The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus comprising the Presiding Officer – Chairman of the Constitutional Court P.P. Miklashevich, Deputy Chairman A.V. Maryskin, judges T.S. Boiko, T.V. Voronovich, S.Y. Danilyuk, V.P. Isotko, L.G. Kozyreva, V.V. Podgrusha, L.M. Ryabtsev, O.G. Sergeeva, A.G. Tikovenko, S.P. Chigrinov

on the basis of subpoint 1.5 of point 1 of the Decree of the President of the Republic of Belarus of June 26, 2008 no. 14 «On Certain Measures to Improve the Activities of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus»

in court session has considered the motion of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus to state the position of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus on conformity of the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card to the generally recognised principles and rules of international law.

In its motion the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus has specified that the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card came into force on March 29, 2008 and its effect covers all the republics of the former USSR, including the Republic of Belarus and its citizens.

According to the opinion of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card contradicts the rules of international law and the principle of good neighbourhood, namely:

1) entitling the holders of the Pole’s card to the right to obtain a long-term Polish visa, the rights relating to employment, entrepreneurial activity, various forms of education, medical services in emergencies in the territory of the Republic of Poland and other rights provided for by articles 5 and 6 of the named Act – whereby foreign nationals in the territory of the Republic of Poland including citizens of the Republic of Belarus, holding the Pole’s card, will not enjoy equal rights with those foreign nationals who do not have it – contradicts such basic international documents in the field of human rights as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of December 10, 1948, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of December 21, 1965 and the Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation of June 25, 1958 as well as the Treaty between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Co-operation of June 23, 1992;

2) the provisions of part two of article 12, parts one and four of article 18, specifying that the body authorised to grant the Pole’s card is the consul of the Republic of Poland according to the applicant’s residence, contradicts those of point «m» of article 5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, articles 26 and 29 of the Consular Convention between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland of March 2, 1992;

3) the Act on the Pole’s Card contradicts the rules of certain bilateral treaties concluded between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland (the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Mutual Employment of Citizens of September 27, 1995 and the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Mutual Trips of Citizens, concluded by the exchange of notes on December 20, 2007), in as much as it provides rules other than those embodied therein; it also contradicts the provisions of article 1 of the Treaty between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Co-operation of June 23, 1992, which establishes that the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland shall build their relations as friendly states in the spirit of mutual respect, good neighbourhood and partnership, and shall be guided by the principles of sovereign equality, non-interference in internal affairs.

The House of Representatives supposes that the implementation of the provisions of the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card, adopted notwithstanding the opinion of the Republic of Belarus, affects the interests of the Republic of Belarus as the application of this Act in the territory of Belarus may affect the civic concord and stability in the Belarusian society.

When preparing for consideration of this question the Constitutional Court has received written opinions of the state bodies of the Republic of Belarus: the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly, the State Secretariat of the Security Council, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ministry of Justice, the Commissioner for Religions and Nationalities and the National Centre of Legislation and Legal Research of the Republic of Belarus, concluding that certain provisions of the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card affect the interests of the Republic of Belarus and have been adopted notwithstanding certain generally recognised principles and rules of international law.

The Constitutional Court has analysed the text of the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card of September 7, 2007 (Ustawa z dnia 7 września 2007 r. o Karcie Polaka (Dzennik Ustaw Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej z 2007 r. Nr 180, poz. 1280, z 2008 r. Nr 52, poz. 305, Nr 214, poz. 1348, Nr 216, poz. 1367).

When considering the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card (hereinafter – the Act) the Constitutional Court proceeds from that subjects of relations regulated by the Act are citizens of the Republic of Belarus who shall be guaranteed protection and patronage of the Republic of Belarus as a sovereign state in its territory and beyond according to part one of Article 10 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus.

As follows from its preamble among other things the Act also aims to strengthen relations uniting Poles in the East with their Homeland as well as to support their efforts on preservation of the Polish language and maintenance of national heritage. The Act specifies persons to whom the Pole’s card may be granted (articles 2 and 16), rights of the card’s holders (articles 5 and 6), terms and granting procedure, cancellation and annulment of the Pole’s card, its period of validity (articles 2, 12–20), as well as the competence and operating procedures of various bodies (persons) on matters relating to the Pole’s card (articles 9, 12, 13, 15, 18, etc.). According to part two of article 2 of the Act the Pole’s card may be granted to a person who is the citizen of a certain country, including the Republic of Belarus, as of the date of applying for it, or to anyone having the status of a stateless person in one of these states. The body which decides on granting, refusing or annulling the Pole’s card is the consul of the Republic of Poland in a relevant country (articles 12, 13, 17–19 of the Act).

When analysing the Act as to its conformity to the generally recognised principles and rules of international law, the Constitutional Court proceeds from the following.

1. The fundamental principles of international law are enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations (hereinafter – the UN Charter) and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations adopted by the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of October 24, 1970 no. 2625 (XXV) (hereinafter – the Declaration on International Law Principles). The Final Act of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe of August 1, 1975 (hereinafter – the CSCE Final Act of 1975), other international legal instruments supplement the list of the fundamental principles of international law, provided in the mentioned international legal instruments.

At the moment the generally recognised principles of international law are, first of all, the principle of sovereign equality of states, fulfillment in good faith of the obligations, settlement of international disputes by peaceful means, non-use of force and threat of force in international relations, non-interference in internal affairs of states, co-operation of states, equal rights and self-determination of peoples, territorial integrity of states, inviolability of state borders, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The international law system includes along with the generally recognised principles also the rules of international law. The latter are standards of behavior, established as a result of the coordination of positions of states; they stipulate the rights and obligations of states in the field of international co-operation. These rules are embodied in international treaties as well as in decisions and resolutions of international organisations, including such universal organisations as the United Nations (UN), the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), International Labour Organisation (ILO), among whose members is the majority of states in the world.

So, when examining the Act as to its conformity to the generally recognised principles and rules of international law the Constitutional Court proceeds from the UN Charter, the Declaration on International Law Principles, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of December 16, 1966 (hereinafter – the Covenant on Civil Rights), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of December 16, 1966 (hereinafter – the Covenant on Economic Rights), the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963 (hereinafter – the Vienna Convention), other international acts, the Treaty between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Co-operation of June 23, 1992 (hereinafter – the Treaty on Good Neighbourly Relations) and other bilateral international treaties between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland, enshrining both the generally recognised principles and rules, underlying international relations, and the provisions which specify their content with regard to the conditions of bilateral co-operation.

2. In the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities adopted by the resolution of the General Assembly of the UN of December 18, 1992 no. 47/135 developing the general principles and rules of the Covenant on Economic Rights and the Covenant on Civil Rights which provide equality of all before the law and rights of minorities, it is enshrined that persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties (point 5 of article 2).

According to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities signed by member states of the Council of Europe of February 1, 1995 the Parties undertake not to interfere with the right of persons belonging to national minorities to establish and maintain free and peaceful contacts across frontiers with persons lawfully staying in other States, in particular those with whom they share an ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, or a common cultural heritage (point 1 of article 17).

In view of the foregoing the Constitutional Court notes that the states, which do not interfere with the establishment of contacts between persons belonging to national minorities, in accordance with the international principles and rules, may foster such contacts by granting privileges to national minorities residing in other countries on the basis of ethnic kinship. The granting of such privileges is within the sovereign jurisdiction of a state, which is based on every state’s right, provided in accordance with the Declaration on Principles of International Law, to freely determine and pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and on the right, provided in accordance with the CSCE Final Act of 1975, to lay down its laws and regulations.

A number of European countries’ constitutions (e.g. Hungary, Macedonia, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and Croatia) establish an obligation of the state to provide assistance to their nationals living abroad.

At a law level the assistance, special patronage and protection, provided by a kin-state to its nationals living in foreign states are stipulated, in particular, in Austria, Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Macedonia, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine, Croatia, Czech Republic.

Among legislative measures of assistance to nationals are simplified procedures for naturalisation and immigration into a kin-state, various benefits in education, scientific research, visiting museum institutions, travelling, using medical services, taking-up legal employment, acquiring property etc.

The Constitutional Court notes thereat that point 9 of the plan on law drafting for 2011, approved by the Edict of the President of the Republic of Belarus of January 6, 2011 no. 10, provides for the introduction to the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus of the draft Law of the Republic of Belarus «On Belarusian Nationals Abroad», which is expected to entitle the Belarusians living abroad to appropriate privileges.

Consequently, the adoption of legislation by a kin-state, entitling its nationals living abroad to any privileges is consistent with the rules of international law and represents a fairly common international practice.

However, the possibility of a state to confer certain privileges and benefits to foreign nationals on the grounds of their ethnic origin is linked to the required respect for the principles of sovereign equality of states, implementation in good faith of international obligations, respect for friendly interstate relations, human rights and fundamental freedoms, prohibition of discrimination.

According to the final part of the Report adopted by the Commission for Democracy through Law of the Council of Europe at its 48-th plenary session, held in October 19–20, 2001 (hereinafter – the Report of the Venice Commission), the respect for these principles would seem to require that certain features be respected, in particular, those relating to the preferential treatment that:

may be granted to persons belonging to kin-minorities in the fields of education and culture, in so far as it pursues the legitimate aim of fostering cultural links and is proportionate to that aim;

can not be granted in fields other than education and culture, save in exceptional cases and if it is shown to pursue a legitimate aim and to be proportionate to that aim.

One of the criteria, set out in the Act, to be met by persons applying for the Pole’s card is a special condition of «an active engagement in activities in favour of the Polish language, culture and minority for at least three years prior to the application», duly certified (point 3 of part one of article 2); one of the reasons for the refusal to grant the Pole’s card is the applicant's behaviour to the detriment of the basic interests of the Republic of Poland (point 6 of article 19); one of the reasons for the annulment of the Pole’s card is the behavior of the card’s holder, which discredits Poland or Poles (point 1 of part one of article 20).

Consequently, the possibility of granting, refusal to grant or annulment of the Pole’s card in the territory of the Republic Belarus is linked to special behavior (performance of duties established in fact) with respect to the Republic of Poland, required from citizens of the Republic of Belarus, belonging not only to Polish nationality, which is inconsistent with the generally recognised principles of the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and non-discrimination. The presence of the mentioned norms in articles 2, 19 and 20 of the Act creates the preconditions for discriminatory developments in practice, when preferential treatment of the citizens of the Republic of Belarus, who want to have the Pole’s card, is linked to their behaviour, viewpoints and civic engagement. To some extent it is also incompatible with the duties of citizens of the Republic of Belarus, inclusive those performing civil service.

The Act (article 5, points 1 and 2 of part one of article 6) establishes rules of exemptions from fees for the residence visa, providing for multiple entry into the territory of the Republic of Poland or refunding of the fees, other than those laid down in article 18 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Mutual Trips of Citizens of August 26, 2003, that was in force at the time of the enactment of the Act, and are embodied in article 15 of the existing Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Mutual Trips of Citizens, concluded by the exchange of notes on December 20, 2007. It also establishes the rules of employment of citizens of the Republic of Belarus in Poland other than those provided in article 2 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Mutual Employment of Citizens of September 27, 1995.

One of the generally recognised principles proclaimed in the Declaration on Principles of International Law is the principle of fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by states in accordance with the UN Charter. According to Articles 26 and 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of May 23, 1969, treaties must be performed and interpreted in good faith. In this regard the Constitutional Court notes that certain provisions of the Act, adopted by the Republic of Poland notwithstanding the opinion of the Republic of Belarus, concerning the rights of citizens of the Republic of Belarus in the field of visa regime and employment in the territory of the Republic of Poland, differ from the relevant rules, enshrined in bilateral international treaties. Thus the establishment of such rules in the Act does not respect the principle of performance of treaties in good faith.

In addition the visa regime, employment and entrepreneurial activity are not relating to education and culture. Therefore the entitlement of the holders of the Pole’s card to privileges and benefits in these fields (article 5, points 1 and 2 of part one of article 6) goes beyond the scope of the aims of the Act and is not proportionate to them. Privileges and benefits in the mentioned fields may be conferred only in exceptional cases when it is either justified by the true aim of fostering links with kin-states or complies with it, what was pointed out in the Venice Commission Report.

3. The principle of non-interference in affairs within the internal jurisdiction of any other state as well as the principle of sovereign equality of states are mentioned in the Declaration on Principles of International Law as some of the fundamental principles of international law by which states are called upon to be guided in their international activities; they are also called upon to develop their mutual relations on the basis of strict observance of the principles.

The principle of non-interference in internal affairs supposes that none of states or state groups has the right to interfere direct or indirect for any reason in internal or external affairs of any other state. Hereupon any form of interference directed against the state’s legal standing violates the international law.

The principle of sovereign equality of states includes the following elements: the legal equality of states; the use by a state of rights inherent to the full sovereignty; the duty to respect the legal standing of other states; the inviolability of territorial integrity and political independence of a state; the right of a state to choose and develop its political, social, economic and cultural system freely, as well as the duty of every state to fulfill fully and in good faith its international obligations and to live in peace with other states.

In accordance with point 3 of part one of article 2 of the Act one of the conditions for the Pole’s card granting is the presentation by a person of a certificate, issued by a Polish or Polonian organisation, also operating in the Republic of Belarus, in order to confirm his engagement in activities in favour of the Polish language and culture or national minority for at least three years prior to the application for the card. The Constitutional Court considers that in the context of the mentioned article the provision supposes the relevant certification by a public organisation provided just for the purposes of the Pole’s card receipt.

The Constitutional Court notes that points 3 of part one of article 2 of the Act establishes the competence of public associations registered and operating in the territory of the Republic of Belarus to grant to citizens of the Republic of Belarus a document having legal effect for the Pole’s card receipt in consular offices of the Republic of Poland in accordance with administrative procedures regulated by the legislation of the Republic of Poland. The direct authorisation of subjects of law including public associations, registered and operating in the territory of the Republic of Belarus in accordance with its legislation, by a state organ of the Republic of Poland is also specified in part four of article 13 of the Act, according to which the President of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Poland announces in the governmental bulletin of the Republic of Poland «Monitor Polski» (Dzennik Urzęndowy Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej «Monitor Polski») the list of Polish and Polonian organisations authorised to issue certificates stated above.

The quoted provisions confirm their effect on both the subjects of law under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Belarus ant its territory in as much as the specified subjects are authorised to fulfill actions with legal effect on the territory of the Republic of Belarus in order to secure legal procedures provided for by the legislation of the Republic of Poland.

It is emphasised in one of the Venice Commission Report conclusions, that no quasi-official function may be assigned by a State to non-governmental associations registered in another State. Any form of certification in situ should be obtained through the consular authorities within the limits of their commonly accepted attributions.

The Constitutional Court considers, that provisions embodied in point 3 of part one of article 2 and part four of article 13 of the Act are not consistent with such generally recognised principles of international law as the principle of sovereign equality of states and the principle of non-interference in affairs within the internal jurisdiction of any other state.

4. According to part two of article 12 of the Act the consul of the Republic of Poland is an organ authorised to grant the Pole’s card in accordance with the applicant’s residence. Part six of article 13 of the Act establishes that the consul may decide to grant the Pole’s card without obligatory presentation of documents listed in part three of article 13 of the Act if the applicant has rendered outstanding services to Poland. Parts one and four of article 18 of the Act provide that the consul or a person authorised by him may hand in the relevant document to a person that may be granted the Pole’s card. In case of loss or destruction of the Pole’s card the consul shall issue its duplicate on the application of a cardholder. The Act also determines the grounds for the consul to decide on the refusal or annulment of the Pole’s card (articles 19 and 20).

The Constitutional Court notes that the Vienna Convention is the main international legal instrument which regulates social relations concerning performance of consular functions. The list of consular functions fixed in article 5 of the Convention has no exhaustive nature and according to point «m» of this article the sending state may entrust the consular post with performing other functions, which are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving State or to which no objection is taken by the receiving State or which are referred to in the international agreements in force between the sending State and the receiving State.

The Consular Convention between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland of March 2, 1992 concretely defines consular functions in the territory of both states. It provides in particular that the consular officer has the right to grant visas, documents, authorising the entry into the sending state, as well as to issue, renew and cancel passports of citizens of the sending state (article 29). The provisions of the Vienna Convention, stating that the consular officer has the right to perform other official consular functions except for those determined by the Convention in so far as they do not contradict the legislation of the receiving state, or as the receiving state takes no objection to it (point 1 of article 26), are confirmed in the mentioned Consular Convention.

The analysis of powers of a consular officer, provided in the Consular Convention between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland of March 2, 1992 shows, that the right of the officer to make decisions on granting (refusal to grant, annulment) of the Pole’s card is not specified in the Convention. There are no other bilateral international treaties concluded between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland which establish the functions of consular officers of the Republic of Poland in relation to granting the Pole’s card.

The Constitutional Court notes that the Republic of Belarus, as the receiving state of the consular officer of the Republic of Poland, has submitted to the Polish party in full conformity with the above stated international agreements the proposals objecting that the Act is applied to citizens of the Republic of Belarus. It is in particular the draft memorandum on results of consultations between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Poland with regard to the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card that was submitted to the Republic of Poland in May 2008; proposals of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Belarus to impose a moratorium on the application of the Act to Belarusian citizens. Hence the issuance by the consul of the Republic of Poland in the territory of the Republic of Belarus of any documents entitling some Belarusian citizens to privileges and benefits is not properly sanctioned by the Republic of Belarus.

Moreover the provisions of the Act empowering the consul of the Republic of Poland to deal with the Pole’s card issues in the Republic of Belarus shall be considered inconsistent with the Treaty on Good Neighbourly Relations that provides for bilateral co-operation policy.

In view of the foregoing the Constitutional Court considers that the implementation in the territory of the Republic of Belarus of provisions of articles 12, 13 and 18 of the Act on deciding on and granting the Pole’s card by the consul of the Republic of Poland in the territory of the Republic of Belarus is inconsistent with the provisions of articles 5 and 73 of the Vienna Convention, of articles 26 and 29 of the Consular Convention between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland.

Taking into account the generally recognised principle of sovereign equality a state shall enjoy the full sovereignty or jurisdiction within its territory. None of the states may exercise its jurisdiction in the territory of another state without its consent.

Based on the aforementioned the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus deems that the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card affects the interests of the Republic of Belarus, and some of its provisions do not conform to certain generally recognised principles and rules of international law, namely:

the provisions of point 3 of part one of article 2, point 4 of article 13 of the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card in so far as they establish the competence of certain public associations, registered and operating in the territory of the Republic of Belarus, to deal with granting the Pole’s card, as confirming their effect on both subjects of law under the jurisdiction of the Belarusian state and the territory of the Republic of Belarus, do not conform to the generally recognised principles of sovereign equality of states and non-interference in affairs within the internal jurisdiction of any other state, enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of October 24, 1970 no. 2625 (XXV), and other basic international legal instruments;

the provisions of part two of article 12, parts five and six of article 13, parts one and four of article 18 of the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card with regard to granting the Pole’s card to citizens of the Republic of Belarus by the consul of the Republic of Poland, performing consular functions in the territory of the Republic of Belarus, do not conform to the provisions of articles 5 and 73 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of April 24, 1963, articles 26 and 29 of the Consular Convention between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland of March 2, 1992, as their implementation in the territory of the Republic of Belarus implies the violation of the mentioned articles of the conventions which require that no objection is taken by the Republic of Belarus to any functions performed by a consular officer of the Republic of Poland which are not referred to in these conventions; it also implies the violation of the provisions of the Treaty between the Republic of Belarus and the Republic of Poland on Good Neighbourly Relations and Friendly Co-operation of June 23, 1992 on building the interstate relations in the spirit of mutual respect, good neighbourhood and partnership;

the provisions of article 5, points 1 and 2 of part one of article 6 of the Act of the Republic of Poland on the Pole’s Card in so far as they entitle the citizens of the Republic of Belarus, who hold the Pole’s card, to a preferential visa regime and employment benefits, as failing to serve the purposes declared in the Act and being established unilaterally without the consent of the Republic of Belarus, do not conform to the provisions of article 15 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Mutual Trips of Citizens, concluded by the exchange of notes on December 20, 2007, as well as to the provisions of article 2 of the Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Belarus and the Government of the Republic of Poland on Mutual Employment of Citizens of September 27, 1995 as they violate the generally recognised principle of the fulfillment in good faith of the obligations assumed by states, enshrined in the Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, adopted by the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of October 24, 1970 no. 2625 (XXV), and in articles 26 and 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of May 23, 1969.

In this regard the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus brings to the attention of the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus that it might, with a view to protect the interests of the Republic of Belarus, take into account the position of the Constitutional Court of Republic of Belarus stated in the present decision when developing the norms of the laws «On Civil Service in the Republic of Belarus», «On Public Associations», «On Citizenship of the Republic of Belarus» as well as when regulating at a law level relevant relations concerning Belarusian nationals living abroad.

Presiding Officer – Chairman of the Constitutional Court Republic of Belarus
Petr P. Miklashevich

April 7, 2011
Minsk
no. P-258/2011