VZCZCXYZ0027
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHSK #1343/01 3051321
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 011321Z NOV 05
FM AMEMBASSY MINSK
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 3273
INFO RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 0731
RHMFISS/HQ USEUCOM VAIHINGEN GE
RUFOADA/JAC MOLESWORTH RAF MOLESWORTH UK

C O N F I D E N T I A L MINSK 001343 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 11/01/2015 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV BO
SUBJECT: Election Observers Arrested, Convicted 
 
 
Classified by Ambassador George Krol for Reasons 1.4 (B,D) 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary:  Minsk police on October 29 raided a 
conference held by Belarus' largest election observation 
group Partnership and detained 60 participants.  Most were 
released after documentation checks but four senior members 
were charged and convicted of organizing an illegal 
gathering.  The director, deputy director, and a staff 
lawyer received 15 days in jail and another staff lawyer 
was fined.  Poloff was present at the deputy director's 
hearing, which did not provide any material evidence 
proving the deputy director was the organizer of the 
conference or that the conference itself was illegal.  The 
witnesses testifying against the deputy director gave poor 
testimony and contradictory statements, but apparently it 
was enough for a conviction.  End Summary. 
 
¶2. (C) On October 29, Minsk police interrupted a conference 
held by the NGO Partnership at the Central movie theater in 
Minsk and detained all 60 participants.  Partnership, an 
independent civil initiative group funded by the National 
Democratic Institute (NDI) focuses on election monitoring 
and exit polling in Belarus.  The conference titled the 
Association of Independent Election Observers was 
Partnerships first national conference in two years and 
convened to choose new board members.  Forty minutes into 
the conference, police entered the room, declared it an 
illegal gathering, and hauled all the participants to the 
Moskovsky police station for document verification and 
questioning.  However, the group continued their meeting 
during their six-hour detainment and successfully elected a 
new board of directors.  Most participants were released by 
18:00. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Director of Partnership Nikolai Astreiko, his 
deputy Enira Bronitskaya, and two staff lawyers Aleksandr 
Bondarev and Svetlana Konnova were charged for organizing 
an unsanctioned rally and all but Konnova were held in jail 
until their October 31 court appearance.  Poloff attended 
the hearing against Bronitskaya, who pleaded 'not guilty' 
of organizing the conference and told the judge that the 
conference was not an illegal gathering and did not require 
permission from the regional executive committee.  Judge 
Gusakova asked Bronitskaya who planned the conference, how 
she knew of it, why she attended, who participated, etc., 
to which Bronitskaya pleaded ignorance or a bad memory. 
 
¶4. (SBU) Human rights lawyer Vera Stremkovskaya represented 
Bronitskaya and protested Bronitskaya's harsh detainment, 
particularly the authorities' disregard for her ulcers and 
failure to provide Bronitskaya with the proper diet and 
medical care.  Before the trial began on October 31, the 
authorities called an ambulance to take Bronitskaya to a 
hospital where a doctor declared her healthy enough to 
remain in jail.  Stremkovskaya argued that the doctor had 
not visited the jail nor knew of its conditions and 
therefore was not qualified to make such a conclusion. 
[Note: It was evident from Bronitskaya's appearance in the 
courtroom that she had spent the last 48 hours in jail. 
She was filthy from head to toe and looked like she had not 
slept that entire time.] 
 
¶5. (SBU) A young OMON (riot police) officer testified that 
he and his OMON unit observed the conference at the Central 
movie theater for 15 minutes before raiding the meeting. 
However, he was unable to give a reason why they arrested 
Bronitskaya as an organizer.  The police colonel in charge 
of the raid testified that he arrested Bronitskaya because 
she was sitting at the head of the table with copies of the 
conference's agenda and mission statement Q documents that 
proved she was an organizer.  During Stremkovskaya's 
questioning, the colonel admitted that Bronitskaya's 
signature was not on any of the documents and that every 
participant had a copy of the conference's agenda with 
them.  The colonel then told the judge that he decided the 
conference was an illegal mass gathering because he saw a 
banner that said 'Partnership' in the room [Comment: The 
judge at times chuckled at the colonel's reasoning and the 
colonel's arrogant behavior, which was the highlight of the 
proceedings.] 
 
¶6. (SBU) Astreiko was the next to testify and admitted he 
was in charge of inviting participants and putting 
documents in order.  He too, however, denied being the 
event's organizer and often pleaded 'no comment' or 
ignorance to the judge's questions.  He noted that 
Partnership made arrangements in advance with the movie 
theater to use one of its halls and paid a flat fee of USD 
¶465.  Astreiko claimed that the movie hall did not ask 
Partnership for proof of registration or permission from 
the regional executive committee before renting out the 
space. 
 
¶7. (SBU) The Central movie theater director testified 
against Partnership and claimed Bronitskaya was the 
organizer who paid for the movie theater by buying out all 
the conference hall's movie tickets and not paying a flat 
fee. [Comment:  The question surrounding the method of 
payment and rent of the space was irrelevant to the 
proceedings, but the judge kept pushing the issue.  The 
conference hall is actually a large movie theater with a 
stage in front of the screen.  To rent the facilities one 
can buy out all the tickets or pay a flat fee.]  Astreiko 
claimed to have a receipt proving that Partnership paid a 
flat fee, but the judge would not allow Astreiko to 
retrieve it from his apartment.  The director claimed that 
she had asked from Partnership its registration papers and 
permission from the regional executive committee, but 
Partnership told her that it was not needed. 
 
¶8. (SBU) The director noted that she would not have allowed 
Partnership to use the conference space if she had known it 
was a political meeting.  During Stremkovskaya's 
questioning, the director, even though she directly accused 
Bronitskaya of organizing the event, admitted she was not 
present when Partnership made the arrangements with the 
theater.  Therefore, she was not in the place to accuse 
anyone of organizing the event.  Secondly, the director 
noted that the theater often rents out its space for 
conferences and meetings and gave an example of a 
Belarusian State University (BSU) student conference that 
recently took place.  Stremkovskaya asked the director if 
BSU had permission from the regional executive committee to 
hold the meeting.  The director, stuttering, said no. 
 
¶9. (SBU) Stremkovskaya's pointed out the necessity of the 
court to determine the legality of the meeting before 
convicting Bronitskaya of organizing an illegal event.  She 
noted the double standards in which organizations, other 
than Partnership, are allowed to hold meetings at the 
theater without the regional executive committee's 
permission and the lack of reason behind the police 
interference and Bronitskaya's arrest.  However, 
Bronitskaya was found guilty and sentenced to 15 days in 
jail.  Later in the day, Astreiko and Bondarev received the 
same punishment and Konnova was fined USD 270 dollars. 
 
¶10. (C) Comment:  No doubt, Bronitskaya and her associates 
were the conference organizers.     However, the trail 
ended up being a case of 'he said Q she said' with no 
evidence proving wrongdoing on the part of Partnership.  It 
was the colonel's idiotic testimony and the director's 
contradictory statements that gave the judge enough 
"evidence" to convict Bronitskaya.  The judge, also acting 
as the prosecutor, focused many of her questions on 
Partnership's organization and structure rather than on 
whether Bronitskaya was an organizer. 
 
¶11. (C) Comment Cont'd: The purpose of Partnership's 
conference was reportedly to fulfill the Ministry of 
Justice's requirement to hold such a conference prior to 
legal registration.  The raid on Partnership appears to 
have been a planned event from the beginning.  It is 
doubtful that a crowd of people gathering at a movie 
theater on a Saturday would arise the curiosity of a 
passing policeman.  According to Astreiko, the BKGB, not 
the police, raided the meeting, which was videotaped by the 
organization, but the video was confiscated and not 
presented in court.  Acting as the largest independent 
election observation group in Belarus, Partnership can 
expect more harassment from the authorities as the 
presidential election approaches. 
 
KROL