UN Experts Denounce Disappearance of Belarus Opposition Leader Mikalai Statkevich

A group of United Nations independent human rights experts has condemned the attempted deportation and subsequent disappearance of Mikalai Statkevich, one of Belarus’s most prominent opposition leaders. The 69-year-old politician, who has long been a vocal critic of President Alexander Lukashenko, is believed to be the victim of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention.

Disappearance After Failed Deportation

On 11 September 2025, Statkevich was among 52 prisoners pardoned under an agreement brokered between Belarus and the United States. The group was escorted to the Belarus–Lithuania border. Unlike others, Statkevich refused to cross into Lithuania, insisting on returning to Belarus.

Witnesses reported that masked Belarusian policemen followed him back from the neutral zone. Media outlets later claimed he had been returned to his penal colony. However, when his family approached prison officials, they were told that Statkevich was not there. His current whereabouts remain unknown.

UN experts expressed alarm:

“There are solid reasons to believe that Statkevich is a victim of enforced disappearance and arbitrary detention. We call on Belarus to provide information about his fate and whereabouts, as well as on his state of health.”

A History of Persecution

Statkevich, a former presidential candidate, was arrested before the 2020 election amid a sweeping crackdown on opposition figures and civil society. In 2021, he was sentenced to 14 years in prison on politically motivated charges.

By 2022, Belarus’s Ministry of Internal Affairs had designated him as an “extremist”, a label frequently used against opposition figures, journalists, and human rights defenders. Since February 2023, he has reportedly been held incommunicado, raising fears for his health given his age and reports of ill-treatment.

UN Special Procedures mandate holders have previously raised concerns about his treatment, warning of its devastating impact on his physical and mental health.

International Human Rights Concerns

Experts highlighted that the attempted expulsion of Statkevich violated Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which protects freedom of movement, including the right not to be arbitrarily expelled from one’s own country. Belarus ratified the ICCPR in 1973.

They further suggested that his case could constitute an international crime, referencing Lithuania’s referral to the International Criminal Court (ICC) regarding alleged crimes against humanity—particularly deportation and persecution on political grounds—committed by Belarusian authorities since 2020.

“It cannot be excluded that we are dealing with a possible crime under international law,” the experts warned.

A Call to Reform Anti-Extremism Laws

The experts also reiterated long-standing concerns about Belarus’s sweeping anti-extremism laws, which they argue are incompatible with international human rights standards. These laws have been used to justify arbitrary arrests, prolonged detention, and ill-treatment of political prisoners.

They urged Belarus to:

• Amend its anti-extremism framework in line with international norms.

• End ill-treatment of prisoners accused or convicted on “extremism” charges.

• Provide immediate information on Statkevich’s health, safety, and location.

Broader Context of Repression

The case highlights the escalating repression in Belarus, where thousands of activists, journalists, and opposition figures have been detained or forced into exile since the contested 2020 presidential election. Many face arbitrary charges, lengthy prison sentences, or are stripped of their citizenship.

Statkevich’s disappearance is viewed as a warning to other dissidents, reinforcing a climate of fear within the country and across the Belarusian diaspora.

Ongoing Dialogue

The UN experts confirmed they are in contact with Belarusian authorities about Statkevich’s case. However, given the government’s record of dismissing international criticism, human rights defenders fear the likelihood of transparency remains low.