On 26 October 2026, the Cantonal Court of St. Gallen sentenced Juri Garawski, a former member of the Belarusian SOBR special unit, to two years’ imprisonment, suspended, for the enforced disappearance of Anatoly Krasovsky. The decision partially overturns his complete acquittal in 2023. His acquittals in the cases of two other disappeared opposition figures remain in place. The judgment can be challenged before the Federal Supreme Court. [1][7]
The case connects eastern Switzerland with a dark chapter of Belarusian history. It also illustrates how carefully a criminal court must distinguish between participation in events, what the defendant can be shown to have known, and the procedural limits of an appeal.
Three men disappear in 1999
The case centres on former Interior Minister Yuri Zakharenko, opposition politician and former Deputy Prime Minister Viktor Gonchar, and businessman Anatoly Krasovsky. They disappeared in Belarus in 1999. Garawski, usually referred to in international sources as Yuri Harauski, later described his involvement in SOBR operations during which, according to his account, the men were abducted and killed. [3]
He made his account public in an interview with Deutsche Welle in 2019. After his presence in the canton of St. Gallen had been established, relatives of two victims and the human rights organisations TRIAL International, FIDH and Viasna filed criminal complaints in 2021. Prosecutors brought charges in 2022. The District Court of Rorschach acquitted Garawski on 28 September 2023: the trial court considered that his individual involvement had not been sufficiently proven. The relatives pursued the case through their appeal. [3][4]
Why there is one conviction and two acquittals
The appeal court assessed Garawski’s account differently from the lower court. According to current reporting on the proceedings, it was particularly persuaded by his detailed statements during the investigation. In Krasovsky’s disappearance, the court considered both his participation and his knowledge of the violent course of events to have been established. [7]
In Zakharenko’s case, however, the acquittal remained in place. According to SRF, the court found that Garawski, a newcomer on that first operation, had still expected an act of intimidation followed by the victim’s release. By the later operation, his earlier experience meant he could no longer invoke such ignorance. This is the reported explanation for the different assessments of the two cases. [2]
In Gonchar’s case, the obstacle was procedural: according to TRIAL International, the relatives of the other victims who were bringing the case did not qualify as Gonchar’s close relatives and therefore lacked standing to pursue that part of the proceedings. Prosecutors had withdrawn their own appeal. The lower court’s acquittal consequently remained in place. [3][4]
Why the sentence is suspended
According to SRF, the Cantonal Court initially took eight years’ imprisonment as the starting point for sentencing. It then gave substantial mitigating weight to Garawski’s comprehensive confession and cooperation. His personal conversation with a victim’s relative was also mentioned. The result is a two-year prison sentence with its execution suspended. The eight years were the starting point for this sentencing assessment; no such sentence had previously been imposed on him. [2]
The human rights organisations involved hail the decision as the first conviction abroad of a member of the Belarusian security apparatus for crimes connected with repression under Alexander Lukashenko. For Krasovsky’s daughter, the conviction after 27 years represents the first judicial recognition of the responsibility of one of those involved. [1]
What “enforced disappearance” means
Enforced disappearance is a particular attack on the protection afforded by the law. A person is deprived of liberty by state agents or with the state’s approval. The deprivation of liberty is then concealed, or information about the person’s whereabouts is withheld. Those affected are thereby placed outside the protection of the law, while their relatives remain uncertain about their fate. This is how Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs explains the core of the UN convention. [5]
Switzerland ratified the convention on 2 December 2016. It entered into force for Switzerland on 1 January 2017, when the separate offence under Article 185bis of the Criminal Code was also introduced. Garawski’s conviction concerns that offence. It does not constitute a conviction for murder. [1][5][6]
Why a Swiss court has jurisdiction
Article 185bis, paragraph 2, also covers offences committed abroad if the perpetrator is present in Switzerland and is not extradited. Neither a Swiss crime scene nor Swiss nationality on the part of the victims is required. This principle of universal jurisdiction enables prosecutions across national borders. Cantonal criminal justice authorities have jurisdiction over this separate offence; Garawski’s presence brought the case to St. Gallen. [4][6]
The fact that the abductions took place 27 years ago does not automatically dispose of the legal issue. Enforced disappearance can be treated as a continuing offence. Switzerland’s state report explains that the limitation period begins only when the unlawful situation ends. According to the organisations involved, the trial court in Garawski’s case had already accepted the continuing nature of the offence. [4][6]
A step towards accountability
The decision concerns Garawski’s personal criminal responsibility. It is not a criminal judgment against Lukashenko or all those suspected of ordering the operations. The human rights organisations nevertheless hope that the findings will enable further investigations into those responsible. [1]
For Switzerland, the proceedings show what the obligation to prosecute serious human rights violations means in practice: acts committed by a foreign security apparatus can also come before its courts. The specific conviction, however, has not yet been definitively settled.
As of 27 October 2026. The judgment is not yet final. This report draws on statements by the organisations involved, current reporting on the court proceedings and official Swiss explanations of the offence.