In June 2026, the situation regarding freedom of association and the status of civil society organizations (CSOs) in Belarus remained characterized by sustained systemic pressure on CSOs and their representatives.
The arbitrary application of anti-extremism legislation against organizations and civic initiatives persisted, as did administrative and criminal prosecution of civil society representatives. The process of voluntary dissolution of non-profit organizations (NGOs) also continued amid an increasingly restrictive legal environment. During the reporting period, legislative amendments were adopted that may further affect the establishment, operation, and dissolution of certain NGO organizational and legal forms.
As of the end of June 2026, the cumulative institutional losses in the civil society sector since the onset of the post-election crisis in 2020 have reached at least 2,044 NGOs. Of these, at least 1,244 NGOs have been forcibly liquidated or are undergoing forced liquidation proceedings, while at least 800 NGOs have decided to self-liquidate.
Liquidation of non-profit organizations
During the monitoring period, it became known that at least 8 non-profit organizations voluntarily dissolved: 3 public associations, 4 private institutions, and 1 association. The principal reasons for voluntary dissolution continue to be widespread repression, an increasingly restrictive legislative environment, and ongoing pressure on civil society, including on the leaders, members, and staff of individual organizations.
According to Lawtrend monitoring, from early 2021 through the end of June 2026, at least 800 NGOs (including public associations, associations, foundations, institutions, and one political party) have independently decided to dissolve themselves.
Administrative and criminal prosecution of the leadership and members of civil society organizations, as well as other forms of pressure on civil society organizations
In June 2026, the practice of exerting pressure on CSO representatives continued. Dozens of representatives of civil society and religious organizations remain detained in places of deprivation of liberty. At least 18 representatives of independent trade unions and the labor movement remain in custody.
The authorities further expanded the application of anti-extremism legislation, effectively criminalizing a broad range of civic activities. As of the end of June 2026, the List of Organizations, Formations, and Individual Entrepreneurs Involved in Extremist Activities included 373 entities. Among those designated as «extremist formations» was ABA Together (Association of Belarusians in America).
Following the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus’s designation of the European Humanities University as an «extremist organization» in April 2026, the reporting period saw a wave of searches, interrogations of the university’s graduates and other individuals associated with the institution, questioning of their relatives, and summonses for so-called «preventive conversations» across the country. Criminal proceedings have reportedly been initiated on charges of «facilitating extremist activities» and «financing extremist activities,» including in connection with the payment of tuition fees dating back to 2016.
The practice of designating CSO information resources as extremist materials continues. In June 2026, the Republican List of Extremist Materials was expanded to include the websites and social media pages of various organizations and initiatives. These included the Facebook accounts «Палiтвязнi Беларусi» (Eng. Political Prisoners of Belarus), «Альтэрнатыўная Моладзевая Платформа» (Eng. Alternative Youth Platform), «RAZAM e.V. — Belarusische Gemeinschaft» (Eng. RAZAM e.V. – Belarusian Community), and Legalize Belarus; the Instagram accounts dignityinstitute and Belarusian Runners Community; the TikTok page Christians Against War; and the YouTube channel «ІншыЯ» (Eng. the Others).
Legislation
- New Law on State Registration and Dissolution: Implications for the Non-Profit Sector and Freedom of Association
On June 1, 2026, Belarus adopted Law No. 150-Z On State Registration and Dissolution (Termination of Activities) of Business Entities, which will enter into force on July 1, 2027, and replace Presidential Decree No. 1 of January 16, 2009.
Although Law No. 150-Z does not apply to public associations, foundations, or religious organizations, it regulates the state registration and dissolution of private institutions, certain associations (except for certain categories), and several other NGOs.
The new Law largely preserves the existing system governing registration and dissolution. Still, it introduces several changes that may significantly affect the establishment, operation, and dissolution of private institutions and associations (unions), including the exercise of freedom of association.
- The Law No. 150-Z retains existing restrictions, including:
- Mandatory prior approval of an organization’s name. In practice, this stage serves as a screening mechanism for undesirable NGOs, as repeated refusals to approve a proposed name prevent applicants from proceeding to the subsequent stage of state registration.
- Requirements concerning the legal address. Unlike certain types of commercial legal entities, private institutions and associations are required to maintain their registered office in non-residential premises, resulting in additional organizational and financial burdens.
- Grounds for dissolution based on activities inconsistent with statutory objectives. The Law retains dissolution as a consequence of carrying out activities that do not correspond to the objectives set out in the organization’s charter. In practice, this provision has been interpreted broadly and has served as the legal basis for the compulsory dissolution of the majority of private institutions and associations during the mass liquidation campaign targeting NGOs since 2021.
B. The Law introduces additional restrictions regarding participation in the establishment of private institutions and associations. In particular, the owner of the property of a private institution or a member of an association may not serve as the owner (participant) or director of a legal entity if they previously held such a position in an organization that was dissolved for conducting activities inconsistent with its statutory objectives or pursuant to a court decision, provided that fewer than three years have elapsed since that entity was removed from the Unified State Register (the USR).
C. The Law expands the grounds for refusing state registration. The Law introduces an additional basis for refusing registration where the submitted documents do not comply with the requirements established by the Law.
D. The Law introduces a national security screening mechanism for the registration of private institutions and associations. During the registration process, the registration authority must obtain information from the state body responsible for preventing and identifying threats to national security. Information indicating that the owner of the property of a private institution or the members of an association pose a threat to national security constitutes an independent ground for refusing registration.
E. The Law expands administrative and digital oversight mechanisms. The Law introduces an additional obligation to notify the registration authority of changes to an organization’s email address. It also establishes a mechanism for suspending a legal entity’s activities.
F. The Law further expands grounds for dissolution. The Law adds activities deemed to pose a threat to national security as a ground for dissolution. It also introduces the possibility of dissolving non-profit organizations that have failed to carry out any activities for twenty-four consecutive months, mirroring a rule previously applicable to commercial entities.
An assessment of Law No. 150-Z through the lens of freedom of association requires consideration of the different legal nature of private institutions and associations (unions).
Associations (unions) fall directly within the scope of freedom of association, as they are associations of legal entities established to pursue common objectives and coordinate their activities. The right to establish such organizations forms part of the right to freedom of association guaranteed under Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Institutions, by contrast, are not associations in the formal legal sense. A single owner establishes them, they lack a membership structure, and therefore don’t constitute an association.
However, international human rights standards interpret freedom of association more broadly than merely the right to establish membership-based organizations.
According to the approaches of the UN Human Rights Committee and other international standards on freedom of association, the protection extends not only to traditional membership organizations but also to various legal forms through which individuals collectively pursue common objectives.
The OSCE/ODIHR–Venice Commission Guidelines on Freedom of Association emphasize that States should not restrict freedom of association by artificially limiting the legal forms available for organizations or by compelling them to operate only through particular organizational structures.
Under ordinary circumstances, this does not mean that every restriction affecting private institutions automatically interferes with freedom of association.
The Belarusian context, however, requires a different assessment.
For many years, registering public associations in Belarus has become extremely difficult due to restrictive registration practices.
Against this background, institutions have come to serve not only as mechanisms for managing activities but also as one of the few relatively accessible organizational forms through which NGOs can carry out collective expert, educational, research, charitable, and other public-interest activities.
In other words, although an institution is not legally an association, under the current Belarusian conditions, it performs a function that is, in part, equivalent to that of an association.
Accordingly, tighter restrictions on the establishment and operation of institutions have implications for freedom of association not directly, but indirectly, by limiting people’s ability to organize sustainable collective civic activities and to establish institutional structures through which such activities can be carried out.
In the context of the continuing contraction of opportunities to establish and operate independent organizations, the new Law may further reduce the legal avenues available for institutionalizing civic initiatives and thereby contribute to the further narrowing of the space for the exercise of freedom of association in Belarus.
- Regulation of the National Council on Gender Policy Updated: Participation of the Non-State Sector Limited to Pro-Government Organizations
On June 1, 2026, the Council of Ministers adopted Resolution No. 274 approving a new Regulation on the National Council on Gender Policy under the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus and determining its composition. The Council is a permanent coordinating body responsible for implementing the State’s gender policy and for promoting equal rights and opportunities for women and men.
The Council’s principal responsibilities include:
- coordinating the implementation of the State’s gender policy;
- preparing proposals to improve legislation and public policy in the field of gender equality;
- ensuring that gender considerations are incorporated into draft legislation and state programs;
- developing measures to support families;
- addressing domestic violence and trafficking in persons; and
- developing information policy in these areas.
The Council is composed predominantly of representatives of state authorities. The non-state sector is represented exclusively by two pro-government organizations: the Chairperson of the Belarusian Women’s Union, who also serves as Deputy Chairperson of the National Council, and the Deputy Chairperson of the Federation of Trade Unions of Belarus.
- Administrative Liability for “Promotion” of LGBTQ+ Relations, Childfree Lifestyle, Pedophilia, and Gender Transition Comes into Force
In June 2026, Article 19.16 of the Code of the Republic of Belarus on Administrative Offenses entered into force. The provision establishes liability for the so-called “promotion” of homosexual relations, gender transition, childlessness (the childfree lifestyle), and pedophilia.
The new provision introduces administrative liability for individuals, individual entrepreneurs, and legal entities. When relevant information is disseminated to minors, sanctions increase significantly and may include administrative detention or community service for individuals, as well as higher fines.
The use of the undefined term “promotion” creates broad opportunities for arbitrary application of the provision. As a result, its scope may potentially extend to informational, educational, research, and human rights materials addressing LGBTQ+ rights, gender equality, discrimination, sexual education, and other related topics. This creates additional risks for individual activists working in these areas, as well as for civil society organizations and media outlets. For the latter two categories, the fine may reach 200 basic units.