Kyrgyzstan: Situation of Detained Member of Parliament Omurbek Tekebayev
Information about Tekebayev
Omurbek Chirkeshevich Tekebayev (born 22.12.1958) is a citizen of the Kyrgyz Republic. He is married with four children. He is an Honoured Lawyer of the Kyrgyz Republic. You can find out more detail via the link. [1]
Omurbek Tekebayev is the leader of the Ata-Meken Socialist Party, [2] a party with over 25,000 members throughout the country. He has been in politics for 30 years. In 2010, after the revolution, as the Chairman of the Constitutional Council, [3] he played a major role in the transition of the country from a presidential form of government to a parliamentary one. The draft Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic was recognised by the Venice Commission [4] as the most successful among the former Soviet republics. After becoming an MP in 2010, Tekebayev initiated more than 70 bills, including the revision of all constitutional laws, to bring them in line with the parliamentary system of governance under the new Constitution.
The bills introduced by him and adopted by the Parliament include: Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 163 of 24 July 2013 “On Restricting Usury in the Kyrgyz Republic,” [5] which limits excessive profits by microcredit companies and protects borrowers’ interests. The Constitutional Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 141, adopted by the Parliament on 9 July 2008, “On the Status of Judges of the Kyrgyz Republic,” [6] the Constitutional Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 37 of 13 June 2011 “On the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic,” [7] which allowed the initiation of reforms in the judicial system. The Law on External Migration, [8] and the Law on Internal Migration,[9] which allows migrants to return to the country, even if they obtain the citizenship of another state, to be able to acquire real property and live and work in their own country; the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic on Transfer (Transformation) of Land,[10] allowing internal migrants to legalise their homes in the suburbs, which opened access to state social services, education, medical, and ritual services, and social assistance to the poor.
We also have obtained irrefutable evidence of violations of Tekebayev’s rights during the electoral process in Kyrgyzstan, as well as evidence of discrimination against Tekebayev’s supporters and members of the Ata-Meken party.
Key Points of Fabrication of His Case and Consequences
In 2016, Omurbek Tekebayev spoke out against the plans of Almazbek Atambayev, then-President of the Kyrgyz Republic, Atambayev, to amend the Constitution and hold a referendum, [11] [12] believing that this would lead to the usurpation of power. Right up to his arrest he conducted extensive public campaigns, [13] together with members of the Ata-Meken Party, human rights activists and civil activists, in order to inform the public about the goals and the system of governance of Atambayev. He explained that the proposed amendments to the Constitution would violate the terms of the moratorium in force until 2020. [14] He initiated an appeal to the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe and the OSCE on behalf of Almambet Shykmamatov, a member of the Ata-Meken Party, Chairman of the Committee on Constitutional Legislation, requesting an assessment of the proposed amendments to the current Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic. [15] Tekebayev has been and remains one of the leading critics of Atambayev’s government. He ensured that facts of corruption in which Atambayev and his entourage were involved reached the public domain.[16][17][18][19] He openly spoke about the President’s involvement in the organisation of the escape of Aziz Batukayev, a criminal leader, in 2013. [20][21] Following that, the parliamentarian reported that he was under surveillance.
At a press conference on 22 November 2016, Tekebayev announced plans to prepare for the impeachment of President Atambayev, citing a number of facts about violations of laws and the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic by Atambayev and people from his entourage. [22]
Investigation and Trial
On 25 February 2017, due to politically-motivated persecution authorities fabricated a criminal case against Tekebayev under Articles 166 (Fraud) and 303 (Corruption) of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. The charges were based on the false testimony of Leonid Maevsky, a businessman and citizen of Russia. [23] Mayevsky stated that in 2010, he gave US $1 million to Omurbek Tekebayev to gain control over Megacom, a mobile phone operator. The prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof to corroborate the witness Mayevsky’s testimony.
Tekebayev was arrested on 26 February 2017, as he was about to board a plane at Manas Airport. [24] The next day the court ordered him to be detained at the pre-trial detention facility of the State Committee for National Security of the Kyrgyz Republic (hereinafter referred to as SIZO GKNB) for two months. [25]
On 8 June 2017, the trial against Omurbek Tekebayev and Duyshenkul Chotonov began in the Pervomaysky District Court of the city of Bishkek.[26]
The pre-trial investigation and the judicial investigation were carried out hastily, in violation of the principles of objectivity and fairness. In order to speed up the proceedings, the investigative authorities and Courts committed gross violations of procedural norms and Tekebayev’s fundamental human rights and those of other persecuted members of the Ata-Meken Party. [27] Interrogations and court hearings were held continuously for 10 hours or more. The detainees were deprived of sleep, food, and time for preparation of defence. Lawyers were not admitted to see them and came under pressure. Subsequently, court rulings were issued regarding the lawyers Chinara Jakupbekova and Kanat Hasanov, ordering the revocation of their law practice licences. Obstacles were created in every way to prevent Tekebayev’s participation in the presidential elections of the Kyrgyz Republic in 2017.
Presidential Elections of 2017
The Eurasia Democracy Initiative observed that the Kyrgyz authorities used methods to eliminate Tekebayev from the election race by limiting his voting rights. This was manifested in the following ways:
– Authorities confiscated and withheld Tekebayev’s Kyrgyz national identity card, which made it impossible for him to open an official bank account and prevented the formation of an election campaign fund.
– The authorities prevented Tekebayev from taking a test to prove his knowledge of the state language. [28]
– The Central Election Commission of Kyrgyzstan (hereinafter the CEC), found, for formal reasons, that the 39,000 voters’ signatures collected in support of the candidacy Tekebayev for Presidency were invalid. The authorities did not allow the registration of Tekebayev as a candidate for the President of the Kyrgyz Republic. [29] According to representatives of civil society and Tekebayev’s supporters, the CEC was under unspoken pressure, [30] and the CEC had to follow a political order. [31]
– On 1 November 2017, the CEC prematurely revoked Tekebayev’s mandate.[32]
– On 21 November 2017, Tekebayev was found guilty of committing a crime under Article 303, Part 1 (Corruption) of the Criminal Code of theKyrgyz Republic by a ruling of the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court [33] and sentenced to 8 years of imprisonment, with the confiscation of property.
In Tekebayev’s election case, all national remedies in Kyrgyzstan have been exhausted, namely:
On 21 June 2017, Almaz Zholdoshbekov, presidential candidate Tekebayev’s authorised representative, notified the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda of the Kyrgyz Republic that Tekebayev was held in the Pre-Trial Investigation Facility of the National Security Committee (GKNB). Since the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda of the Kyrgyz Republic, according to the Law of the Kyrgyz Republic “On Election Commissions,” facilitates the preparation and conduct of the elections in the Republic, whose tasks include ensuring equal legal conditions for candidates, Zholdoshbekov asked them to provide equal electoral conditions for Tekebayev as stipulated by the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic, that is, to provide Tekebayev with the opportunity to participate in a test to determine the level of proficiency in the state language by candidates for the post President of the Kyrgyz Republic.
On 24 June 2017, Almaz Zholdoshbekov, Tekebayev’s authorized representative appealed to the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda of the Kyrgyz Republic to urgently consider violations of Tekebayev’s electoral rights, with further appeal and explanation to all interested bodies and persons, including Judge Aibek Ernis-uulu, as well as representatives of the convoy unit of the State Penal Service to prevent violation of Tekebayev’s electoral rights.
On 25 June 2017, the authorised representative of the presidential candidate O. Tekebayev, Almaz Zholdoshbekov, requested the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda of the Kyrgyz Republic to provide O. Tekebayev with the opportunity to participate in a test determining the level of proficiency in the state language by candidates for the post of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic, which were to be held on 26 June 2017.
On 27 June 2017, Almaz Zholdoshbekov, Tekebayev’s authorized representative, notified the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda of the Kyrgyz Republic of their failure to provide a timetable for taking the state language examination.
On 27 June 2017, a response was received from the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda of the Kyrgyz Republic that they had received Tekebayev’s documents about his self-nomination as a presidential candidate, that his authorised representatives were registered and he was to exercise his electoral rights independently.
On 25 July 2017, the lawyer Khasanov appealed to the Pervomaisky District Court requesting the release of candidate Tekebayev’s passport in order to open a bank account and create an electoral fund in accordance with the Constitutional Law on Elections of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic and Deputies of the Jogorku Kenesh, [34] and asked to secure Tekebayev’s participation in a test for knowledge of the state language. The Court refused to deal with the matter of releasing Tekebayev’s passport, groundlessly citing the fact that consideration of this matter was beyond the
competence of the Court. [35]
On 1 August 2017, Tekebayev’s representative Almaz Zholdoshbekov submitted to the Central Commission for Elections and Referenda a request to allow Tekebayev to participate in a test to determine the level of proficiency in the state language by candidates for the office of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic that was to take place on 26 June 2017.
On 10 August 2017, by a Resolution of the Kyrgyz Republic CEC, the application by Tekebayev’s representative was dismissed requesting Tekebayev’s participation in a test to determine the level of his proficiency in the state language.
On 11 August Tekebayev’s representative submitted an application to the Inter-District Court of Bishkek seeking to overturn the Resolution of the Kyrgyz Republic CEC dated 10 August 2017 refusing to provide Tekebayev with the opportunity to take a test for knowledge of the state language;
On 17 August 2017, the Kyrgyz Republic found the 38,648 signatures of voters in support of Tekebayev to be invalid. The formal reason for the CEC decision finding the voters’ signatures invalid was that funds in the amount of 103,000 som (about US $1,500) used to purchase paper, print subscription lists and collect signatures were not credited to the electoral fund of the presidential candidate of Kyrgyzstan. [36] But the election fund, in turn, was not created, because money was not deposited into the bank account, for which Tekebayev’s passport and samples of his signatures were required, which had to be certified by a notary. Judge Aibek Ernis-uulu of the Pervomaisky District Court refused to release Tekebayev’s passport from the case files, indicating that the decision was beyond his authority and that he needed the passport to verify his identity. [37][38]. The judge also refused to allow him to meet a notary in the courtroom to check Tekebayev’s passport for the certification of the signature cards. Thus, formal obstacles were created to prevent Tekebayev from participating in the elections.
On 18 August 2017, the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Inter-District Court of 14 August 2012, refusing to provide Tekebayev with the opportunity to participate in a test of knowledge of the state language.
On 22 August, 2017 the Inter-District Court of Bishkek dismissed the appeal of Tekebayev’s lawyer.
On 30 August 2017, the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court upheld the Decision of the Inter-District Court of the city of Bishkek dated 22 August 2017, which had dismissed the application of Tekebayev’s authorised representative seeking to overturn the decision of the CEC dated 17 August 2017, finding invalid 38,648 signatures in support of Tekebayev’s electoral candidacy president. The cassation appeal of Tekebayev’s authorised representative of Tekebayev was dismissed.
Public Reaction
In 2017, following opposition politician Tekebayev’s arrest, peaceful protests[39][40] were organised around the country by civic activists, human rights defenders and fellow party members, which were a reaction to the total restriction on political activity for a well-known opponent of Atambayev. As observations on violations of laws under formal pretexts indicate, the protestors were severely restricted by the authorities [41][42] through injunctions that violate citizens’ constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.
It is evident that the fabrication of the criminal case against Tekebayev and his subsequent conviction were aimed at discrediting him and undermining public confidence in him, which he deservedly enjoyed as one of the oldest and most popular politicians of the country, and had the goal of depriving him of public support. It is also obvious that Atambayev intends to remove Tekebayev from the political arena, so that Atambayev himself can return unhindered and continue to participate in political processes within the country. Although even today, as ex-president, Atambayev has retained an unprecedented influence over all branches of government through his protégés appointed to all major state and political posts in Kyrgyzstan. Thus, Atambayev “cleaned up” the field of his political opponents, who in the event of disagreement could oppose Atambayev’s further political plans.
All National Remedies in Kyrgyzstan Have Been Exhausted in Tekebayev’s Case
1. On 7 March 2017, the lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova filed a complaint with the Kyrgyz Republic Prosecutor General’s Office about the unlawful instigation of a criminal case against Tekebayev, requesting to terminate it. The Prosecutor General’s Office refused to grant the motion.
2. On 7 March 2017, lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova filed a complaint with the Kyrgyz Republic Prosecutor General’s Office, requesting to dismiss the investigation team. The Prosecutor General’s Office rejected the petition.
3. Lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova appealed to the Pervomaysky District Court, the Bishkek City Court and the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court, against violations of the procedure for detention and remand of Tekebayev in custody as a preventive measure. The lawyer’s petitions were dismissed by all three instances.
4. On 13 March 2017, the lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova filed a petition to transfer Tekebayev to inpatient treatment due to the serious state of his health. On 17 March 2017, by a resolution of the Investigator of the State National Security Committee, the application of the lawyer was rejected.
5. On 25 April 2017, lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova filed an application with the Kyrgyz Republic Prosecutor General’s Office asking to initiate criminal
proceedings against L. Mayevsky; on 2 May 2017, the State National Security Committee refused to open a criminal case against L. Mayevsky.
6. On 20 June 2017, lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova filed an application with the Kyrgyz Republic Prosecutor General’s Office, asking to initiate a criminal case against judges of the Bishkek City Court who committed a gross procedural violation while considering the issue of choosing a preventive measure against Tekebayev. The Court considered the cassation appeal of the Bishkek City Prosecutor’s Office against the preventive measure chosen by the Pervomaisky Court for Tekebayev after the expiration of the statutory deadlines; on 29 June 2017, the Kyrgyz Republic Prosecutor General’s Office refused to open a criminal case against judges of the Bishkek City Court.
7. On 16 August 2017, by a verdict of the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek (presiding Judge Aibek Ernis-uulu, Tekebayev was found guilty of committing a crime under Article 303, paragraph 1, of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic.
8. On 25 August 2017, lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova filed an appeal to the Bishkek City Court against the verdict of the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek, where Tekebayev was found guilty of committing a crime under Article 303, paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic.
9. On 28 August 2017, the lawyer Chinara Jakubbekova filed 32 appeal applications with the Bishkek City Court against 32 Decisions of the
Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek, issued by Judge Aibek Ernis-uulu:
– dismissing the motion of Tekebayev’s lawyers seeking recusal of the judge; [43] – sending the criminal case to the Prosecutor Office to fill in the gaps in the investigation ; [44] – challenging the prosecutors in the case ; [45] – seeking termination of the criminal case against Tekebayev and Chotonov; [46] – asking for appointment of a psychiatric examination of L. Mayevsky;
– asking to appoint a state defence lawyer for Tekebayev and Chotonov,
despite their protest ; [47]
10. On 2 October 2017, by verdict of the Bishkek City Court, the decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek of 16 August 2017 was upheld, and the lawyer’s appeal was dismissed. All 32 decisions specified in paragraph 9 were upheld.
11. On 21 November 2017, by ruling of the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court, the sentences of the Courts of the first and appellate instances were upheld; 32 cassation appeals were dismissed; and the supervisory complaint of the lawyer about the illegality and unfounded nature of the charges was dismissed.
12. By decisions of the Bishkek City Court of 2 October 2017 and the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court of 21 November 2017, the 32 decisions of the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek were upheld; the appeals and supervisory complaints of lawyers were dismissed.
As the analysis shows, during the investigation of the criminal case against Omurbek Tekebayev the following provisions of law were violated: [48]
Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic
a) Article 26:
– Part 1, “Everyone shall be presumed innocent of committing a crime unless found guilty in accordance with the law and his/her guilt is ascertained by a court verdict that has entered into force. The violation of this principle shall give grounds for compensation of material and moral damage through a court.”
– Part 2, “No one shall prove his/her innocence. Any doubts in respect of culpability shall be interpreted in favour of the accused.”
– Part 4, “The burden of proof of guilt in criminal case shall be on the accuser.
Evidence obtained in violation of the law cannot be used in support of the accusation and as grounds for delivery of court verdict.
– Part 5, “No one shall testify against himself, his/her spouse or close relatives as determined by law. The law may provide for other instances exempting from the obligation to testify.
b) Article 40:
– Part 1, “Everyone shall be guaranteed judicial protection of his/her rights and freedoms stipulated by this Constitution, laws, international treaties to which the Kyrgyz Republic is a party as well as universally-recognised principles and norms of international law.”
– Part 3, “Everyone shall have the right to be provided with qualified legal
assistance. In cases provided for by the law, legal assistance shall be rendered at the expense of the state.
c) Article 41:
– Part 1, “Everyone shall have the right to appeal to state authorities, local self-governance bodies as well as officials thereof, who should provide a substantiated answer within a deadline established by law.
d) Article 52:
– Part 1, para. 2, “Citizens have the right to elect and be elected to organs of government and local self-governance bodies in accordance with the procedures established by this Constitution and law;
The Code of Criminal Procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic: [49]
a) Article 19:
– “An investigator shall take all measures provided by this Code in order to thoroughly, completely and objectively detect circumstances and facts of the case, to find out evidence both establishing the guilt of the suspect and accused and justifying him as well as both aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
b) Article 81:
– Part 3, “Information obtained with a substantial violation of the provisions of laws shall be deemed inadmissible […]”.
– Part 4, “The inadmissible evidence shall be the testimony of […] a witness based on the conjecture, assumption, hearsay, also the testimony of a witness who cannot point out the source of his knowledge, if it is not confirmed by the totality of examined evidence during the investigation or trial”.
c) Article 88:
– Identifying witnesses are adults […], having no interest in the outcome of the case”.
d) Article 191:
– Part 4, “[…] it shall be prohibited to ask leading questions”
e) Article 196:
– Part 1 stipulates that “An investigator shall conduct a cross examination between two earlier interrogated persons in whose testimony there are considerable contradictions”. Instead, the investigators, in breach of this Article documented “records of additional questioning”, which are not stipulated by the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic.
f) Article 197
– Part 2, “The identifying persons must be previously interrogated about the circumstances under which they observed a certain person, about distinctive marks and special characteristics by which they can identify.”
g) Article 198:
– Part 3, “Identification of a person can be carried out using his photo, if it is not possible to present the person for identification.”
h) Article 312:
– Part 1, “In rendering a verdict, the court must find 1) whether the act incriminated to the defendant had taken place; 2) whether it is proven that the act was committed by the defendant.” Both aspects of this article were not proven in Tekebayev’s case.
i) Article 315
– Part 1, “A guilty verdict shall be passed only upon a condition that during the trial the guilt of the defendant in committing the crime is confirmed by the cumulative body of the examined evidence and cannot be based on assumptions.”
j) Article 319:
– Contrary to Part , the sentence does not contain the description of the criminal act, which is deemed proven by court, with indication of the place, time, method of its commission, the form of guilt, motives, goals and the consequences of the crime.
The Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic: [50]
Article 77:
– Part 2, “When imposing punishment on participants in crime, the court shall take into account the nature and degree of participation of each of them in committing the crime.”
In the sentence against Tekebayev and Chotonov, the Court confined itself only to a term “the Defendants” and did not define the role of each of them in the crimes attributed to them.
Other normative-legal acts:
Decree No. 8 of the Plenum of the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court of 27 February 2009, “On the Judgment” states that “When delivering a Judgement, all the evidence considered at the court hearing shall be evaluated, both confirming the Court’s conclusions on the issue to be
resolved when passing the Judgement, and those contradicting these conclusions. The Court shall indicate in the Judgement why some of the evidence was found credible, while other evidence was rejected.” In this case, however, the Court failed to evaluate the statements of witnesses in favour of Tekebayev.
Constitutional Law of the Kyrgyz Republic of 9 July 2008, No. 141 “On the Status of Judges of the Kyrgyz Republic” [51]
Article 3. Principles of the Administration of Justice
1. In the administration of justice, judges are guided by the following basic principles:
– equality of all before the law and the court;
– openness and publicity of proceedings in all courts;
Article 51. Requirements for a Judge in Accordance with His Status
1. The judge is obliged:
1) to strictly observe the Constitution and laws of the Kyrgyz Republic, be faithful to the oath
6) to observe the rules of labor regulations established in the appropriate court.
In the trials of Tekebayev and Chotonov, live video broadcast and video recording was prohibited by the judges. Labor regulations were not observed by the judges. Court hearings continued during lunch breaks and after the end of the working day.
The analysis of the Eurasia Democracy Initiative shows that in the course of the investigation and the trial, the Kyrgyz Republic violated the following obligations under international agreements in the field of human rights:
a) The UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman orDegrading Treatment or Punishment [52]
Article 1
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 11
Each State Party shall keep under systematic review interrogation rules, instructions, methods and practices as well as arrangements for the custody and treatment of persons subjected to any form of arrest, detention or imprisonment in any territory under its jurisdiction, with a view to preventing any cases of torture.
Article 12
Each State Party shall ensure that its competent authorities proceed to a prompt and impartial investigation, wherever there is reasonable ground to believe that an act of torture has been committed in any territory under its jurisdiction.
Article 16
1. Each State Party shall undertake to prevent in any territory under its jurisdiction other acts of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment which do not amount to torture as defined in article I, when such acts are committed by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. In particular, the obligations contained in articles 10, 11, 12 and 13 shall apply with the substitution for references to torture of references to other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
b) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [53]
Article 2
3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:
(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;
(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;
(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.
Article 7
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
Article 9
1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedure as are established by law.
2. Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
Article 10
1. All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
2. Accused persons shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be segregated from convicted persons and shall be subject to separate treatment appropriate to their status as non-convicted persons;
Article 14
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of a trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suit at law shall be made public except where the interest of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes or the guardianship of children.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall have the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b) To have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) To be tried without undue delay;
(d) To be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
(e) To examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(f) To have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court;
(g) Not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.
Article 26
All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to the equal protection of the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
c) The United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: [54]
Article 1
Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to promote and to strive for the protection and realization of human rights and fundamental freedoms at the national and international levels.
Article 2
1. Each State has a prime responsibility and duty to protect, promote and implement all human rights and fundamental freedoms, inter alia , by adopting such steps as may be necessary to create all conditions necessary in the social, economic, political and other fields, as well as the legal guarantees required to ensure that all persons under its jurisdiction, individually and in association with others, are able to enjoy all those rights and freedoms in practice.
Article 3
Domestic law consistent with the Charter of the United Nations and other international obligations of the State in the field of human rights and fundamental freedoms is the juridical framework within which human rights and fundamental freedoms should be implemented and enjoyed and within which all activities referred to in the present Declaration for the promotion, protection and effective realization of those rights and freedoms should be conducted.
Article 9
1. In the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the promotion and protection of human rights as referred to in the present Declaration, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to benefit from an effective remedy and to be protected in the event of the violation of those rights.
2. To this end, everyone whose rights or freedoms are allegedly violated has the right, either in person or through legally authorized representation, to complain to and have that complaint promptly reviewed in a public hearing before an independent, impartial and competent judicial or other authority established by law and to obtain from such an authority a decision, in accordance with law, providing redress, including any compensation due, where there has been a violation of that person’s rights or freedoms, as well as enforcement of the eventual decision and award, all without undue delay.
3. To the same end, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, inter alia:
(a) To complain about the policies and actions of individual officials and
governmental bodies with regard to violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, by petition or other appropriate means, to competent domestic judicial, administrative or legislative authorities or any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, which should render their decision on the complaint without undue delay;
4. To the same end, and in accordance with applicable international instruments and procedures, everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to unhindered access to and communication with international bodies with general or special competence to receive and consider communications on matters of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Article 10
No one shall participate, by act or by failure to act where required, in violating human rights and fundamental freedoms and no one shall be subjected to punishment or adverse action of any kind for refusing to do so.
Article 11
Everyone has the right, individually and in association with others, to the lawful exercise of his or her occupation or profession. Everyone who, as a result of his or her profession, can affect the human dignity, human rights and fundamental freedoms of others should respect those rights and freedoms and comply with relevant national and international standards of occupational and professional conduct or ethics.
Article 12
2. The State shall take all necessary measures to ensure the protection by the competent authorities of everyone, individually and in association with others, against any violence, threats, retaliation, de facto or de jure adverse discrimination, pressure or any other arbitrary action as a consequence of his or her legitimate exercise of the rights referred to in the present Declaration.
3. In this connection, everyone is entitled, individually and in association with others, to be protected effectively under national law in reacting against or opposing, through peaceful means, activities and acts, including those by omission, attributable to States that result in violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as acts of violence perpetrated by groups or individuals that affect the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
d) Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form ofDetention or Imprisonment [55]
Principle 1
All persons under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be treated in a humane manner and with respect for the inherent dignity of the human person.
Principle 2
Arrest, detention or imprisonment shall only be carried out strictly in accordance with the provisions of the law and by competent officials or persons authorized for that purpose.
Principle 3
There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the human rights of persons under any form of detention or imprisonment recognized or existing in any State pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that this Body of Principles does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.
Principle 5
These principles shall be applied to all persons within the territory of any given State, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion or religious belief, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Principle 6
No person under any form of detention or imprisonment shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
No circumstance whatever may be invoked as a justification for torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Principle 7
States should prohibit by law any act contrary to the rights and duties contained in these principles, make any such act subject to appropriate sanctions and conduct impartial investigations upon complaints.
Principle l0
Anyone who is arrested shall be informed at the time of his arrest of the reason for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him.
Principle 11
2. A detained person and his counsel, if any, shall receive prompt and full
communication of any order of detention, together with the reasons therefor.
Principle 12
1. There shall be duly recorded:
(a) The reasons for the arrest;
(b) The time of the arrest and the taking of the arrested person to a place of custody as well as that of his first appearance before a judicial or other authority;
(c) The identity of the law enforcement officials concerned;
(d) Precise information concerning the place of custody.
2. Such records shall be communicated to the detained person, or his counsel, if any, in the form prescribed by law.
Principle 18
Interviews between a detained or imprisoned person and his legal counsel may be within sight, but not within the hearing, of a law enforcement official.
Principle 23
1. The duration of any interrogation of a detained or imprisoned person and of the intervals between interrogations as well as the identity of the officials who conducted the interrogations and other persons present shall be recorded and certified in such form as may be prescribed by law.
Principle 24
A proper medical examination shall be offered to a detained or imprisoned person as promptly as possible after his admission to the place of detention or imprisonment, and thereafter medical care and treatment shall be provided whenever necessary. This care and treatment shall be provided free of charge.
Principle 36
1. A detained person suspected of or charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent and shall be treated as such until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.
2. The arrest or detention of such a person pending investigation and trial shall be carried out only for the purposes of the administration of justice on grounds and under conditions and procedures specified by law. The imposition of restrictions upon such a person which are not strictly required for the purpose of the detention or to prevent hindrance to the process of investigation or the administration of justice, or for the maintenance of security and good order in the place of detention shall be forbidden.
Tekebayev’s situation after the election of new Kyrgyz Republic President Sooronbay Jeenbekov did not change.
On 22 May 2018, Tekebayev’s lawyers filed a motion to the Kyrgyz Republic Prosecutor General’s Office requesting initiation of proceedings in the criminal case against Tekebayev and Chotonov, due to newly-discovered evidence and the transfer of the case for review to the court.
In their statement to the Prosecutor General, the lawyers indicated that the courts failed to establish and prove the most important element of criminal law – the event of a crime, that is, the time and place of the allegedly-committed act. The investigation and the judicial proceedings were carried out hastily for politically-motivated reasons, and the circumstances proving the innocence of the defendants were not duly reviewed. To date, Tekebayev’s lawyers have identified 5 (five) facts that were not known to the court when charges were brought against Tekebayev and Chotonov and which prove their innocence.
On 11 June 2018, Kyrgyz Republic Deputy Prosecutor General Jamila Jamanbayeva denied the initiation of proceedings due to newly-discovered circumstances.
On 20 June 2018, the lawyers T. Toktakunova and C. Dzhakupbekova appealed to the Oktyabrsky District Court of Bishkek asking the court to deem illegal the actions of the Kyrgyz Republic Deputy General Prosecutor Jamanbayeva in refusing to initiate proceedings in the criminal case against Tekebayev and Chotonov for newly discovered- circumstances, and to oblige the Kyrgyz Republic Prosecutor General’s Office to remove the violation.
On 25 June 2018, the Oktyabrsky District Court of Bishkek refused to accept an appeal of Deputy Prosecutor General Jamanbayeva’s denial to institute
proceedings due to newly-discovered circumstances.
On 26 June 2018, lawyers appealed the 25 June 2018 decision of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Bishkek to the Bishkek City Court for determination.
On 3 August 2018, the Bishkek City Court denied the complaint of the lawyers and upheld the decision of the 25 June 2018 Oktyabrsky District Court of Bishkek.
During the review of the motion to initiate proceedings due to newly-discovered circumstances in Tekebayev’s case, the following articles of the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic w ere violated:
Article 26.
1. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until his guilt is proven in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law and established by a court decision that has entered into legal force. Violation of this principle is the basis for compensation through the court of material and moral harm.
2. No one is required to prove his innocence. Any doubts regarding guilt are interpreted in favour of the accused.
Article 40.
1. Everyone is guaranteed judicial protection of his rights and freedoms provided by this Constitution, laws, international treaties to which the Kyrgyz Republic is a party, generally-recognized principles and norms of international law. The state ensures the development of extrajudicial and pre-trial methods, forms and ways of protecting human and civil rights and freedoms.
2. Everyone has the right to defend his rights and freedoms in all ways not prohibited by law.
The Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic Article 15. (3) All doubts regarding the proof of charge, which can not be cleared within the framework of due process of law in accordance with this Code, are interpreted in favor of the accused. Unresolved doubts arising in the application of the law should also be resolved in the favor of the accused.
Article 18
(1) Criminal proceedings are conducted on the basis of competitiveness and equality of the prosecution and defense parties.
(6) The court, preserving objectivity and impartiality, creates the necessary conditions for the parties to exercise their procedural rights and obligations.
(7) The parties participating in criminal proceedings shall be equal in rights. The court issues the procedural decision only based on evidence which was studied with equal participation by each of the parties.
Article 384
(1) A verdict that has entered into legal force, a determination, or a court decision may be revoked and the proceedings resumed on new or newly discovered
circumstances.
(2) The grounds for resuming proceedings in a criminal case on newly discovered circumstances are:
5) circumstances unknown to the court when passing judgment, evidence that, alone or together with previously established circumstances, testify to the innocence of the convicted person or to the committing of a crime other than the one for which he was convicted, or prove the guilt of the acquitted person or a person in whose respect the case was closed.
Annexes:
а) Links to Speeches in the West:
“If Tekebayev’s detention is politically motivated, it could pose a threat to the development of democracy in the country” – Maya Kosjancic, Press Secretary of the EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy. [56] “Kyrgyz Opposition Leader Omurbek Tekebayev Detained” [57] “Omurbek Tekebayev, Political Pugilist At Center Of Kyrgyzstan’s Storm” [58] “Opponents of President Atambayev are Given Long Prison Terms” [59] “Kyrgyz Opposition Leader Tekebayev Handed Eight-Year Prison Sentence” [60] “Kyrgyzstan Opposition Politician Arrested on Corruption Charges” [61]
b) Links to Kyrgyz Media:
“Controversial points in Tekebayev’s Case”[62] “Tekebayev Case: Testimony of MegaCom Head Inconsistent”[63] “Case of Omurbek Tekebayev: Chronicle of Court Proceedings, Part 3”[64] “Testimony of Leonid Mayevsky Washed Away by Flood”[65] “Tekebayev/Chotonov Trial: Verdict Causes Controversy”[66]
[1] Wikipedia page for Omurbek Chirkeshevich Tekebayev https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A2%D0%B5%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%B5%D0%B2,_%D0%9E%D0%BC%D1%83%D1%80%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BA_%D0%A7%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%88%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87
[2] Information about the Ata-Meken Socialist Party
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ata_Meken_Socialist_Party
[3] A Constitutional Council consisting of 75 people was created by a decree of the Provisional Government of the Kyrgyz Republic in 2006 and Omurbek Tekebayev was elected Chairman.
[4] Official website of the Venice Commission http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/events/ , Conclusion on the Draft Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2010)015-rus .
[5] Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 163 of 24 July 2013 “On Limiting Usury in the Kyrgyz Republic,” http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/203972
[6] The Constitutional Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 141 of 9 July 2008 “On the Status of Judges of the Kyrgyz Republic,” http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/properties/ru-ru/202352/130
[7] The Constitutional Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 37 of 13 June 2011 “On the Constitutional Chamber of the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court,”
http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/203281
[8] The Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No.61 of 17 July 2000 on External Migration, http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/350
[9] The Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 133 of 30 July 2002 on Internal Migration, http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/1090
[10] The Law of the Kyrgyz Republic No. 145 of 15 July 2013 on Transfer (Transformation) of Land, http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/203953?ckwds=%25d1%2582%25d1%2580%25d0%25b0%25d0
%25bd%25d1%2581%25d1%2584%25d0%25be%25d1%2580%25d0%25bc%25d0%25b0%25d1%2586
[11] « Kyrgyz Government Coalition Breaks Over Constitutional Referendum”
https://thediplomat.com/2016/10/kyrgyz-government-coalition-breaks-over-constitutional-referendum/; and
“Kyrgyz Leader’s Party Quits Parliamentary Coalition”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kyrgyzstan-parliament/kyrgyz-leaders-party-quits-parliamentary-coalition-idUSKCN12O0MG?il=0
[12] “Kyrgyz Leader’s Party Quits Parliamentary Coalition”
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-kyrgyzstan-parliament/kyrgyz-leaders-party-quits-parliamentary-coalition-idUSKCN12O0MG?il=0
[13] “Kyrgyz Leader’s Party Quits Parliamentary Coalition”
http://www.centrasia.ru/newsA.php?st=1472118000
[14] The Joint Opinion of the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights
(ODIHR) and the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, issued in August, notes that the proposedamendments to the Constitution “will have a negative impact on the balance between the branches of power, strengthening the powers of the executive and weakening both the Parliament and even more – the judiciary”, p. 3 http://www.osce.org/odihr/341401?download=true
[15] The Venice Commission of the Council of Europe
http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2016)025-e
[16] “Tekebayev Accused by Atambayev’s Entourage of Seizing Dastan Plant Land Plot” https://rus.azattyk.org/a/27989602.html;
[17] “Tekebayev: Let Niyazov Go to Court, Sarpashev Will be Main Witness”
https://ru.sputnik.kg/society/20160916/1029218879.html;
[18] “What is Known about Manas Management Company CJSC, about Which Tekebayev Spoke”
https://kaktus.media/doc/344625_chto_izvestno_o_zao_kompaniia_manas_menedjment_o_kotoroy_govoril_tekebaev.html;
[19] “Tekebayev Says He Was Under Surveillance, Describes Marauders Surrounding Atambayev”
https://kaktus.media/doc/344754_tekebaev_rasskazal_o_slejke_za_soboy_i_maroderah_v_okryjenii_Atambayeva.html
[20] “Almazbek Atambayev Helped Aziz Batukayev to Escape”
https://kaktus.media/doc/344756_tekebaev:_azizy_batykaevy_pomog_sbejat_almazbek_Atambayev.html
[21] “Aziz Batukayev Leaves Kyrgyzstan”
http://knews.kg/2013/04/aziz-batukaev-pokinul-kyirgyizstan/
[22] “What Else Omurbek Tekebayev Discussed Besides President’s Impeachment”
https://kaktus.media/doc/347658_chto_eshe_govoril_omyrbek_tekebaev_krome_impichmenta_prezidenta.html
[24] “Kyrgyzstan Officials Detain Opposition Leader Tekebayev”
http://www.dw.com/en/kyrgyzstan-officials-detain-opposition-leader-tekebayev/a-37719696
[25] “Kyrgyz Opposition Leader Detained Ahead of Presidential Campaign”
https://thewire.in/112219/kyrgyz-opposition-leader-detained-ahead-presidential-campaign/
[26] “Trial of Tekebayev/Chotonov: A Controversial Verdict”
https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28683397.html
[27] “Case of Aida Salyanova” (https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28143466.html), “Case of AlmanbetShykmamatov” (https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28315257.html), “Case of Duyshonkul Chotonov”
(https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28679626.html), “Case of Raykan Tologonov”
(https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28396153.html), “Cases of Taalaygul Toktakunova and Kanatbek Aziz”
(http://www.fergananews.com/news/26147), “Permanent Trial of the Atamekenauers: Terms, Bans, Fines”
(https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28941282.html)
[28] “CEC Bars Tekebayev from State Language Test,”
https://kloop.kg/blog/2017/08/10/vybory-2017-tsik-ne-dopustil-tekebaeva-k-sdache-testa-na-znanie-gosyazyka/
[30] “Two CEC Members Oppose Final Protocol on Elections: Why,”
https://kaktus.media/doc/365543_dva_chlena_cik_vystypili_protiv_itogovogo_protokola_po_vyboram._pochemy.html
[31] “CEC: Confrontation with Mutual Accusations,” https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28748266.html
[32] “CEC Revoked Deputy’s Mandate of Tekebayev,”
https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28828798.html
[33] Ruling of the Kyrgyz Republic Supreme Court of 21 November 2017. Copy is available and can be obtained through Tekebayev’s representative Taalaygul Toktakunova.
[34] http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/203244?cl=ru-ru Constitutional Law of the Kyrgyz Republic of 2 July 2011 # 68, Regarding the Elections of the President of the Kyrgyz Republic and Members of Parliament of the Kyrgyz Republic
[35] “Court Bars Tekebayev from CEC for Testing,”
https://kaktus.media/doc/360800_syd_ne_pystil_omyrbeka_tekebaeva_v_cik_na_testirovanie.html
[36] “Instruction on Candidates’ Election Funds”
https://shailoo.gov.kg/ru/Kandidaty_Talapkerler/instrukciya-ob-izbiratelnyh-fondah-kandidatov/
[37] “Judge Replies Passport is Needed for Tekebayev’s Identification”
https://kaktus.media/doc/360805_sydia_otkazalsia_predostavliat_pasport_tekebaeva_v_cik.html
[38] “Case of Tekebayev: Who is This? Without ID Card, Court Cannot Identify Defendant”
https://24.kg/obschestvo/57302_delo_tekebaeva_kto_eto_bez_IDsud_nemojet_identifitsirovat_podsudimogo/
[39] “Rally in Support of Tekebayev”https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28333287.html;
[40] “Rally in Support of Tekebayev in Bazar-Korgon Draws 1,000”
https://kaktus.media/doc/353221_miting_v_podderjky_tekebaeva_v_bazar_korgone_sobral_1_000_chelovek.html
[41] « Rallies at CEC and Court Buildings Banned until 20 October”
https://kloop.kg/blog/2017/08/01/bishkek-mitingi-u-zdanij-sudov-tsentrizbirkoma-i-drugih-vedomstv-zapreshheny-do-20-oktyabrya/;
[42] “Court Bans Rallies Near White House until 1 December”
https://kloop.kg/blog/2017/11/16/bishkek-sud-zapretil-mitingi-vozle-belogo-doma-sudov-i-tsika-do-1-dekabrya/
[43] During the trial at the Pervomaisky District Court, Tekebayev’s lawyers filed 17 motions challenging the judge. All motions were rejected. Copies of the motions are available from Tekebayev’s representative. The lawyers sought recusal of the judge; he denied the motions for the 17th time:
https://24.kg/obschestvo/59150_delo_tekebaeva_advokatyi_zayavili_otvod_sude_onotkazal_vsemnadtsatyiy_raz/
[44] During the trial at the Pervomaisky District Court, 5 applications were filed byTekebayev’s lawyers asking to send the case to fill the gaps in the investigation. All applications were rejected by the judge. Copies are available from Tekebayev’s representative .
“Chotonov’s Lawyer Asks Judge to Return Case for Further Investigation”
http://knews.kg/2017/07/delo-tekebaeva-advokat-chotonova-prosit-sudyu-vernut-delo-na-dosledovanie/
[45] During the trial at the Pervomaisky District Court, five motions were filed by Tekebayev’s lawyers seeking dismissal of the prosecutors. All motions were rejected by the judge. Copies are available from Tekebayev’s representatives.
[46] During the trial at the Pervomaisky District Court, Tekebayev’s lawyers filed two applications seeking termination of the criminal case against Tekebayev and Chononov. Both applications were rejected by the judge. Copies are available from Tekebayev’s representative.
[47] “Defendant to be Represented by State-Appointed Lawyer”
https://24.kg/obschestvo/59777_delo_tekebaeva_podsudimogo_budet_zaschischat_gosudarstvennyiy_advokat/, Omurbek Tekebayev Again Represented by State-Appointed Lawyer”
https://kaktus.media/doc/361445_omyrbeka_tekebaeva_vnov_predstavliaet_gosydarstvennyy_advokat.html
[48] Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/202913
[49] Code of Criminal Procedure of the Kyrgyz Republic:
http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/9?cl=ru-ru
[50] Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic: http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/568
[51] http://cbd.minjust.gov.kg/act/view/ru-ru/202352?cl=ru-ru
[52] The UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/torture.shtml
[53] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/pactpol.shtml
[54] The United Nations Declaration on the Right and Responsibility of Individuals, Groups and Organs of Society to Promote and Protect Universally Recognized Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/declarations/defender.shtml
[55] Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention orImprisonment http://www.un.org/ru/documents/decl_conv/conventions/detent.shtml
[56] “European Union to Monitor Situation around Tekebayev”
https://www.gazeta.kg/news/kyrgyzstan/188579-evrosoyuz-budet-sledit-za-situaciey-vokrug-tekebaeva.html
[57] “Kyrgyz Opposition Leader Almazbek Atambayev Detained”
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/02/kyrgyz-opposition-leader-almazbek-atambayev-detained-170226102456185.html
[58]”Omurbek Tekebayev, Political Pugilist At Center Of Kyrgyzstan’s Storm”
https://www.1492news.com/news/38074_1488301130
[59] « Eight Years for Convicted Kyrgyz Opposition Leader 17 August 2017 »
http://www.tol.org/client/article/27130-Atambayev-bishkek-omurbek-tekebaev-duishonkul-chotonov-kyrgyzstan.html
[60] « Kyrgyz Opposition Leader Tekebayev Handed Eight-Year Prison Sentence » https://www.rferl.org/a/kyrgyzstan-tekebaev-8-year-sentence-/28680250.html
[61] « Kyrgyzstan Opposition Politician Arrested on Corruption Charges »
http://www.euronews.com/2017/02/26/kyrgyzstan-opposition-politician-arrested-on-corruption-charges
[63] “Tekebayev Case: Testimony of Megakom Head Inconsistent”
https://24.kg/obschestvo/58998_delo_tekebaeva_vpokazaniyah_glavyi_MegaCom_nestyikovki/
[64] “Case Omurbek Tekebayev: Chronicle of Trial”
https://24.kg/obschestvo/53761_delo_omurbeka_tekebaeva_hronika_sudebnogo_protsessa_chast3/
[65] Evidence of Mayevsky Washed Away by Flood”
https://24.kg/obschestvo/56282_delo_tekebaeva_dokazatelstva_leonida_maevskogo_smyilo_potopom/
[66] “Tekebayev/Chotonov Trial: Verdict Causes Controversy”
https://rus.azattyk.org/a/28683397.htmЗ
Original source of article:
