The accusatory wording of the EU Council: how did it come about, and what does it mean? 

Synesis’ position regarding the Kipod and RSMOB systems accusations continues to raise questions from certain online media. In particular, they continue to manipulate with wording in the EU Council journal, which does not mention “mass identification” but makes the company “responsible for the repression of civil society and democratic opposition by the State apparatus in Belarus” in general. 

However, it is essential to understand where such a general but loud statement came from. The reason why the EU Council considered Synesis as a “candidate” for inclusion in the list is precisely the accusations of mass identification of protest marches participants in Minsk. In the absence of any evidence of this, the EU Council chose the most streamlined wording, which, moreover, is an extremely “convenient” manipulative tool for those online media that lobbied for the company’s inclusion in the EU sanctions list. 

But now somebody prefers to forget about why Synesis found itself in this situation. And instead of working on factual evidence of “using the system for the repression of civil society and democratic opposition” (which still does not exist by the way) or admitting of being wrong and apologizing, the resources concerned to use any other silly excuse to mention Synesis: be it fake news about the installation of cameras in all residential complexes or actual single facts of system usage in cafes which working at night. 

In addition, we remind you that the defendant in the ongoing litigation is not Synesis, but the EU Council, which included the company in the sanctions list. Therefore, the burden of proof for the “repression of civil society and democratic opposition” (i.e., the actual and systematic use of the system against the “democratic opposition”) lies with the respondent, not the plaintiff. Sanctions-related materials published by a company cannot be considered “evidence of the company’s innocence” unless there is evidence to the contrary (guilt in something). All publications are proceeding to demonstrate the absurdity of the accusations against Synesis. 

By the way, the “blurring” of the accusations is right the topic that Synesis co-founder Alexander Shatrov speaks about in his recent interview (multi language subtitles available):

Related Links: