Leaving Belarus may prevent an immediate arrest, but it no longer guarantees escape from the authorities’ criminal pressure. On 2 November 2026, reports described proceedings in absentia against two Belarusians living abroad, while the family of imprisoned investigative journalist Dzianis Ivashyn said it had been unable to contact him for more than 20 days.
The cases involving Liudmila Zhdanko and Yauhen Shpakouski remain allegations attributed to Belarusian authorities, not findings independently established by a court. Taken alongside the silence surrounding Ivashyn, however, they show how pressure can operate at both ends of the state’s reach: through legal proceedings against critics outside the country and isolation inside its prisons.
Criminal proceedings beyond Belarus
Zhdanko formerly ran a shop selling Belarusian national symbols in Bialystok, Poland, and was involved in volunteer work. A case has reportedly been opened against her on allegations of assisting “extremist activity” and insulting a representative of the authorities.
A separate proceeding concerns Shpakouski. He is accused of threatening or using violence against law-enforcement officers, insulting Alyaksandr Lukashenka and insulting a government representative. Without access to the full case files or an independent judicial process, the strength of those accusations cannot be assessed.
What can be understood is the practical effect of proceedings conducted in a person’s absence. The authorities can continue pursuing a case while the accused remains outside Belarus and beyond the immediate reach of its police. The process may still make a return home dangerous, complicate international travel and create new risks for relatives who remain in the country.
For activists and other critics living abroad, that changes the meaning of exile. Distance can reduce the chance of immediate detention, but it does not remove the possibility of being declared wanted, facing restrictions on movement or being forced to weigh every journey against the risk of arrest. A criminal case can also serve as a warning to other Belarusians who speak publicly from overseas.
There is an important distinction between the existence of such proceedings and proof of guilt. The reported cases do not establish that Zhdanko or Shpakouski committed the offences alleged against them. They do show that residence outside Belarus is no longer a clear boundary on the authorities’ ability to initiate criminal action.
A journalist’s silence
Inside the country, the uncertainty is more immediate for Ivashyn’s family. The journalist and investigative reporter was sentenced in 2022 to 13 years and one month in prison on charges including treason and the illegal collection and dissemination of private information.
Relatives say they have heard nothing from him for more than 20 days. They suspect that he may have been placed again in a punishment cell, but that has not been independently confirmed.
The loss of contact does not, by itself, establish what has happened. It does prevent the family from reliably checking his whereabouts, health or disciplinary status. In a prison system where access for relatives, lawyers and independent observers is limited, even a temporary interruption can become a prolonged and frightening gap in basic information.
If Ivashyn has been transferred to a punishment cell, the measure would intensify his isolation. But the central problem already exists: without confirmation from the authorities, his family cannot distinguish between a disciplinary sanction, an interruption in communications or a more serious deterioration in his condition.
The cases and Ivashyn’s situation are covered in a report by Spring96. The unresolved questions are whether the authorities will disclose the basis for the proceedings against the two Belarusians abroad and confirm where Ivashyn is being held and how he is.
