As Jackson and Tzanakopoulos argue, the forced landing is likely in breach of Article 3 of the Chicago Convention, which prohibits the unreasonable endangerment of civil aircraft and the lives of persons on board. They further note a likely breach of the Montreal Convention should it be found that officials intentionally communicated information known to be false, thereby, again, endangering the safety of an aircraft in flight.

It is hard to imagine Jackson and Tzanakopoulos not to be correct due to the obvious hazard such conduct poses for international aviation, though this is not the only law Belarus is arguably in breach of. The second area incredibly pertinent to this case is that of international human rights law, which captures the wrongfulness of Belarus’ conduct and its affront to human dignity in a more meaningful way. For one, Belarus clearly breached Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) when it conducted an unlawful and arbitrary deprivation of liberty of Protasevich, his partner, and indeed temporarily of all passengers.

More worrying, however, are the further breaches of the ICCPR and also the Convention Against Torture (CAT) that Protasevich and his partner are likely to face during their arrest. They face a high risk of torture and degrading treatment, which have been reported as a widespread practice by UN Human Rights reporters in Belarusian President Lukashenko’s brutal crackdown on opposition and media criticism. Protasevich, in particular, also faces the risk of the death penalty as the warrant for his arrest issued last November was based on alleged involvement in terrorist activity for which the Criminal Code of Belarus permits capital punishment. If, as noted by Special Rapporteur Anaïs Marin in October 2020, there is virtually no hope for a fair trial and judicial independence, Protasevich will not be able to avoid such a penalty if this is what Lukashenko seeks. Whilst the CAT and ICCPR do not prohibit the death penalty per se, it is highly unlikely that Belarus will meet the stringent conditions international law imposes on the use of such a punishment in what would amount to a sham trial.

Whilst complaints to the ICAO and the UN Human Rights Committee (which monitors the ICCPR) are routes to keep this case in the limelight of the international community, Protasevich’s case is but another example of the systemic and widespread human rights violations already taking place in Belarus. This is why Baroness Helena Kennedy QC’s question in the House of Lords about whether the UK government is considering a referral to the International Criminal Court is valid. The current case, when viewed as part of the systemic brutal crackdown on opposition and dissent currently taking place in Belarus, forms but further evidence of widespread crimes against humanity in Belarus that fall within the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. As noted by Amnesty International, tens of thousands of peaceful protesters have been detained, many of them tortured, beaten or prosecuted, meeting the Court’s requirement of a widespread practice of human rights abuses necessary to fall within Article 7.

Calling this systematic occurrence of persecution and use of force against a group on political grounds what it is—a crime against humanity—and proposing an ICC referral would be a welcome step, even if a UK proposal for referral ultimately fails due to Russia’s veto in the UN Security Council. It would reaffirm the UK’s commitment to a rules-based international order and resist the temptation to view the Belarusian situation as background noise to Protasevich’s arrest, only to be soon forgotten. A proposal for referral would address the true nature of the situation the Protasevich case illuminates, rather than view the forced landing as an isolated matter of international aviation law being breached.

On September 17 authorities detained Marfa Rabkova, a coordinator of the Volunteer Service at Belarussian human rights organisation Viasna – one of the last standing bulwarks against the Lukashenko regime. Amnesty International, Front Line Defenders, FIDH, and local human rights organisations have joined together in calling for her immediate release. Sadly, her arrest is not an isolated incident.

Rabkova’s name is latest to be added to a growing list of detained opposition figures and human rights defenders. The first wave began months before the August election. Prominent blogger and Presidential hopeful Sergei Tikhanovsky was arrested on May 29 and remain in detention today. Over the course of the three months of his detention, new charges have been tacked on to his case, and dozens of his supporters have been arrested. His wife, Svetlana, now carries the torch for the opposition.

Recently, it is members of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s Coordination Council – created to engage in talks with Lukashenko’s government – that have been systematically targeted throughout the country. In the space of two weeks, all of the members of its governing body have faced arrest, detention, or harassment by law enforcement. Authorities abducted Maria Kolesnikova, a prominent activist and member of the Council, and drove her to the Ukrainian border, hoping to illegally expulse her from the country.  In a courageous act of defiance, she tore her passport, refusing to leave Belarus. Now she faces criminal charges.

Authorities are relying heavily on several articles of the Criminal Code of Belarus that have been used against human rights defenders and activists in the past. Rabkova has been charged with the same offence as Tikhanovsky: “organising riots” under Article 293. This offence has been used for decades as a tool to detain and imprison activists. Its use against Tikhanovksy for organising a rally to collect signatures for Svetlana’s campaign and against Rabkova for her work at Viasna is a clear violation of their rights to expression and assembly. “No person should be criminally charged for their peaceful participation in a demonstration,” said a group of UN human rights experts in a meeting on September 1.

The charges hanging over members of the Coordination Council are even more concerning. On August 20 the Attorney General opened a criminal case against the Council. Amnesty’s director for Eastern Europe and Central Asia called the case a “shocking violation of the freedom of expression”. Following Kolesnikova’s refusal to leave Belarus, she is the first to be charged under Article 361 for “seizure of state power”. Charging political opponents with sedition and treason-type offences is a standard move in the authoritarian playbook and has a disastrous chilling effect on human rights.

Protecting the people at the front lines of the struggle for human rights in Belarus is more important than ever. As Amnesty reports, the Akrestina detention centre where Rabkova, Tikhanovsky, Kolesnikova and dozens of other activists are being held has become synonymous with “vicious beatings and allegations of sexual violence”. Amnesty insists that these activists are being targeted with trumped-up charges for their opposition to the regime.

The escalation of violence at the March for Freedom on September 20 shows that a new wave of brutality could erupt at any moment. Without activists and human rights defenders to shed light on the abuses, Lukashenko’s regime will continue its repression with impunity. The UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders highlights the importance of individuals working to document and stand up to human rights abuses. Without them, there is little hope for a free Belarus.

Facing long odds, the Belarussian human rights community has shown incredible resilience. Despite the repeated persecution of their staff, Viasna remains defiant. Reacting to Rabkova’s arrest in a press release, they issued a clear warning: “Hands off Marfa, Hands off Viasna!”