Controversy Over Kyrgyz Protest Sentences
Sentences of up to 20 years seen as warning to other protesters, rather than justice.
Controversy Over Kyrgyz Protest Sentences
Sentences of up to 20 years seen as warning to other protesters, rather than justice.
Some have also questioned the fairness of proceedings against the 32 Kyrgyz and Uzbeks who were involved in a protest against the local authorities’ decision not to organise a celebration of the Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr on October 1. (For an account of the disturbances, see Kyrgyzstan: Islamic Protest Sparked by Official Insensitivity, (RCA No. 551, 14-Oct-08.)
Officials say the accused were members of Hizb-ut-Tahrir, an Islamic group which they say deliberately provoked a confrontation in the southern town of Nookat.
The protesters were convicted on November 27, and received lengthy sentences ranging from nine to 20 years in prison. A 17-year old boy received a nine-year sentence, while two women were awarded sentences of 15 and 16 years respectively.
The group had been charged with a number of offences including incitement to cause mass unrest, overthrow the authorities, and create ethnic or religious strife.
Aziza Abdurasulova, director of the human rights centre Kylym Shamy, said the defendants appeared shaken when the sentences were passed.
“When the verdicts and sentences were read out, it was visible on their faces that they couldn’t understand what they were guilty of, or why they had received such lengthy prison terms,” she said.
The verdicts were announced after five days of hearings in the Osh regional court.
Although the sessions were meant to be open, some journalists and rights activists complained they had difficulty gaining access to the courtroom. It was only on the third day, following complaints from the defence, that a number of activists, plus one relative for each of the accused, were allowed into the court.
Abdurasulova questioned the fairness of the trial, which she thought was conducted in a rush and with a bias towards the prosecution.
“Most of all, I was surprised how swiftly the verdicts were announced, and how hastily the investigation was conducted,” she told IWPR. “The only witnesses called were police. It all reminded me of a political trial. The prosecutors and police treated it like a show-trial,” she said.
The proceedings related to a disturbance which erupted in Nookat after a crowd of young people gathered outside local government offices on October 1, to protest at a decision not to arrange a celebration of Eid al-Fitr – known locally as Orozo Ait – in the centre of town.
Local officials and police tried proposing an alternative venue for a celebration of the holiday, which falls at the end of the holy month of Ramadan. But officials say the protesters would not be cowed, and began vandalising the local government building, and throwing stones at police, five of whom were injured.
Riot police bused in from Osh used tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Seven of the protestors were arrested on the spot, and others were apprehended afterwards.
On October 13, the State Committee for National Security announced that 32 people were in custody. It also said that the detainees were all members of the religious party Hizb-ut-Tahrir.
The group emerged in Central Asia during the Nineties and advocates replacing the region’s secular authorities with an Islamic state. In Kyrgyzstan, Hizb ut-Tahrir has a particularly strong presence in the south, where there is greater observance of Islam.
In recent years, Hizb ut-Tahrir has begun supporting the cause of local communities which have a particular grievance against the authorities in Kyrgyzstan.
While the party maintains it is peaceful, regional governments insist it poses a threat to security. The Kyrgyz criminal code does not explicitly ban Hizb ut-Tahrir membership, although the Supreme Court issued a ruling prohibiting the group from operating in 2003, and the constitution prohibits faith-based political parties in general.
The exceptionally long sentences handed down in the Osh trial for what was, at worst, a localised riot in which no one was killed have alarmed human rights activists.
Abdirasulova suspects the authorities wanted the sentences to serve as a deterrent to Islamic activists and other potential protesters.
“The authorities wanted to scare not only believers, but also anyone else who might protest against them,” she said.
Kyrgyzstan’s human rights ombudsman, Tursunbek Akun, said, “For these kinds of acts, [the accused] should have been sentenced to five or six years, not 20.”
In response to the allegation that the suspects belonged to Hizb ut-Tahrir, Akun said that it was a mistake to make an enemy of the group by cracking down on suspected members.
“I am not defending Hizb ut-Tahrir – I condemn it – but these sentences are just frightening,” he added.
Kadyr Malikov, a Bishkek-based expert on religious affairs, agreed the sentences could have been shorter. He pointed out that lengthy sentences are usually reserved for serious crimes like murder, and suggested that a fine or other penalty applicable to misdemeanours would have been more appropriate.
He said it was wrong to “destroy someone’s life even if he is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. They are our fellow-citizens and they haven’t killed anyone.”
Nurdin Chydyev, an Osh-based lawyer who represented two of the accused, said justice had not prevailed at the trial.
He told IWPR that while defence witnesses were allowed to testify during the hearings, their testimonies were not taken into account when the final verdict was decided.
According to Chydyev, the court proceedings were biased in favour of the prosecution, whose evidence failed to prove that many of the defendants were involved in the trouble.
“Recordings made on video camera were presented at the trial. Four or five of the participants could be identified on the video,” he said.
The defence lawyer also questioned the police’s allegation that all the accused were members of Hizb ut-Tahrir.
“I guess that there are Hizb ut-Tahrir members among them, but not all of those sentenced are activists,” he said.
In Chydyev’s view, criminal investigators working on the case “should have established who was guilty of incitement, who was just an accomplice and who was an organiser, but this was not presented to the court”.
Atai Shakir-Uuly, deputy prosecutor for Osh region, disagreed. He told IWPR the investigators had done an effective job.
“The court reached its verdict after considering all the evidence that was gathered,” he said. “In other words, there was ample evidence.”
Oronaly Ergeshov, who heads the interior ministry department that deals with ethnic and religious conflict, also insisted that due process was observed.
“During the trial, the guilt of the accused was proven. There were a lot of witnesses. They filmed themselves on video, even on mobile phones. This was used as proof of their involvement,” he said.
Independent expert Orozbek Moldaliev also defended the trial, saying it was necessary as a way of preventing further disturbances of this kind. “This trial should be a lesson so that others don’t even think of doing likewise,” he said.
Yet at the same time, Moldaliev said he thought the sentences were disproportionate to the crimes.
“The final rulings did not take into account extenuating circumstances such as the age of the accused, and the fact that it may have been their first offence,” he said.
The ombudsman expressed hope that the sentences would be reduced, “I think that sooner or later these sentences will be replaced for softer ones as a result of an appeal. This decision by the court will be annulled.”
The court case also highlighted broader concerns about how the authorities handle disputes involving devout Muslims.
Abdirasulova criticised the Nookat local government’s original decision not to allow residents to mark the religious festival as they wished.
“Why were people allowed to pray in the square in Osh, Aravan and Bishkek, but not in Nookat? If it was forbidden in Nookat, then prayers should have been not allowed to take place in other town squares in Kyrgyzstan,” she said.
When the protesters’ arrests were first announced, national-level officials acknowledged that the local authorities were at fault.
“Representatives of the Muslim community had asked the local administration in advance for permission to hold this [Eid] event. But local government did not treat their request with the seriousness and respect it deserved, and consequently no solution was found,” Deputy Interior Minister Jenish Jakipov told journalists.
Jakipov said Hizb ut-Tahrir “exploited the popular dissatisfaction and incited young people to illegal acts”.
Observers said that by operating in a heavy-handed way, the government could further alienate people.
“Instead of solving these kinds of problems in an intelligent way, the authorities chose a clumsy approach,” said Akun. “This kind of court decision will undermine our president by stirring up ordinary people against him.”
Marat, a Hizb ut-Tahir member who gave only his first name, told IWPR that the treatment of the Nookat protesters would help recruit new members to the group.
“It is difficult to suppress people’s minds by crude force. That’s intimidation. It won’t lead to anything good,” he said. “This decision will encourage interest in the ideas of Hizb ut-Tahrir,” he said.
Abdirasulova said the government’s current tactics could end up making religious groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir more attractive.
“People who don’t trust the state do want to believe in something sacred, and will therefore continue to join religious organisations,” she warned
Malikov, meanwhile, warned the Kyrgyz authorities against following the example of their counterparts in Uzbekistan, who have become increasingly authoritarian in recent years.
“The most important thing is that Kyrgyzstan does not follow the path taken by Uzbekistan,” he said. “We fear repression. The harsher the repression, the stronger the reaction.”
Mirgul Akimova, Ayday Tokonova and Regina Kalpanazar are pseudonyms of journalists in Kyrgyzstan.
