Releasing political prisoners alone will not restore public trust. People need not only freedom and the repeal of unjust laws, but also the review of unlawful cases, reparations for harm suffered, accountability for the perpetrators, and reforms of the courts, prosecution service, investigative bodies, and security agencies. That is why this document treats accountability not as a collection of individual criminal cases but as part of a broader transitional justice framework that includes truth-seeking, reparations, guarantees of non-repetition, and institutional reforms.

There is also a practical risk. If repressive laws are repealed but the individuals and institutions that carried out violence and abuses face no assessment or consequences, the old system can quickly re-emerge in a new form. Without accountability for serious human rights violations, a change of power may become merely a change of officeholders rather than a restoration of justice.

For a person who was tortured, unlawfully prosecuted, deprived of their job, family, or home, forced into exile, denied the possibility of returning safely, left without a valid passport, or persecuted even abroad, such reconciliation would look like a continuation of injustice. Victims' rights to truth, justice, protection, and reparations cannot be sacrificed for political convenience or a quick sense of social peace.

At the same time, justice should not become an endless war with the past. These goals can be reconciled through a fair and transparent process: the state acknowledges the scale of repression, including transnational repression, opens archives, releases and rehabilitates victims, provides compensation, investigates the most serious crimes, and reforms the institutions that made abuses possible. Accountability must be individual, evidence-based, and fair — not collective or automatic.

Society can move forward only when victims do not feel they have once again been asked to sacrifice their rights for the sake of "stability" and when people who were not involved in crimes do not live in fear of collective punishment. The purpose of transitional justice is, therefore, not to divide Belarus permanently into the guilty and the innocent, but to rebuild trust through truth, accountability, and guarantees that repression will never happen again.

Accountability and lustration serve different purposes.

Accountability applies where a specific violation of the law has occurred: torture, unlawful detention, fabrication of evidence, knowingly unjust court rulings, violence, or persecution. In such cases, the state must establish what exactly a person did, what evidence exists, who was harmed, and what punishment is appropriate. This is a matter of criminal responsibility, guilt, and punishment.

Lustration works differently. It does not automatically label someone a criminal and does not replace criminal proceedings. Its purpose is to answer a different question: can a person be trusted with a key public office in a new democratic Belarus if they were connected to the repressive system, concealed their role within it, or may transfer old practices into new institutions?

Courts deal with crimes and punishment, while lustration protects the state from hidden loyalties, authoritarian backsliding, and the loss of public trust. Both are part of transitional justice, but each must be applied according to its own rules, with evidence, due process, the right to defense, and the possibility of appeal.

The same individuals and institutions that participated in or covered up repression should not be responsible for investigating and adjudicating these cases. That is why the justice system itself must first be reviewed and reformed. Judges, prosecutors, and investigators involved in unlawful convictions, torture, fabricated cases, or political persecution should not handle such proceedings. Investigating the most serious violations will require independent investigative and prosecutorial teams, specially trained judges, protection from political pressure, participation of victims, and public oversight.

In the initial stages, the country's justice system may lack the trust, experience, and independence necessary to handle the most complex cases on its own. International support may therefore be needed — not to replace justice in Belarus, but to strengthen it. This could include specially constituted chambers within national courts, the participation of international judges, prosecutors, investigators, and experts, assistance with evidence collection, victim and witness protection, training for Belarusian legal professionals, and international monitoring of the first proceedings.

This approach has already been used in various countries following large-scale human rights violations through hybrid or internationalized judicial mechanisms integrated into national legal systems. For Belarus, the most realistic option is not to transfer all cases to an international court but to conduct the most significant and high-profile proceedings within Belarusian courts with international participation. This would demonstrate that the new justice system operates not according to the logic of the former regime, but under the rule of law, with professional investigations, independent judges, and clear safeguards for both victims and defendants.

Those who are personally responsible for serious and systematic human rights violations will be held accountable. This includes leaders who designed and directed repressive policies, gave orders, or covered up crimes, as well as perpetrators who tortured, beat people, fabricated cases, issued knowingly unjust rulings, carried out unlawful detentions, denied individuals legal protection, or created conditions for ill-treatment. Importantly, accountability must not be based on the principle of collective guilt. Merely working in the judiciary, law enforcement, prosecution service, state administration, or state media does not in itself constitute criminal liability.

At the same time, it is important to recognize that after a democratic transition there will be a vast number of cases: thousands of victims, numerous incidents, and many individuals who may have been involved in repression. Attempting to investigate everything at once would overwhelm the system and undermine the quality of proceedings. This could result in weak cases, acquittals, lenient sentences, and renewed public disappointment in justice.

For this reason, a strategy of prioritization is proposed. The most serious cases and those involving individuals who bear the greatest responsibility should be addressed first. This includes not only senior officials who ordered and designed repressive policies, but also perpetrators whose actions were particularly brutal or caused severe harm, as well as cases supported by strong evidence.

Defendants must be guaranteed all the fundamental rights that the regime itself often denied to its opponents: the right to know the specific charges against them, the right to legal counsel, access to case materials, the ability to challenge evidence, call witnesses, provide explanations or remain silent, receive a judgment from an independent court, and appeal a verdict. A new democratic Belarus cannot restore justice by using the methods of the old system like predetermined guilt, secret evidence, pressure on courts, or politically motivated convictions.

The rights of defendants protect not only the accused but society as a whole. If guilt is established through a fair process, the judgment will carry legitimacy in the eyes of victims, citizens, and international partners. If proceedings appear to be acts of revenge, they will undermine trust in the new authorities and cast doubt on the very idea of accountability. Future trials must therefore be based on international standards, judicial independence, the right to defense, and fair investigations.

A blanket amnesty for serious human rights violations is not possible. Torture, unlawful convictions, violence, or deaths in detention cannot be exchanged for a promise to “tell the truth” and then be considered resolved. For victims, this would mean that the state had once again placed political convenience above their right to justice.

However, an admission of guilt and cooperation with investigators may be taken into account when determining a sentence. If a person genuinely helps establish the truth, provides documents, or assists in uncovering more serious crimes, this may serve as grounds for a reduced sentence in individual cases.

Cooperation with investigators may influence the severity of punishment, but it should not become a way to avoid responsibility for the gravest violations. While truth is important, it cannot be purchased at the cost of renewed impunity.

A person who has already experienced violence, imprisonment, torture, dismissal, or threats should not have to risk their safety again simply for helping establish the truth. Participation in proceedings must therefore be voluntary, informed, and safe, with access to legal assistance, psychological support, protection of personal data, and clear information about how and where testimony will be used.

It is especially important not to treat victims merely as “sources of evidence” who are repeatedly required to relive traumatic experiences before different authorities. Sensitive procedures are needed: minimizing repeated interviews, allowing testimony to be given in secure formats, protecting individuals from intimidation and retaliation, ensuring confidentiality, and, where necessary, providing special physical protection measures for victims and their families.

The goal is to ensure that people are not forced to choose between their safety and justice. The new system must take responsibility for protecting those who help uncover the truth. Otherwise, justice may appear sound on paper while remaining a source of fear for those who have already suffered the most.

International justice is important for Belarus, but its role is not to replace the country's courts. It can help where the national system is not yet able to act by recognizing the international dimension of crimes, supporting investigations, preserving evidence, increasing pressure on those who bear the greatest responsibility, and demonstrating that even state leaders are not above the law. This is especially important before a democratic transition, when independent investigations cannot be carried out inside Belarus.

However, international mechanisms will not be able to address all cases. Proceedings before international courts or in foreign jurisdictions typically focus on a limited number of the most serious crimes and the individuals who bear the greatest responsibility. They cannot replace the review of unlawful convictions, the investigation of thousands of cases of torture, arbitrary detention, and fabricated prosecutions, the provision of reparations, the protection of victims, or the reform of courts, prosecution services, and investigative bodies within the country. Most of the work will still need to be carried out in a democratic Belarus itself.

Only Belarus can fully restore justice as part of a new social contract through its own independent courts, transparent procedures, and respect for the rights of both victims and defendants.

Even now, it is possible to document violations, collect testimonies from victims and witnesses, preserve photographs, videos, medical records, court decisions, detention records, information about officials involved, and other evidence of repression.

It is important to support Belarusian human rights organizations, the UN Independent Expert Group on Belarus, and the International Accountability Platform for Belarus, as these bodies are currently collecting, processing, and preserving evidence for future proceedings. Another key task is to plan in advance how these databases and testimonies will be preserved over the long term if the mandates of international mechanisms expire before a democratic transition takes place.

Beyond preserving evidence, it is equally important to preserve public memory. Crimes disappear not only when documents are destroyed, but also when people stop talking about them. That is why archives of testimonies, public reports, educational initiatives, and cooperation with lawyers, journalists, historians, human rights defenders, and international partners are needed today. These efforts cannot replace future trials, but they can prevent the regime from rewriting history and help lay the foundation for a justice process that people will be able to trust.