerau and Maryna Kasinerava. They are accused of creating or participating in an extremist formation (Part 1, Article 361-1 of the Criminal Code), incitement of social hostility (Part 3, Article 130), discrediting Belarus (Article 369-1), insulting Aliaksandr Lukashenka (Part 1, Article 368), as well as facilitating “extremist activities” (Part 2, Article 361-4). Maryna Kasinerava is additionally charged under Part 2, Article 361-1. In addition, Part 4, Article 16 is cited in relation to several of the charges, indicating that the relevant actions are legally classified under the provisions concerning complicity.
The Hrodna City Executive Committee began requiring organizers of intellectual and recreational games (quizzes) to obtain authorization to hold them under the procedure established by the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On Mass Events.” A representative of the City Executive Committee confirmed that an application must be submitted no later than 15 days before the game, in accordance with Article 5 of the Law. At the same time, no separate regulatory legal act establishing new requirements specifically for quizzes had been adopted or, at least, published. When asked about the reasons for the change in the previously established practice, a representative of the City Executive Committee referred to the official nature of this information[3].
The application of the authorization procedure resulted in the cancellation or suspension of several games planned in Hrodna. In practice, the broad concept of an “other mass event” provided for by legislation on mass events was extended to regularly held intellectual and recreational events that had previously taken place without such authorization. In certain cases, depending on the format of the event, including the participation of performers, organizers may also be subject to additional requirements under legislation governing cultural and entertainment events.
The change in law enforcement practice, particularly without an official public explanation of its grounds, reduces the predictability of the legal framework and limits access to information about the requirements the state imposes on individuals and organizations, including event organizers. The broad application of the authorization procedure creates additional administrative barriers to citizens’ self-organization and collective activities and has a chilling effect on holding collective events.
3. Legislation
Since August 6, the new Regulation on the Procedure for Public Discussion of Draft Regulatory Legal Acts, approved by Resolution No. 393 of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus dated August 3, 2026, has been in force.
The categories of draft acts that are generally subject to public discussion are established in Article 7 of the Law “On Regulatory Legal Acts.” These primarily include draft legislative acts and resolutions of the Council of Ministers that affect the rights, freedoms, and duties of individuals and legal entities and establish new approaches to legal regulation or fundamentally alter existing ones, as well as drafts that may significantly affect the conditions for conducting business activities. The adoption of the new Regulation has not changed the discretionary model of public discussion: a draft may be submitted for public discussion at the decision of the relevant authority. At the same time, the wording “are generally subject to public discussion” does not create an unconditional obligation to discuss every draft, even where it substantially affects the rights of individuals or legal entities.
The new Regulation does not strengthen regulatory guarantees for CSO participation in decision-making. NGOs and their representatives may still participate in public and professional discussions; the organizer must consider the comments and proposals received, while the drafter must provide a reasoned justification for its position on each comment not taken into account. However, this obligation effectively remains internal: the legislation does not require sending such justification to the author of the proposal or publishing it. A second public discussion of a draft following substantial revisions is also not mandatory. As a result, organizations may present their positions but do not receive procedural guarantees enabling them to track how those positions are subsequently considered or what impact they have on the final version of a regulatory legal act.
A significant gap also remains between access to information about the conduct of a public discussion and the transparency of its results. Information about the launch of a discussion must be posted on the National Legal Internet Portal, the official websites of state bodies, and other resources designated by the organizer. After the discussion ends, the organizer must publish a summary of the results, including the timeframe, number of participants, and number of comments and proposals received, and, where necessary, information on the most relevant issues that attracted public attention.
There is no obligation to publish information on whether each proposal was taken into account or the reasons for its rejection. Moreover, the new Regulation no longer contains the provision allowing the results to be presented as a consolidated table of comments and proposals. The retention of users’ IP addresses on the Legal Forum remains an additional deterrent to participation by independent NGOs.
Thus, the new regulatory framework preserves formal channels for CSO participation in the law-making process but does not strengthen guarantees for their meaningful participation in decision-making, improve the transparency of public discussion outcomes, or expand access to information on how state bodies take the positions submitted into account.
[1] The information is available in Russian
[2] The number of religious organizations forcibly liquidated as a result of the re-registration process is not included in the overall statistics on the number of forcibly liquidated NGOs. These statistics cover only non-governmental institutions, foundations, associations, public associations, political parties, and trade unions. One religious organization that was forcibly liquidated before the re-registration of religious organizations was announced is also included.