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

in open court session considered the case «On Legislative Safeguards for Legal Professional Privilege in Criminal Proceedings».

The court session was attended by:

V.V. Mitskevich ‒ the authorised representative of the President of the Republic of Belarus in the Constitutional Court, Deputy Head of the Administration of the President of the Republic of Belarus;

A.N. Bodak ‒ the authorised representative of the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus in the Constitutional Court, Chairwoman of the Standing Committee for Legislation and State Administration of the Council of the Republic;

I.G. Tushynskiy – the authorised representative of the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus in the Constitutional Court, Deputy Minister of Justice of the Republic of Belarus;

the representatives:

of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus ‒ R.G. Aniskevich, Deputy Chairman of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus;

of the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Belarus ‒ A.V. Dubov, Deputy General Prosecutor of the Republic of Belarus;

of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus – S.Y. Azemsha, Deputy Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus;

of the Belarusian National Bar Association – V.I. Chaichits, Chairman of the Belarusian National Bar Association.

The proceedings were initiated by the Constitutional Court on 29 June 2018 in accordance with Article 116.1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter – the Constitution), Article 22.3.8 of the Code of the Republic of Belarus on Judicial System and Status of Judges, Article 158.1 and Article 158.4 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On the Constitutional Proceedings” on the basis of the application by the Belarusian National Bar Association pointing to legal gaps, collisions and legal uncertainty in the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus as regards the legal professional privilege.

It has been stated in the application that the current legislative regulation does not fully ensure professional secrecy in criminal proceedings, since the criminal procedure rules do not stipulate the procedure for conducting the inspection, search and seizure on the premises of the lawyers and bar associations, checks and removal of materials from law firms (case files). They neither prohibit to interrogate a defence counsel on issues covered by the lawyer-client privilege.

Having heard the reporting judge T.V. Voronovich, the authorised representatives of the President of the Republic of Belarus, the Council of the Republic of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus, the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus, the representatives of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Belarus, the General Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Belarus, the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus, the Belarusian National Bar Association; having analysed the provisions of the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus (hereinafter – the Code), the Law of the Republic of Belarus on Advocacy and Legal Practice and other legislative acts of the Republic of Belarus; having examined the submitted documents and other case materials the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus found the following.

 1. In accordance with Article 39 of the Law on the Constitutional Proceedings requests have been submitted by the Constitutional Court to the Supreme Court, the General Prosecutor’s Office, the Investigative Committee, the Ministry of Justice, the Belarusian National Bar Association. In written replies the said authorities and other organisations expressed their opinions on the case.

The Supreme Court reported that, based on the legal regulation that ensures the legal professional privilege, it finds it possible to improve the legislation on professional secrecy provided for by a special law – the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice.

At the same time, the Supreme Court considers that the question whether it is necessary to amend the Code in terms of procedural safeguards when conducting inspection, search and seizure on the premises of the lawyers and bar associations, checks and removal of materials from law firms, requires a comprehensive study in view of the provisions of other branches of law.

In the opinion of the General Prosecutor’s Office, despite the fact that the Code does not stipulate the procedure for conducting the inspection, search and seizure on the lawyers’ premises, the Law of the Republic of Belarus on Advocacy and Legal Practice does fully safeguard the legal profession and inviolability of professional secrecy as it is binding on criminal prosecution agencies. The appropriate legal regulation has been provided for not in sectoral legislation but in a special law, since the legal professional privilege should be ensured and protected not only in criminal proceedings but also when the lawyer exercises its powers participating as a representative in civil and administrative proceedings, in cases arising from business (economic) disputes, as well as when advising individuals and legal entities.

In view of the above the General Prosecutor’s Office believes that the Code does not contain a gap in legal regulation ensuring the legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings.

The Investigative Committee believes that the current criminal procedure legislation guarantees in full the secrecy protected the law, including secrets covered by the legal professional privilege. In the case where the Code stipulated a special procedure for conducting certain investigative actions for the purpose of keeping lawyer-client secrets, it would be necessary to determine the similar procedure for other types of professional privilege (notary, medical, etc.) in order to ensure equal legal protection for the secrets protected by law.

In this regard, according to the Investigative Committee, the Code does not require any additional legislative regulation of safeguards for the legal professional privilege.

The Ministry of Justice indicates that, based on the analysed provisions of the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice and the Code it is not possible to conclude that there is a gap in legal regulation ensuring the legal professional privilege when conducting the inspection, search and seizure on the lawyers’ premises. At the same time, the need to stipulate special legal regulation in the criminal procedure law in order to ensure the protection of the legal professional privilege should be determined comprehensively and subject to the established legal regime of banking, tax, medical and other secrets protected by law.

The Belarusian Republican Bar Association notes that the current legislation contributes to a certain extent to safeguard the legal professional privilege against unlawful interference by third parties. At the same time, the rules of the Code do not take into account the peculiarities of the legal regime of the lawyer-client privilege being established by the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice, especially in cases of seizure of documents from law firms (case-files) when conducting investigative actions on the premises of bar associations and bar formations, as well when interrogating individuals, who got to know information relating to the criminal case in connection with their participation in criminal proceedings as a defence counsel.

As it is indicated in the application, law enforcement practice shows that the current legislation does not regulate in full the safeguards of the legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings due to the lack of the Code provisions on the peculiarities of inspection, search and seizure in the lawyers' premises, checks and removal of materials from law firms (case files), as well as on prohibition to interrogate a defence counsel on issues covered by lawyer-client privilege.

In order to eliminate incompleteness, conflict and uncertainty of the rules governing safeguards for the legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings the Belarusian Republican Bar Association believes that the criminal procedure legislation should provide for additional guarantees against access of the preliminary investigation bodies to the information constituting lawyer-client secrets protected by law which is supposed to become available when conducting inspection, search and seizure of the materials, during a witness interrogation.

2. The Constitution provides that the individual, his rights, freedoms and guarantees to secure them are the supreme value and goal of the society and the State (Article 2.1); safeguarding the rights and freedoms of citizens of the Republic of Belarus shall be the supreme goal of the State, which shall guarantee the rights and freedoms of citizens of Belarus that are enshrined in the Constitution and laws, and specified by the State's international obligations (articles 21.1 and 21.3).

The cited constitutional provisions define the State’s obligation to implement legal regulation necessary for the full exercise of the constitutional rights and freedoms of individuals and to ensure their timely and effective protection.

In the Message of the Constitutional Court to the President of the Republic of Belarus and the Houses of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus “On Constitutional Legality in the Republic of Belarus in 2017” the Court indicated that constitutionalisation of law is the precondition for the establishment of modern constitutionalism. Constitutionalisation of law implies effective legal regulation of public relations and elimination of gaps, exclusion of conflicts and legal uncertainty in the current legislation with a view to ensure and protect everyone’s constitutional rights and freedoms. In this regard, the attention of the legislator and other rule-making bodies has been focused on that the weakening of constitutional guarantees for human rights and freedoms due to the gaps and other defects of legal regulation in normative legal acts should be prevented.

2.1. According to the Constitution, everyone shall have the right to legal assistance to exercise and protect his rights and freedoms, including the right to make use, at any time, of assistance of lawyers and his other representatives in court, other state bodies, bodies of local government, enterprises, institutions, organisations and public associations, and also in relations with officials and citizens; in the instances specified by law, legal assistance shall be rendered at the expense of state funding (Article 62.1).

The provisions of international legal instruments recognise the right to legal assistance of a lawyer (defence counsel) as one of the fundamental human rights. Thus, in accordance with subparagraphs “b” and “d” of Article 14.3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1966, in the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the minimum guarantees: to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing; to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it.

On the basis of these correlated rules of the Constitution and the aforementioned international legal act, in view of the Article 8.1 and Article 59.1 of the Constitution the State shall take all measures at its disposal for the proper exercise of everyone’s right to legal assistance and to ensure the effective legal practice of lawyers and other persons providing such assistance.

It is noted in the decision of the Constitutional Court of 29 June 2017 on the conformity to the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus of the Law of the Republic of Belarus on Alterations and Addenda to the Law of the Republic of Belarus on Advocacy and Legal Practice in the Republic of Belarus, that performing of public functions by lawyers is ensured by normative legal mechanisms which provide for legal practice aimed at the implementation of constitutional provisions guaranteeing everyone’s right to legal assistance in the purposes of the exercise and protection of rights and freedoms.

Confirming this legal position, the Constitutional Court notes that while implementing legal regulation it is necessary to take into account the specifics of advocacy as a legal institution designed to provide legal assistance in accordance with the Constitution with a view to exercise and protect the rights, freedoms and legal interests of individuals and legal entities. The principles of organisation of advocacy and legal practice – the independence of lawyers in legal practice, the legal professional privilege, inadmissibility of interference of the bodies conducting the criminal process, other state bodies, organisations and officials with the legal practice of lawyers (Articles 1 and 4 of the Law on Advocacy and legal Practice) – should also be regarded.

2.2. The Constitution envisages that the Republic of Belarus shall recognise the supremacy of the generally recognised principles of international law and shall ensure the compliance of laws therewith (Article 8.1).

According to the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers (adopted by the Eighth UN Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders, 27 August to 7 September 1990) one of such principles is that governments shall recognise and respect that all communications and consultations between lawyers and their clients within their professional relationship are confidential (paragraph 22).

The Standards for the Independence of the Legal Profession (adopted by the International Bar Association on 7 September 1990 in New York) also determine the need to guarantee the independence of lawyers in their legal practice so as to ensure free, fair and confidential legal assistance and confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship, including protection of the lawyer’s files and documents from seizure or inspection and protection from interception of the lawyer’s electronic communications.

The Constitutional Court considers that the absence of safeguards for the confidential lawyer-client relationship in criminal proceedings would mean the opportunity for one of its parties (the prosecution) to interfere with the activity of another one (the suspect, the accused and his defence counsel). That would imply derogation from the principle of administering justice on the basis of the adversarial proceedings and equality of the parties to the trial as guaranteed by the Constitution (Article 115.1) and enshrined in the Code (Article 24).

In the opinion of the Constitutional Court, safeguards for confidentiality of information, received by the lawyers from their clients applying for legal assistance, are also required to secure the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution, that is the right to personal inviolability and dignity (Article 25.1), the presumption of innocence (Article 26), everyone’s right not to witness against oneself (Article 27), the right to protection against unlawful interference with his private life, including encroachments on the privacy of his correspondence and telephone and other communications, and on his honour and dignity (Article 28).

The provision of Article 27 of the Constitution envisaging that no one shall be compelled to be a witness against oneself not only means that a person has no obligation to give evidence against himself as a witness, a suspect, an accused or provide such information in whatever form, but also prohibits the compulsory seizure and use of such data, provided it has been entrusted by the client to his lawyer subject to confidentiality in order to ensure the protection of the client’s rights and legitimate interests.

The mentioned provisions of the Constitution correspond to Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. According to the said provisions no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Similar provisions are also provided in Article 5.1 and Article 8.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Thus, the above provisions of the Constitution and international legal acts bind the State to provide legislative regulation that should enable the citizens to enjoy their constitutional right to legal assistance, as well as ensure effective legal practice to render it. Under such conditions a client should be able to freely communicate with his lawyer, as well as the lawyer should keep the received information confidential.

2.3. The Constitution establishes that the citizen shall assume responsibility before the State to discharge unwaveringly the duties imposed upon him by the Constitution; everyone in the territory of the Republic of Belarus is obliged to observe its Constitution and laws (Article 2.2 and Article 52)..

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible (Article 29.1).

According to Article 1.4 of the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice the professional legal privilege covers information about the issues on which the client requested legal assistance, the essence of advice, clarifications, references received by the client from his lawyer, information about the client’s private life, information received from the client about the circumstances of a crime within a criminal case where the lawyer defends the rights, freedoms and interests of his client, as well as information constituting the commercial secret of the client.

Similar provisions are envisaged in paragraph 15 of the Rules of Professional Ethics of a Lawyer, approved by the Resolution of the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Belarus of 6 February 2012 no. 39.

The Constitutional Court notes that by virtue of the constitutional provisions, the specified international legal instruments and the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice the safeguards for confidentiality cover only those relations of the suspects, the accused with their lawyers (defence counsels) which do not go beyond the legal assistance established by law. The confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship, where a client is provided with legal assistance, should not upset the balance between public interests and the need to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual. Therefore, the individual right to confidentiality of information that a client reported to a lawyer is an integral part of the constitutional right to legal assistance, but it is not absolute.

2.4. As Article 23.1 of the Constitution prescribes, restriction of personal rights and freedoms shall be permitted only in the instances specified by law, in the interests of national security, public order, protection of the morals and health of the population as well as rights and freedoms of other persons.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights establishes that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society (Article 29.2).

Similar approaches to ensuring of the rights and freedoms of an individual are stipulated in the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, proclaiming that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence; that there shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, the rights and freedoms of others.

It is pointed in the Message of the Constitutional Court “On Constitutional Legality in the Republic of Belarus in 2015” that the Constitution provides the legislator with sufficiently broad discretion, that is, the option of discretion, the “space of choice” in regulating specific public relations, in determining the specifics of legal provisions, establishing, changing and restricting subjective rights, conditions and mechanisms for their exercise. However, in fulfilling its powers the legislator acts within the confines of the constitutional principles and rules. Therefore the legislator should take into account the need to maintain balance and proportionality of constitutionally protected values, goals and interests that are in unity, thereby not allowing substitution of the values or their impairment.

In a number of its decisions the Constitutional Court stated legal positions envisaging that in view of the proportionality principle any legal restrictions, whatever are their grounds, should secure the appropriate balance of interests of the citizens and the State. Furthermore restrictions on constitutional rights should be legally permissible, socially justified, adequate, proportionate and required to protect other constitutionally significant values; they also should meet the requirements of justice.

In view of the foregoing the Constitutional Court deemed that while improving the legal mechanism for enjoying everyone’s constitutional right to legal assistance, as well as the conditions and procedure for its implementation, the legislator should prevent possible distortions of this right essence and should find a reasonable balance between the constitutionally protected interests specified in Article 23.1 of the Constitution. Such balance would imply differentiated approach to legislative stipulation of safeguards for confidentiality of the lawyer-client relationship, that does not rule out a possibility to determine the relationship between the parties to a criminal case which is not subject to the confidentiality provision of the laws.

3. The Constitutional Court notes that the organisation of advocacy and legal practice in the Republic of Belarus is based on the following principles: ensuring of the right to legal assistance guaranteed by the Constitution, legality and independence of legal practice, legal professional privilege, inadmissibility of interference of the bodies conducting criminal proceedings, other state bodies, organisations and officials with the legal practice of lawyers (Article 4 of the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice).

Article 16 of the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice provides for guarantees of legal practice, including the prohibition either to interfere with the lawyer’s legal practice carried out in accordance with the law, or to counteract such practice in any way. The said Law also prohibits against the disclosure of information subject to the legal professional privilege and prohibits against the request for such information from the lawyer or from his trainees and assistants. Such information may neither be obtained from the lawyer, his trainees and assistants, nor be used as evidence in criminal, civil, economic and administrative proceedings. The lawyer, his trainees and assistants may not be interrogated as witnesses about circumstances covered by the lawyer-client privilege. At that the state bodies and other organisations are not entitled to request, seize and otherwise obtain information subject to the legal professional privilege from the lawyer or his trainees and assistants (Article 16.2 – Article 16.4 of the Law).

Thus, the legislator, fulfilling his discretionary powers arising from Article 97.1.2 and Article 98.1.1 of the Constitution, defined in a special law – the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice – provisions that ensure and safeguard the legal professional privilege when the lawyers fulfill their powers, including in criminal proceedings.

Taking into account the aforementioned legal regulation, the Constitutional Court draws attention to the fact that, Article 1.2 of the Code provides for the same procedure either based on the materials or in criminal proceedings and this procedure is inding upon all the bodies and officials conducting the criminal proceedings as well as for other participants therein.

The Constitutional Court states that there are certain provisions in the criminal procedure law aimed at ensuring the legal professional privilege in criminal proceedings. Thus, in accordance with Article 60.2.3 of the Code the lawyers, their trainees, assistants, other employees of legal entities, legal advice officers shall not be interrogated as witnesses in order to obtain any information that may come to their notice due to legal assistance rendered in criminal proceedings.

At the same time, the Code envisages provisions under which the prosecutor is authorised to sanction a request for information and seizure of documents with state secrets or other secrets protected by law (Article 34.5.14); during the preliminary investigation of criminal cases, referred to in Article 35.5 of the Code, the Chairman of the Investigative Committee of the Republic of Belarus or the person who performs his duties is entitled to take a reasoned resolution on seizure of documents with state secrets or other secrets protected by law; the head of the inquiry agency shall approve resolutions on the seizure of documents with state secrets or other secrets protected by law (Article 38.5); during the preliminary investigation of criminal cases in accordance with its investigative jurisdiction, as well as when conducting inquiry of criminal cases the Chairman of the State Security Committee of the Republic of Belarus or a person who performs his duties is entitled to take a reasoned resolution to seize documents with state secrets or other secret protected by law (Article 38.6).

However, the rules of the criminal procedure law that determine the grounds and procedure for conducting the inspection, search and seizure (Articles 203, 204, 208–210 of the Code), do not provide for specifics of such investigative actions on the lawyers’ premises – in order to ensure the legal professional privilege and safeguards of its protection to be implemented as established by the Law on Advocacy and Legal Practice.

The Constitutional Court finds that the current legislative regulation which ensures and protects the legal professional privilege during certain investigative actions (inspection, search and seizure) has a legal gap in the Criminal Procedure Code that in law-enforcement may lead to violation of constitutional rights, including those stipulated in Article 28 and Article 62 of the Constitution.

4. According to Article 7.1 and Article 7.2 of the Constitution the Republic of Belarus shall be bound by the principle of supremacy of law; the State and all the bodies and officials thereof shall operate within the confines of the Constitution and acts of legislation adopted in accordance therewith.

The cited rules of the Constitution in conjunction with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 17) and other international legal acts that provide for general prohibition of requesting and receiving confidential information from a lawyer where such information is related to legal assistance rendered by lawful means. It follows that during the inspection, search and seizure carried out by the criminal prosecution bodies where a lawyer is involved, those bodies shall not detect or remove in a compulsory manner any lawyer’s materials or files covered by the lawyer-client privilege with information which does not go beyond the provision of legal assistance established by law.

Otherwise, the value of the legal professional privilege, as well as the constitutional right to legal assistance, guarantees for inviolability and freedom of the individual, protection from unlawful interference with one’s privacy, including attacks on the privacy of correspondence, honour and dignity, the presumption of innocence, and everyone’s right not to witness against himself would actually depreciate.

The similar approach is followed in the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights considering that search warrants have to be drafted, as far as practicable, in a manner calculated to keep their impact within reasonable bounds. So, in hearing the case “Kolesnichenko v. Russia” the European Court found a violation of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in that search warrants, issued by the judge, allowed the investigative authorities to carry out searches in the applicant’s home and office in general and broad terms; that during the search there was no safeguard in place against interference with professional secrecy, so the search impinged on professional secrecy to an extent that was disproportionate to whatever legitimate aim was pursued. The European Court concluded that the search carried out, without relevant and sufficient grounds and in the absence of safeguards against interference with professional secrecy, at the flat and office of the applicant, who was not suspected of any criminal offence but was representing the defendant in the same criminal case, was not “necessary in a democratic society”; that there had therefore been a violation of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (Judgment of 9 April 2009).

Along with that the Constitutional Court notes that the search where a lawyer is involved implies that search resolutions (warrants), issued by the criminal prosecution officials, should specify the searched objects (item, document) in order to prevent from unreasonable examination, seizure or replication of those objects and documents which are not specified in the search resolution (warrant), in particular available in the lawyers’ materials (files), conducted (formed) by the lawyer in cases of other clients.

Accordingly, the criminal prosecution authorities carrying out the search should not examine and seize the lawyer-client materials (files), that contain data communicated to the lawyer within the scope of legal assistance in a criminal case, where the lawyer is a defence counsel. Nor should they examine and seize the lawyers professional records in other cases, that is materials which are not directly connected either with criminally illegal violations committed by the lawyer or his client during the course of proceedings or with other criminal offences committed by the third parties, or where violations consist in keeping instruments of a crime or objects that are prohibited from turnover or restricted in turnover by law.

The Constitutional Court found that in order to ensure the compliance with the requirements of the Constitution and international legal acts and with a view to fill the legal gap in current legal regulation, the legislator should establish in the criminal procedure law additional safeguards to prevent criminal prosecution authorities from access to the data covered by the lawyer-client privilege during the inspection, search or seizure of the lawyer’s materials (files). It is also necessary to provide for a legal mechanism that would ensure a differentiated approach (during the inspection, search or seizure where the lawyer is involved, including the lawyer’s premises) to detecting of the materials which are covered by the lawyer-client privilege and thereby should not be available at this very stage of the adversary proceedings to state authorities representing the prosecution.

In view of the foregoing, guided by Article 116.1, Article 116.7 of the Constitution of the Republic of Belarus, Article 22.3.8, Article 24 of the Code of the Republic of Belarus on Judicial System and Status of Judges, Articles 74.2; 75; 77; 80; 84; 85.17; 160 of the Law of the Republic of Belarus “On the Constitutional Proceedings” the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Belarus

 RULED:

1. In order to ensure the rule of law, to provide everyone’s constitutional right to legal assistance and additional safeguards for the legal professional privilege it is necessary to amend the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus and specify the procedure of inspection, search and seizure where a lawyer is involved.

2. To suggest to the Council of Ministers of the Republic of Belarus to prepare a relevant draft law on amending the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Belarus and to submit the draft law to the House of Representatives of the National Assembly of the Republic of Belarus under the established procedure.

3. The present Decision shall come into force from the date of adoption.

4. To publish the present Decision in accordance with legislative acts.

Presiding Officer –

Petr Miklashevich,

Chairman of the Constitutional Court

of the Republic of Belarus