HOTLINE INVESTIGATIONS

Eurasia Democracy Initiative, in cooperation with local journalists and legal experts, has released a report on the politically-motivated persecution of Kyrgyz opposition leader Omurbek Tekebayev

Pin it

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;
© 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;
© 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;
© 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:

Eurasia Democracy Initiative, in coop­er­a­tion with local jour­nal­ists and legal experts, has released a report on the polit­i­cal­ly-moti­vat­ed per­se­cu­tion of Kyrgyz oppo­si­tion leader Omurbek Tekebayev

Tagged under:

Log In or Create an account