Kyrgyzstan: National Leader's Reputation Must Not Override Right To Freedom Of Expression, UN Committee Finds
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Rights Aotearoa: Minister's Ban On Te Reo Māori In Year-1 Readers Breaches New Zealand's Human Rights Obligations
Rights Aotearoa condemns the Education Minister Erica Stanford's decision to exclude Māori words from new Ready to Read Phonics Plus books for five-year-olds (except for character names). This directive, confirmed in Ministry documents and ministerial comments, represents a retrogressive step that undermines children's cultural rights and New Zealand's international and domestic legal commitments. On a prima facie view, the policy conflicts with at least five UN instruments New Zealand has ratified. First, ICCPR Article 27 protects linguistic minorities' right to use their own language and, per the Human Rights Committee's General Comment No. 23, requires positive measures by the State to safeguard that right. A blanket removal of te reo Māori from foundational readers sits squarely at odds with that obligation. Second, ICESCR Articles 13 and 15, read with the Committee's General Comment No. 21, require States to make cultural life accessible and to refrain from measures that restrict participation—especially for minorities and indigenous peoples. Stripping Māori vocabulary from early-years materials narrows access to culture in the very context where language attitudes are formed. Third, the Convention on the Rights of the Child obliges that education foster respect for a child's own cultural identity, language, and values (Article 29(1)(c)) and protects indigenous and minority children's right to use their language (Article 30). The directive is difficult to reconcile with those aims. Fourth, CERD (and General Recommendation No. 23) calls for active measures to preserve and promote indigenous languages. A rule that singles out Māori words for exclusion from standard resources risks indirect discrimination and runs counter to that guidance. Fifth, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education prohibits distinctions based on language that impair equality of treatment in education and recognises minorities' right to use and teach their own language. Domestically, the directive cuts against NZBORA s 20 (rights of linguistic minorities) and the Māori Language Act 2016, which affirms te reo Māori as a taonga and an official language and requires a Crown strategy (Maihi Karauna) to revitalise and normalise its use across public life. Schools are also required to give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi under the Education and Training Act 2020. Paul Thistoll, Chief Executive of Rights Aotearoa, said: 'Language visibility in a child's first readers is not a matter of taste; it is a matter of rights. Removing te reo Māori from Year-1 books is a legally retrogressive measure that marginalises indigenous language in mainstream schooling and undermines New Zealand's binding commitments at home and abroad. The minister is engaging in cultural suppression.' Rights Aotearoa calls for the following immediate actions: 1. Rescind the directive and confirm that Māori words will continue to appear in all new early-literacy readers as appropriate to context and pedagogy; 2. Release the relevant Ministry papers in full and consult with Māori education stakeholders, literacy experts, and the Māori Language Commission; 3. Align early-literacy resources with obligations under ICCPR, ICESCR, CRC, CERD, the UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education, NZBORA, the Māori Language Act, and the Education and Training Act.
Scoop
3 days ago
- Scoop
United Nations Urged To Investigate New Zealand's Rollback On Women's Pay Equity Rights
The Pay Equity Coalition Aotearoa (PECA) has informed the Prime Minister and other relevant parties that it has made an urgent appeal to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) to investigate what it calls a 'historic and deliberate regression' of women's economic and political rights in Aotearoa New Zealand. In a formal submission, PECA outlines how the Coalition Government's Equal Pay Amendment Act 2025 has dismantled the country's pay equity system, cancelling 33 live claims covering more than 180,000 women, many of whom are low-paid essential workers in care, health, education, and public services. 'This is the most significant rollback of women's rights in over a generation,' said Dame Judy McGregor, speaking on behalf of the coalition. 'These changes breach New Zealand's obligations under CEDAW and other international human rights treaties. They were made without consultation, under urgency, and with no democratic process.' The submission reveals that $12.8 billion previously set aside to address pay equity claims has been diverted by the government for other budgetary purposes. At the same time, settled claims had their legally agreed review clauses removed, and women are now barred from raising new claims for a decade. Violation of International Human Rights The coalition argues that the government's actions breach Article 11 of CEDAW, which guarantees women the right to equal pay for work of equal value, as well as Article 2(3)(a) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which ensures access to effective legal remedies. 'What we are witnessing is state-sanctioned gender pay discrimination,' said McGregor. 'And there are now no domestic legal remedies left for many of these women. This is a full-scale retreat from fairness, accountability, and our international commitments.' Call for a UN Visit and Monitoring PECA has formally requested the Commission on the Status of Women to: • Conduct a country visit to hear directly from affected women, including Māori, Pacific, and migrant workers; • If a visit is not feasible, undertake a desk-based investigation and independent monitoring report; • Place New Zealand's regression on the international agenda to ensure accountability for the erosion of women's rights. 'New Zealand has been held up as a global leader in gender equality. That reputation is now at serious risk,' said McGregor. 'This government has not only abandoned its legal obligations — it has silenced the voices of women, ignored civil society, and turned its back on a generation of progress.' PECA's membership includes major trade unions and national women's organisations such as E Tū, NZNO, PSA, Aotearoa Women's Watch, YWCA Aotearoa, National Council of Women, and many others committed to gender equity. 'This is not just a domestic issue. The world is watching,' McGregor added. 'And we invite the international community to stand with New Zealand women in demanding that justice be restored.'
Scoop
24-07-2025
- Scoop
International Ruling Will Ratchet Up Accountability For Climate Action
The Environmental Law Initiative says the International Court of Justice's landmark ruling will usher in a new era of accountability for states, including Aotearoa New Zealand, to deliver on their climate change commitments. In it's advisory opinion, the world's highest court ruled that states are legally obligated to halt the production and use of fossil fuels, and those that fail to prevent climate harm could be held liable for reparations. The Court also underscored that states must meet their obligations under human rights law, customary international law and other treaties, beyond just the Paris agreement and United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 'This ruling is an incredibly significant development, which will open new avenues for accountability, including climate litigation through domestic, regional and international courts," says ELI's Director, Research and Legal, Dr Matt Hall. 'It will inevitably have bearing on both New Zealand policy making and global negotiations. 'It dispels the argument that small states like New Zealand are too small to matter. It's clear, we have obligations, and we need to deliver on them.' The ruling, made early Thursday morning in the Hague, followed a request spearheaded by Vanuatu, other Pacific Island nations, climate-vulnerable countries, and youth campaigners worldwide. The Court's ruling has been heralded for bringing clarity to the obligations of states in regard to fossil fuels: Advertisement - scroll to continue reading 'Failure of a State to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions — including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licences or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies — may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that State.' The Court's advisory opinion is extensive, covering areas including climate mitigation, adaptation, remedies for climate damage, and human rights. It highlights the responsibility of states to put in place regulatory and legislative measures to limit corporate emissions. The ruling also says that the adverse effects of climate change may impair the enjoyment of the right to life which is enshrined in human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Advisory opinions are authoritative interpretations of binding international law and hold significant legal influence.
