Anatoly Boyashov

Shortly after the inauguration of the President of the Republic of Belarus, on 27 March 2025, the European Union introduced another package of anti-Belarus sanctions.

Members of the Central Election Commission of the Republic of Belarus were added to the list of individuals whose accounts are to be blocked and whose travel to the EU countries is to be restricted. Anatoly Boyashov, analyst of the Belarusian Institute for Strategic Research, reports on the main goals of sanctions against Belarusian organizers of elections and results of the restrictive measures.

Illegal character of the restrictive measures of the European Union

The March package of sanctions and previous restrictions against Belarusian citizens are illegal. The sanctions were not approved by the UN Security Council, contradict the UN Charter and were unilaterally imposed by Brussels. Their legal basis goes against the international law, as it ensures interference in the internal affairs of Belarus.

The reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on Unilateral Coercive Measures have already proven that sanctions violate fundamental human rights by shifting the burden of proof to the sanctioned persons[1]. The principle of presumption of innocence is violated, proper and transparent investigation is not ensured, and access to justice is not provided to the sanctioned persons. The EU restrictive measures are in contradiction with the fundamental documents in the field of human rights and humanitarian cooperation, as they were introduced on political grounds. Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights has been violated. Paradoxically, the European Union bodies, while imposing sanctions, are contradicting their own standards, in particular the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights.

In order to circumvent legal restrictions the European Union extensively uses legal casuistry in the form of references to threats to national security. Double standards in the field of analytical support for restrictive measures are popular: when sanctions are imposed, their impact on society, the humanitarian situation and the technological development of the region is not properly analyzed. While refusing to study the humanitarian consequences of its decisions, Brussels is forcing its own European contractors to conduct additional investigations and scrutinize the links between counterparties and the individuals under sanctions.

Manipulating international standards

The legal justification for the sanctions has nothing to do with legal norms and is an agitation balancing act. The argument is based on slogans that the 2025 presidential elections were “neither fair nor free”, turned out to be “rigged” and “did not meet international standards”. The source of these standards is not cited. Brussels refers to the conclusions of the OSCE ODIHR experts, which represent neither a legal norm nor a source of law and have not undergone any procedure of interstate harmonization in the OSCE statutory bodies. The source base of the ODIHR reports is politicized and the texts are made to order. This OSCE advisory body did not conduct international observation of the Belarusian elections. References to the fact that the sanctioned persons did not observe the Belarusian legislation (in Brussels' terminology: “undermined the rule of law”) are surprising and absurd.

The statement that the elections were recognized as illegitimate by international organizations and foreign experts does not correspond to reality. The All-Belarusian People's Assembly is authorized to decide on the legitimacy of the Belarusian elections. International observers from the CIS and the SCO, as well as foreign observers from European countries recognized that the presidential election in Belarus in 2025 met international standards, in particular the fundamental document – the Convention on Standards for Democratic Elections.

Introduction of sanctions at short notice confirms their political nature. The fact that sanctions are an instrument of political pressure has long been recognized by Western experts. The new talking point of Brussels analysts is that despite the obvious political order, the European Union's demands should be more or less pronounced, so that the sanctioned party could understand at least the political conditions behind the sanctions. The political requirements of the next package of restrictive measures are vague.

Goals and consequences of the EU sanctions

The facts mentioned above lead to the conclusion that anti-Belarus sanctions are a tool of political struggle of forces inside Europe. “Old” political forces are trying to prevent the expansion of international ties and, as a consequence, the strengthening of “new” forces that vie for being funded by financial and industrial groups. Sanctions allow the most powerful states to interfere in the economy and control decision-making in smaller European states. The introduction of the EU sanctions against the members of the CEC of Belarus seems to be aimed at preventing a broad multilateral dialog and may finally “finish” not only the OSCE, but also the neutrality of Finland (chairing the OSCE in 2025) and Switzerland (chairing the OSCE in 2026).

In general, restrictive measures against the CEC will not be able to affect the organization of the electoral process in Belarus. Past sanctions, including restrictions against the Chairperson of the CEC of Belarus, did not become an effective tool of Brussels' intervention, failed to affect electoral security and had no impact on the political process in Belarus.

Pressure on partners of Minsk was also unsuccessful. On the contrary, multilateral coordination at the level of CIS electoral bodies has only intensified. For example, the powers of the Advisory Council of the Heads of the CIS Electoral Bodies have been leveled up and expanded. While Brussels’ politicization scares off partners, new electoral standards that actually work are being formed in the Union State, CIS and SCO, and the methodology of election observation is being improved through the coordination of research centers.

Sanctions against the CEC as a legal entity can only be an attempt to prevent the technological development of communications of organizers of elections. In the tactical perspective, there may be difficulties in the digitalization of the electoral process, but in the strategic perspective, self-reliance will allow the country to develop its own digital solutions and an approach to digitalization that will be convenient and meet the demands of Belarusian citizens, as well as the fundamental electoral standard of electoral security.

[1] Monitoring and assessment of the impact of unilateral sanctions and overcompliance on human rights. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. The General Assembly, 9 August 2024. URL: https://undocs.org/A/HRC/57/5