Vitaly Dvarashin and the organisation ‘Mūsų namai’ (i.e. ‘Our House’) won the court in Lithuania and cancelled the forced deportation. The Department of Migration now owes Vitaly and me more than a thousand euros. We analyse the case of a Belarusian conscientious objector facing contradictory decisions of the Lithuanian authorities to understand how national procedures violate international human rights standards.

Introduction

The case of Vitaly Dvarashin, a Belarusian conscientious objector living in Lithuania, became a vivid example of how bureaucratic decisions and disregard for international obligations lead to systemic human rights violations. Vitaly, who has lived in Lithuania for about ten years, faced problems related to the revocation of his temporary residence status and the threat of deportation. The case raised important questions about respect for the rule of law, transparency and proportionality in administrative processes.

Case history

In 2023, the Lithuanian Migration Department cancelled Vitaly’s temporary residence permit, citing certain ‘threats to state security’. The decision of the migration department was cancelled by the Vilnius Administrative Court and confirmed by a higher court, which pointed out that there was no objective evidence of a threat. However, in 2024, the department again adopted a similar decision without addressing the court’s observations.

Enforcement issues

A key point in the case is the use of classified information provided by the State Security Department (VSD) without an explanation of its content or an opportunity to challenge it. This violates the basic principles of fair trial under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

1. Lack of evidentiary basis.

Lithuanian migration authorities did not provide objective evidence that Vitaly posed a threat. All decisions were based on ‘closed data’, which makes the process non-transparent and undermines trust in state institutions

2. Disproportionality of measures

The ban on entry to Lithuania and Vitaly’s inclusion in the Schengen Information System (SIS) were applied without taking into account his personal circumstances and long residence in the country.

3. Contravention of international obligations
   Lithuania, as a member of the EU, is obliged to comply with the Return Directive, which requires a personalised approach and respect for the rights of migrants and refugees. In this case these requirements were ignored.

Legal aspects

The court decision indicated that the actions of the Migration Department violated the principles of proportionality and legality enshrined in Lithuanian law. However, the Department of National Security continues to ignore court decisions, which raises the question about the effectiveness of the Lithuanian legal system in protecting the rights of Belarusian refugees.

Legal precedents and human rights

The case of Vitaly Dvarashin, a Belarusian conscientious objector, reflects important issues of the intersection of human rights, national security and administrative law. It relates to the decision of the Vilnius District Administrative Court of 27 June 2023, which was upheld by the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The case addresses the violation of asylum seekers’ rights and the role of the Migration Department in threat assessment.

1.Threat assessment.

The court noted that the migration authorities had failed to carry out a comprehensive assessment of the possible threat posed by the applicant. Despite VSD’s allegations that his service in the Belarusian army could make him a potential agent for the Belarusian special services, the court emphasised that this was not sufficient to recognise a real threat.

2. The right to asylum

The Court noted that an applicant should not be penalised for applying for asylum and his or her right to change residence status should remain inviolable. This is a key position that emphasises the importance of respecting the rights of migrants in the application process.

3.Role of the VSD

An important aspect of this case is the involvement of the State Security Department (VSD), which provided information about a possible threat to national security. However, the court stated that the VSD’s analysis was not sufficiently substantiated and specific evidence of the threat was not provided.

Importance of the judgement for migration policy

This case emphasises the need for a more balanced approach to assessing the threat posed by foreign nationals, especially when it comes to politically motivated decisions. The Court emphasised that migration authorities should rely on a broader set of data and not only on the findings of intelligence agencies.

Conclusion

The case of the Belarusian conscientious objector Vitaly Dvarashin is a clear example of the tension between protecting human rights and ensuring national security in immigration law. While security is important, fundamental human rights must be respected, especially for vulnerable categories of citizens such as asylum seekers. The case also highlights the role of the judiciary in ensuring that administrative decisions are made fairly, based on facts and comprehensive assessments.

Afterword

In order not to depersonalise the excellent news with analytics, we would like to stress that the court fully satisfied Vitaly Dvarashin’s complaint, thus cancelling the decisions of the Migration Department on Vitaly’s forced deportation to Belarus.

Moreover, the court ruled to recover 1222 euros and 50 cents from the Migration Department, explicitly stressing that this amount was given to Vitaly by our organisation ‘Mūsų namai’ to fight for his rights.

 

In order for us to help others to protect their rights, we need your help. You can help here, click on any of the buttons on the left or right, and then repost the news, like it on our social networks here, here and here, or take part in the clean-up day.