Kyrgyzstan: National Leader's Reputation Must Not Override Right To Freedom Of Expression, UN Committee Finds

GENEVA (26 May 2025) - A national leader's reputation must not outweigh the right to freedom of expression, the UN Human Rights Committee has ruled, finding that Kyrgyzstan violated the fundamental freedoms of a lawyer and a journalist who were prosecuted for criticising the then-president and barred from leaving the country.
In a recently adopted Decision, the Committee concluded that Kyrgyzstan has violated the rights of Cholpon Djakupova, a lawyer and civil society advocate, and Narynbek Idinov, a journalist. The two were sued by the General Prosecutor for discrediting then-President Atambaev's honour and reputation. The case stemmed from Ms Djakupova's critical remarks about the then-President during a roundtable discussion on freedom of assembly and speech, and from Mr Idinov publishing the speech along with his commentary on a news portal.
'A head of State is not above public scrutiny,' said Committee member Imeru Yigezu, adding that, 'Using the courts to silence criticism undermines the very foundations of democracy.'
Before any judgment on the case was issued, a local court imposed an injunction barring the two from leaving the country and ordering the seizure of their personal assets, including Ms Djakupova's house and bank account. These restrictions remained in place throughout the trial, even though they both had not missed a single court hearing.
The Committee raised particular concern about the restrictions imposed before a court ruling, describing these actions as a dangerous form of pressure against critical voices. 'The use of travel bans and asset seizures before adjudication raises serious concerns about judicial overreach and creates a chilling effect,' said Yigezu
Both Ms Djakulpova and Mr Idinov were found liable for discrediting the then-president's honour and reputation and were ordered to pay 3 million soms each, an amount that, in Mr Idinov's case, equated to his income over 31 years.
After exhausting local legal remedies, they brought their case to the Human Rights Committee, claiming their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) had been violated.
The Committee found that the imposed measures were disproportionate and of punitive nature. 'Ms Djakupova's speech and Mr Idinov's reporting clearly concerned matters of public interest. In such cases, open debate must be protected, and the fact that speech may offend a public figure does not, on its own, justify penalties and a blanket travel ban,' added Yigezu.
'Restrictions on freedom of expression under the ICCPR must be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim such as protecting national security and public order, and be necessary and proportionate. The measures taken failed to meet all the necessary criteria,' he explained.
The Committee stressed that criticism of high-ranking officials, including heads of state, is a core element of democratic oversight and must not be stifled through judicial intimidation.
The Committee found that Kyrgyzstan had violated the complainants' rights to freedom of expression and freedom of movement. It called on Kyrgyzstan to provide effective remedies, including full compensation for the two complainants and reimbursement of legal costs. It also urged the State party to revise its legislation to ensure that such violations do not recur.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Scoop

5 days ago

• Scoop

Repeal Of UK Vagrancy Act Marks Major Step Toward Ending Criminalisation Of Homelessness And Poverty: UN Experts

GENEVA (17 June 2025) – UN experts* today welcomed a decision by the United Kingdom to repeal the Vagrancy Act, a law that has long criminalised homelessness and rough sleeping in England and Wales, by Spring 2026. 'This is a long overdue, highly commendable step,' the experts said. 'The decision to repeal the Vagrancy Act signals a shift away from criminalisation and towards a rights-based approach to homelessness and extreme poverty.' 'Nobody should be penalised for not having access to a home. Punishing a person for having no home or shelter is also cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, prohibited under Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,' the experts said. First introduced in 1824, the Vagrancy Act permitted police to arrest individuals for sleeping rough or begging in public spaces. It has been a blueprint for similar legislation in other countries, and a tool of colonial rule and oppression. To this day, many of these laws remain in force. 'Homelessness is not a crime, but a failure of States to guarantee the right to adequate housing. The police should fight crime and assist persons in distress, not penalise people living in the street due to circumstances beyond their control,' the experts said. 'The United Kingdom's action sets an important precedent. Other States, especially those former British colonies which still have a version of this law on the books, should follow suit and dismantle these outdated systems that punish the most vulnerable for conditions the State has failed to address,' they said. The experts called on States to invest in long-term solutions, that ensure access to affordable housing, security of tenure, decent employment, urgent and adequate healthcare, education, and social protection, rather than treating homelessness as a criminal matter. In a recent landmark study, the experts called on States to review laws and policies that penalise people for living in poverty or homelessness. They remain ready to assist States in implementing rights-based strategies that ensure the right to adequate housing for all.

Scoop

13-06-2025

• Scoop

UN Expert Urges Saudi Arabia To Halt Imminent Execution Of 26 Egyptian Nationals For Drug-Related Offences

Geneva,10 June 2025 The Government of Saudi Arabia must immediately halt the reportedly imminent execution of 26 Egyptian nationals sentenced to death for drug-related offences, in violation of international law, an UN expert said today. 'The Government's claim that applying the death penalty for offences such as smuggling, receiving and distributing narcotic substances under the Narcotics and Psychotropic Substances Act complies with international law is incompatible with its legal obligations under International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,' said Morris Tidball-Binz, the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions. 'The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life is a fundamental tenet of international law, from which no derogation is permitted,' Tidball-Binz said. The 26 Egyptian nationals, currently held on death row in Tabouk prison, have reportedly been informed that their executions will take place shortly after the Eid al-Adha holidays. This follows the execution of two other Egyptians from the same group, carried out on 24 and 25 May respectively, without prior notification to their families. UN experts previously raised these cases with the Government of Saudi Arabia in a formal communication, to which the Government responded. 'The death penalty for drug-related offences fails to meet the threshold of the 'most serious crimes, and lacks conclusive evidence of serving as an effective deterrent,' the expert said. According to court documents reviewed by the expert, some of the Egyptian prisoners were denied legal representation, while others were convicted based on self-incriminating statements which they later retracted in court, claiming that they were made under coercion. 'The right to effective legal representation must be ensured at all stages of criminal proceedings – during interrogations, preliminary hearings, trial, and appeal – and constitutes an effective safeguard against torture and other forms of ill-treatment,' the expert said. 'Violations of fair trial guarantees leading to the imposition of the death penalty render such sentences arbitrary and unlawful,' he added. Since the beginning of 2025, Saudi Arabia has reportedly executed 141 individuals, approximately 68 of whom were foreign nationals. The vast majority were reportedly executed for non-lethal drug offences, in clear violation of international law. Imposing death sentences and carrying out executions for such offences significantly increases the number of people worldwide subjected to punishments fundamentally incompatible with human rights norms, and amounting to arbitrary deprivation of life. 'I urgently call on the Government of Saudi Arabia to halt the planned executions of the 26 Egyptian nationals, to abolish the death penalty for drug-related offences, and to ensure that its drug control policies fully comply with its international human rights obligations, notably the right to life,' the expert said.

Scoop

10-06-2025

• Scoop

Major Changes To Proposed Anti-Stalking Law

Press Release – New Zealand Government This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period, Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith … Minister of Justice Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith is welcoming changes to toughen up the proposed anti-stalking law, including being triggered after two specified acts within 24 months. 'This change better recognises patterns in stalking behaviour and time that can pass between incidents. For example, stalking that occurs around anniversaries would not be covered under the original 12-month period,' Mr Goldsmith says. 'We've said from day one victims are our priority. Returning them to the heart of our justice system underpins all our work to restore law and order. 'Stalkers have been able to evade real consequences for their actions for far too long. As I announced in November, the offence will have a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. 'This builds on our work already underway to restore real consequences for crime, with our sentencing reforms coming into effect at the end of this month. 'I want to thank those who made submissions during the select committee process. Your input has identified some important ways we can combat this insidious behaviour. 'The Justice Committee has now put forward a raft of recommendations, which government parties have agreed to. 'This includes strengthening the pattern of behaviour definition to only require two specified acts, and within a two-year period.' Other changes made to the Bill by the Committee to enhance its effectiveness include: Addressing the publishing of any statement or other material relating to the other person, or purporting to originate from that person (also known as doxing). Adding new sections to enable the disposal of any intimate visual recordings possessed by a person convicted of the new stalking and harassment offence. Adding the new offence to the Firearms Prohibition Orders regime, allowing those orders to be made when a person is convicted of the new offence. Clarifying the new aggravating factor relating to stalking by more clearly linking the associated stalking and harassment-type behaviours to the offence the person is charged with. Making it clear that restraining orders under the Harassment Act 1997 and orders under the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015 can be made when a person is discharged without conviction in relation to the new offence.