KYRGYZSTAN: ARBITRARY DETENTION OF 9 DISSENTING VOICES

The International League Against Arbitrary Detention urges the Government of Kyrgyzstan to take all the necessary actions to implement the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention Opinion No. 57/2024 concerning Mr. Saparbek Akunbekov,  Ms. Aike Beishekeeva, Mr. Azamat Ishenbekov, Mr. Akylbek (“Akyl”) Orozbekov, Mr. Aktilek (“Maadanbek”) Kaparov, Mr. Tynystan Asypbekov, Mr. Saipidin Sultanaliev, Mr. Maksat Tazhibek uulu and Mr. Zhoodarbek Buzumov, asking the Government of Kyrgyzstan to immediately and unconditionally release them and to accord them an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations in accordance with international law.

Read the full WGAD Opinion concerning the 9 individuals (Kyrgyzstan): Opinion No. 57/2024.

ARREST AND DETENTION OF NINE INDIVIDUALS UNDER ALLEGATIONS OF INCITING MASS UNREST

Mr. Akunbekov, Ms. Beishekeeva, Mr. Ishenbeko, Mr. Orozbekov, Mr. Kaparov, Mr. Asypbekov, Mr. Sultanaliev, Mr. Tazhibek uulu and Mr. Buzumov are all nationals of Kyrgyzstan born between 1972 and 2001. All of them were working in the media sector and have been employed by two local media entities, Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese.

According to the source, these two media outlets published investigative videos in late 2023 reporting on the alleged corruption of the Kyrgyz authorities. Following the publication of these videos, the Investigation Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs initiated a criminal case alleging that both Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese, by publishing materials discrediting the Government, had called for violent protests and mass unrest.

The source reported that the arrests of the nine individuals occurred on 16 January 2024. Eight of the nine individuals were charged with violating article 278(3) and 41(4) of the Kyrgyz Criminal Code which criminalize aiding and abetting in the incitement of mass riots or violence. Mr Kaparov was charged separately as an organizer of the conspiracy under article 278(3) and 41(2) of the Kyrgyz Criminal Code.

Furthermore, the source submitted that on 17 January 2024, the Pervomaisky District Court ordered a two-month long pretrial detention for all nine individuals. But it was alleged that following the pretrial detention order, the Kyrgyz government violated the provisions of its Code of Criminal Procedure as the nine individuals remained in a temporary detention centre for two weeks before being transferred to the remand centre.

On 12 March 2024, the pretrial detention of seven of the nine individuals was extended for two additional months. After the hearing, Messrs. Orozbekov, Akunbekov, Asypbekov, Sultanaliev, Tazhibek uulu and Buzumov were transferred to house arrest whilst Ms. Beishekeeva and Messrs. Ishenbekov and Kaparov remained at the pretrial detention centre. In that regard, the source submitted that the court had not made any meaningful distinction between those assigned to house arrest and those who remain in detention.

In its preliminary observations, the Working Group noted that on 10 October 2024, six of the nine individuals were acquitted and two out of the three people convicted were released on probation on the same day. However, whilst only Mr. Ishenbekov remained in detention, it decided to render its opinion in respect of all nine individuals

The Government of Kyrgyzstan was given the opportunity to respond to the source’s allegations, which it did on 30 September 2024. However, this response was submitted after the initial deadline set by the Working Group and was therefore considered inadmissible.

PLACED IN PRETRIAL DETENTION WITHOUT AN INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT OF THEIR CASE

The source submitted that the individuals’ pretrial detention was unsubstantiated and based on a “mere assumption” and that the detention order failed to consider each one’s  personal circumstances and the specific risks associated with each of their cases. The Working Group recalled that pretrial detention should be the exception and not the rule. On that basis, it considered that the authorities failed to properly justify the reasons for the nine individuals’ pretrial detention and the Government’s late submission failed to argue the contrary. Consequently, it found that their detention violated article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 9(3) of the Covenant

In conclusion, the Working Group considered that the detention of the nine individuals was arbitrary under category I.

ARRESTED DUE TO THEIR CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF VAGUE AND OVERLY BROAD PROVISIONS

The source argued that the provision leading to the nine individuals’ arrests was impermissibly imprecise and consequently could not be a basis for their deprivation of liberty. In fact, it stated that article 278 of the Kyrgyz Criminal Code imposes penalties on individuals who merely exercise their rights to freedom of opinion and expression as it prohibits “calls for active disobedience”, “mass riots”, and “calls for violence against citizens”. The source alleged that these terms were interchangeably used by the Kyrgyz justice system without any official definition being provided. It argued that the lack of clear definition had prevented the defendants from understanding the extent of their criminal exposure and the reasons behind their deprivation of liberty. For these reasons, and as it considered the Government to have failed to provide any explanation, the Working Group found that the individuals’ detention did not meet the requirements of article 19(3) of the Covenant.

Furthermore, the source asserted that the arrests of Ms. Beishekeeva and Messrs. Ishenbekov, Kaparov, Orozbekov, Asypbekov, Sultanaliev, Tazhibek uulu, Akunbekov and Buzumov were due to the online publication of materials discrediting the government and thus potentially leading to mass riots, to which the individuals were allegedly connected. In that regard, the Working Group confirmed the fundamental role held by journalists and bloggers as they provide information of public importance and act as independent monitors. It also recalled the Human Rights Committee’s Resolution 12/16 which recognizes that article 19 (2) protects the work of journalists and “includes the right of individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their governments without fear of interference or punishment”.

In light of the facts brought forward by the source and the Government’s failure to contest that the legal provision was used as a political tool to suppress dissenting voices, the Working Group concluded that the basis for the nine individuals’ arrest and detention was their exercise of the freedom of expression. Consequently, the Working Group found the restriction of their liberty to be in violation of article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 19 of the Covenant.

For those reasons, the Working Group concluded that the arrest and detention of the nine individuals was arbitrary under category II.

LACK OF FAIR TRIAL AND VIOLATION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE

According to the source, two of the nine individuals, Ms. Beishekeeva and Mr. Ishenbekov, were neither notified of their right to counsel upon their arrest nor allowed the presence of counsel during the informal questioning that occurred after their arrest. The Working Group accepted this allegation and found the deprivation of their right to legal counsel to be a violation of article 14(3)(b) of the Covenant.

Concurrently, the source alleged that multiple comments made by different high-level officials including the President of Kyrgyzstan prejudged the outcome of their trials before they had even been either scheduled or completed. Moreover, it reported that in early April 2024, all nine individuals appeared in metal cages in each of their separate appellate hearings which could have impacted the judges’ determination of criminal liberty as this practice may indicate that they are dangerous criminals. Due to the lack of justification by the government, the Working Group concluded that the nine individuals’ right to the presumption of innocence under article 11(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14(2) of the Covenant was violated. In fact, the Working Group found that the damage made to the defendants’ reputation and dignity was obvious and left lasting impacts harming their integrity in ways that could not be fully remedied.

In light of the above, the Working Group found that the detention of the nine individuals was arbitrary under category III.

DISCRIMINATED ON THE BASIS OF THEIR POLITICAL OPINION

The source argued that the arrests of the nine individuals were part of a broader pattern of State harassment against independent journalists and critics. In that light, the Working Group reiterated that because the individuals’ detention was found to result from their legitimate exercise of freedom of expression, there was a strong presumption that it also constituted a violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of political or other views.

As it pointed out the pattern of attitude displayed by the authorities towards the nine individuals related, in different capacities, to the Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese social media accounts, the Working Group found that their arrests and detentions were based on discrimination resulting from their political opinion, in violation of articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2 (1) and 26 of the Covenant.

Therefore, the Working Group found the abovementioned facts to have rendered their detention arbitrary under category V.

CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN WORKING GROUP AGAINST ARBTRARY DETENTION

In light of the foregoing, the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention considered that the detentions of Saparbek Akunbekov, Aike Beishekeeva, Azamat Ishenbekov, Akylbek (“Akyl”) Orozbekov, Aktilek (“Maadanbek”) Kaparov, Tynystan Asypbekov, Saipidin Sultanaliev, Maksat Tazhibek uulu and Zhoodarbek Buzumov, was arbitrary and fell under categories I, II, III, and V because their deprivation of liberty was in contravention of articles 2, 7, 9, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 2, 9, 14, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Right.

The Working Group recommended that the Government of Kyrgyzstan take the steps necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Beishekeeva and Messrs. Ishenbekov, Kaparov, Orozbekov, Asypbekov, Sultanaliev, Tazhibek uulu, Akunbekov and Buzumov without delay and bring it into conformity with the relevant international norms. The Working group considered that, taking into account all circumstances of the case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Mr. Ishenbekov immediately, to remove the conditional sentences imposed on Mr. Kaparov and Ms. Beishekeeva , and to accord them and Messrs. Orozbekov, Asypbekov, Sultanaliev, Tazhibek uulu, Akunbekov and Buzumov an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international law.