STATEMENT OF THE KAZAKHSTAN BUREAU FOR HUMAN RIGHTS AND RULE OF LAW

"PROCURATOR’S GENERAL OFFICE AND SUPREME COURT DEFINE KAZAKHSTAN A POLICE STATE "

15 of August 2000 Almaty

The 12^th of July official ruling of the Supreme Court and 14^th of July letter of the Procurator’s General office concerning the administrative case of the Republican People’s Party activist Bigeldin Gabdullin virtually declares Kazakhstan a police state where human rights in their police meaning have recognized priority over all other rights granted by the Constitution and other vigilant legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

With these statements supreme judicial and supervisory state bodies secured the right of the policemen to come whenever they wish to the offices of public associations and watch any meetings of any organs of these organizations.

This decision taken on one single case may seem not that important, but in reality, it has far-reaching political and legal consequences.

The above-mentioned documents mean that from now on, not one public organization, group of citizens and even individual are secure from policemen intruding their office, work or home in order to "provide for public security", the way the letter of the Procurator’s office addressed to KIBHR puts it. However, this document does not even mention that such actions should be at least justified by the evidence or well-grounded suspicion of the planning of criminal activity by this public association, group or individual. The necessity of observation of procedural norms is also disregarded. From this moment on right on private property is a mere notion and nothing can protect public association from groundless intrusion of police officers.

One phrase from the letter of the Procurator General’s office demands citation: «Current legislation does not contain any provisions that would restrict law-enforcement agencies in fulfilling their duties (of providing for public security. /KIBHR /)».

This is a clear manifestation of the police state.

Moreover, it reminds of the epoch of the totalitarian regime when the ideas of public security and fierce persecution of anything that "undermined" the Soviet order led to mass violations of human rights and to death of hundreds of thousands.

From the common sense point of view the decisions of Supreme Court and Procurator General do not have any justification.

Global practice shows that countries where police acts "without any restrictions" have neither opposition, nor public life. These are totalitarian regimes and dictatorships.

States that chose democratic path, where political opposition is active, those countries would never think it possible to grant police a right of groundless intrusion in the offices and headquarters of the opposition parties, movements and other public associations.

It is very difficult to imagine that in any, even not developed democracy, where opposition, however, exists legally, a policemen of any rank would be present (to guard public security) at the meeting in the headquarters during, for example, a discussion of the election campaign plan. It is totally absurd, as in any country where political competition is a part of everyday political life the plan of the election campaign is one of the top secret documents of any party.

From the legal point of view the statements of Supreme Court and Procurator General are also nonsensical. Almaty city court ruled that Mr. Gabdullin is guilty of administrative violation based on the Art. Five of the Presidential Decree "Of order of peaceful assembly conduct…" However, Art. Eleven of the same document states that this Decree does not apply to the meetings of the public associations that are conducted indoors. Any lawyer will immediately see that the decision of city court violates one of the min principles of law: an application of non-applicable legislation.

Looks like just this formal notion should be enough for the General Procurator’s office to protest the decision of Almaty city court and for the Supreme Court to revoke the ruling. Any other reasons for the adopted decision should be disregarded.

However, the ruling of the Supreme Court does not even mention the Decree. General Procurator’s office in its turn recognizes the fact of incorrect application of legislation but takes no measures at all, finding its own grounds for justification of the decision.

We do not think that jurists of the Supreme Court and General Procurator Office are not qualified. Thus, the only explanation of the whole story is the following: Kazakhstan gradually turns into police state.

Appearance of these two documents leaves little hope for common sense and rule of law being the main principles behind the actions of the Kazakhstan’s judiciary. By the way, out of all guarantors of constitutional rights and freedoms only two did not offer their point of view on the decision. These are the President of the country and Constitutional Council that takes no complaints from the ordinary citizens. All the rest of the guarantors already failed.

Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights believes that such a tough evaluation of the situation is justified because our organization have took all the possible steps in order to call on authorities to observe the principles of providing the freedom of association envisaged by the international and Kazakhstan legislation.

KIBHR made numerous statements concerning this case and prepared on the name of Mr. Gabdullin appeals and complaints to the Supreme Court and General Procurator’s Office of the Republic. Finally, we wrote an open letter to the top judiciary officials of Kazakhstan: Legal Adviser of the President, Chairman of the Supreme Court Council Mr. Rogov, Minister of Justice Mr. Mukhamedzhanov, Procurator General Mr. Khitrin, Chairman of the Supreme Court Mr. Narikbaev, Chairman of the Commission for Human Rights under the President of Kazakhstan Mr. Abdildin.

We have exhausted all of the legal means in our disposal.
Thus, we call the attention of community and international intergovernmental and public organizations to the negative developments in the sphere of justice and to the sharp increase of the role of police in public and political life in Kazakhstan.

We believe that this process is fraught with Kazakhstan joining the ranks of the lawless states.