Belarusian security officials are reportedly taking DNA samples from political prisoners and relatives of people who have left the country, despite the absence of a law that currently makes genetic registration compulsory. The reported campaign places families of exiles inside a widening system of state identification before the proposed legal framework has been approved.
Human rights defenders in Gomel, Mogilev and Minsk told media that genetic material was being collected from political prisoners in penal colonies and requested from relatives of emigrants. Those affected reportedly include former civic activists and people who have served prison sentences for political reasons.
In some cases, police officers allegedly told family members that the samples were being used to build a DNA database. The stated purpose was to identify a person who had left Belarus if necessary. The reports do not establish the size of the database, how samples are stored or whether genetic information has already been used to identify anyone abroad.
Why relatives’ samples matter
A DNA profile can identify an individual, but it can also reveal biological relationships. That gives the collection of samples from relatives a significance beyond ordinary forensic identification.
If officials hold a family member’s genetic material, they may be able to compare it with another sample or use it to confirm a claimed identity. In principle, that can provide information about someone who is no longer physically in Belarus, even if that person has not personally submitted a sample.
The reported practice therefore reaches beyond people in custody. Political prisoners and former activists are directly exposed to the authorities, while their relatives can remain a route to information about people who have moved abroad. The available reporting does not show that this mechanism has already been used to locate or identify a particular emigrant. It does show why family collection is more consequential than a registry limited to people directly involved in a criminal case.
Fingerprints do not authorise DNA collection
Lawyers from the human rights organisation Viasna say officials must distinguish between taking fingerprints and obtaining genetic material. Belarus has a separate law that makes fingerprinting compulsory for several categories, including suspects, defendants, convicted people, those subject to military obligations and Belarusian citizens who live permanently abroad.
That legislation does not automatically create a power to demand DNA. According to Viasna’s lawyers, Belarus currently has no general law requiring prisoners or relatives of emigrants to provide genetic samples. They therefore regard the reported demands as unlawful under the legal framework now in force.
The distinction is not merely technical. A fingerprint is principally used to connect a person with an identity, record or trace. Genetic material can also expose family relationships and can remain useful for comparisons long after the original collection. A state DNA database consequently has a different reach from a fingerprint register, particularly if the authorities seek samples from people who are not themselves accused of a specific offence.
A proposed law has not yet passed
In 2026, the State Committee for Forensic Examinations initiated a bill on compulsory genomic registration. The initiative won support from law-enforcement bodies and other state agencies, but the legislation has not been adopted.
The bill could establish the formal basis for a national genetic register and define which groups would have to provide samples. Its final scope remains unclear. The available reports do not say whether it would cover only selected categories of prisoners and people involved in criminal proceedings, or whether it could extend to a wider section of the population.
That timing creates the central legal problem. Rights lawyers say authorities are already demanding DNA from politically exposed people and their families, while the state is still preparing the legislation that could make compulsory collection lawful. The wording of the final law would matter, as would any provisions dealing with samples taken before it came into force.
Adopting the bill would not settle every question. It would still be necessary to know how long profiles could be retained, which agencies could access them, what safeguards would apply and whether people could challenge a demand for a sample. None of those details is provided in the reports of the current collection.
Pressure before the rulebook
The reported campaign is concentrated on groups already vulnerable to state retaliation: political prisoners, former civic activists and relatives of people who have gone abroad. That pattern suggests a use of genetic registration that may extend beyond conventional crime-scene identification, although the available information does not establish the authorities’ wider operational purpose.
The immediate issue for families is whether officials can compel them to provide genetic material before a specific law exists. The broader question is whether a practice that Viasna’s lawyers currently describe as unlawful will later be given a formal foundation by the compulsory-registration bill.
The reports and the legal objections were published by Zerkalo on 7 October 2026. Until the proposed legislation is settled, Belarus’s DNA system sits in the gap between reported enforcement and unapproved law — with relatives of people abroad already caught on the inside.
