IAPB/Dignity: Where Did €10+ Million Go

IAPB/Dignity: Where Did €10+ Million Go?
A Preliminary Analysis of Spending, Structure, and Results (2021–2024)


The International Accountability Platform for Belarus (IAPB) - IAP Belarus - is a coalition of independent human rights organizations created in March 2021 to collect, verify, and preserve data on human rights violations in Belarus following the 2020 presidential election. Danish Institute Against Torture (DIGNITY), leads the platform as its Secretariat, responsible for organizing operations and distributing funding.
The project’s mission sounds weighty and relevant - documenting grave human rights violations in Belarus. However, the Platform’s official objectives do not include taking cases to court: it limits itself to collecting and storing evidence. This creates a risk that substantial resources will be spent on staffing, offices, infrastructure, and trainings without any commitment to achieve concrete legal outcomes. For Western taxpayers and donors, as well as for Belarusian society in whose interest the funds were allocated, this means one thing: money may be spent without a direct impact on accountability.
Despite DIGNITY’s claims of transparency and accountability, IAPB’s public documents contain too many generalities and too little specificity. Between 2021 and 2024, more than €10 million (on average €2.56 million per year) was allocated to the project for “collecting and preserving information,” yet it remains unclear who exactly received these funds, what precisely they paid for, and how the results were measured.
Real effectiveness and justification of this spending can only be assessed on the basis of clear and concrete data. That is why we address DIGNITY, as IAPB’s Secretariat, with a set of specific questions (see below). Their answers will show how transparent, efficient, and targeted the expenditures are, and whether they match the stated goals.

1. IAPB Structure

• Steering Committee, responsible for strategy and governance.
• Advisory Council, which, in addition to international bodies, IAPB says includes “a number of Belarusian organizations” - although these organizations are not named in the reports.
• Secretariat, located at DIGNITY’s headquarters in Copenhagen, which handles day-to-day management, data storage, and partner coordination.

1. DIGNITY – Danish Institute Against Torture — https://dignity.dk/en/
2. Human Rights Center “Viasna” — https://spring96.org/en
3. International Committee for the Investigation of Torture in Belarus — https://torturesbelarus2020.org/en/
4. Redress — https://redress.org/our-work/

• European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR)
• International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH)
• International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT)
• Norwegian Helsinki Committee
• Physicians for Human Rights (PHR)
• Reporters Without Borders (RSF)
• World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT)

• collects, verifies, and preserves evidence of international crimes allegedly committed by Belarusian authorities and others before and after the 2020 presidential election;
• interacts with prosecutors in EU countries who investigate crimes committed in Belarus;
• regularly organizes masterclasses and trainings on key topics to support the Platform’s partners in documenting violations.

• 2021 — €1,034,897.07
• 2022 — €3,620,916.23
• 2023 — €3,303,429.62
• 2024 — €2,294,495.00
  Total 2021–2024: €10,253,737.92 (DKK 76,374,560.00)

• IAPB’s mission does not include taking cases to court or bringing perpetrators to justice.
• Over 4 years and more than €10 million in spending, there have been no recorded concrete legal outcomes such as initiating or completing court proceedings.

• one document cost ~€348;
• one interview cost ~€3,888.

1. STAFF / DIGNITY Headcount for IAPB

• 2021 (September): at project launch - a full team: head, project manager, senior prosecutor, lawyer, analyst, two investigators, and a physician.
  For the initial phase, this looks excessively large, especially with two investigators and a physician on permanent staff.
• 2022 (January): two additional lawyers via co-founder REDRESS, despite already having a lawyer.
  This suggests duplication of functions.
• 2022 (February): a data systems manager and another Russian-speaking OSINT investigator were hired, implying at least one such staffer was already in place.
  OSINT largely relies on open, free sources, and there is no evidence of these data being used in courts - this looks like unjustified staff expansion.
• 2023: no new positions are mentioned in the public portions of reports, but there is active reference to specialists in IT security, international standards, and mock trials for trainings.
• 2024: offsite seminars and self-care activities for the team are recorded “to enhance resilience.”
  A substantial share of resources is directed to internal staff comfort.

• Minimum: ~€955k (≈37% of IAPB’s budget)
• Maximum: ~€1.145m (≈45% of IAPB’s budget)

• Office rent and maintenance in Copenhagen (DIGNITY HQ).
• Purchase of servers, data storage/processing equipment, and specialized software.
• Payment for IT systems and data protection measures (GDPR, cybersecurity).

• No breakdown of amounts and budget shares by line item—impossible to assess how much went specifically to infrastructure.
• It is not indicated whether DIGNITY’s existing capacities (office, servers, IT infrastructure) were used, or if everything was purchased anew for IAPB, potentially inflating costs.
• No information on license costs, maintenance, and system upgrades.
• It is unclear whether independent audits of IT security and data protection were conducted, even though handling sensitive materials requires regular checks.

• Regular online and offline trainings for partners, including:
  • IT security and GDPR compliance;
  • documentation of violations, including Istanbul Protocol standards;
  • international norms and procedures;
  • Mock trials.
• trainings on documenting deportation, sexual violence, and elements of crimes against humanity;

• offsite seminars and events for “team resilience” and “well-being.”

• No breakdown of amounts spent on each training or event.
• No data on participant numbers, their organizations, selection criteria, or concrete learning outcomes.
• Topic repetition (e.g., annual IT-security or documentation trainings) suggests the same modules are replicated for reporting purposes.
• Offsite “well-being” events look unrelated to IAPB’s mandate of accountability.
• No indication whether the acquired knowledge was applied in practice and whether documentation or investigations improved.

• Funding for IAPB co-founders’ work:

1. Human Rights Center “Viasna” - a key partner, cited as a major provider of data on violations.
2. International Committee for the Investigation of Torture in Belarus - a coalition of experts and human rights defenders collecting testimonies.
3. REDRESS - an international organization specializing in legal advocacy for torture survivors.

• Coverage of costs for lawyers and analysts engaged through these organizations.
• In several progress reports, it is separately noted that the Advisory Council includes “in addition to a number of Belarusian organizations” - without naming them

• No specifics about what services were provided under these payments and the actual volume of each partner’s work.
• No data on outcomes: how many cases were forwarded to competent authorities, how many prosecutions were initiated, how many decisions by international bodies relied on these materials.
• It is unclear whether partner services duplicated functions already present within DIGNITY’s IAPB team.
• The wording “a number of Belarusian organizations” is especially questionable, given that work inside Belarus was not conducted and could not be conducted under current repression. This creates a risk that these are either formal partners operating from abroad or nominal structures used to create an impression of broad involvement for donors.

1. Staff. IAPB’s actual headcount within DIGNITY far exceeds what is shown on the official website and includes at least 11 staff. The high cost of maintaining such a team, absent concrete legal results, calls spending efficiency into question.
2. Infrastructure. Significant costs for office, equipment, IT systems, and cybersecurity, with no itemized disclosure. The question of access to confidential information remains open, especially where staff may have political affiliations.
3. Events and trainings. Numerous sessions (including offsite “retreats” for team well-being) are conducted without disclosure of costs, participant criteria, or outcome assessments.
4. Partner payments. Funding of co-founders and unspecified “Belarusian organizations” that, under conditions of repression, could not operate inside the country. Reports do not indicate practical results of their work.
5. Support to victims. Psychological, medical, social, and legal aid is claimed, yet there are no data on scale, providers, budget volumes, or effectiveness.

1. What was the total budget allocated to IAPB staff salaries in 2021–2024?
2. Why does DIGNITY’s website list only four Belarus-related staff, while the reports indicate a much larger team (at least 11 people)?

3. What amounts were spent on office rent, equipment purchases, servers, cloud storage, and data protection systems under IAPB in 2021–2024? Please provide a breakdown by year and expense category.
4. Where exactly (physically and/or in the cloud) are the collected data stored? What cybersecurity measures are applied to protect them, including threats from third parties (e.g., Belarusian KGB)? Who has access to these data, and how is access logged?

5. Which “Belarusian organizations” received funding under IAPB? (Without this information, transparency of fund distribution cannot be verified.)
6. By what criteria and on whose recommendation were these organizations selected for funding?
7. Why are these organizations not named in public reports? (The absence of such data prevents assessment of partner performance.)

8. What share of the budget was devoted to psychological, medical, and legal aid to victims, and who exactly provided these services?
9. Do reports exist with quantitative and qualitative indicators of assistance provided (number of recipients, duration, outcomes)?
10. How are organizations or specialists providing these services selected?
11. How does IAPB verify the quality and effectiveness of the assistance? Is there follow-up with recipients, and who is responsible for quality control?