Defenders of Olimjon Haydarov have condemned the trial and conviction, arguing that it constitutes a warning shot for civil society.

A court in Uzbekistan last week sentenced a citizen reporter to eight years in prison on charges of defamation and extortion in the culmination of the government’s most recent broadside in its war on an often unruly social media scene.

Defenders of Olimjon Haydarov, a popular blogger known for his critical videos on a variety of issues, have condemned the trial and conviction, arguing that it constitutes a warning shot for civil society.

Haydarov, 34, was arrested in late July. Investigators claimed that he had been caught red-handed while taking cash from local businessmen in exchange for refraining from publishing a negative video report.

The blogger, as citizen reporters are customarily known in Uzbekistan, is said to have demanded $10,000 from the owners of a shopping mall and allegedly managed to receive $7,500 of this amount. 

Haydarov’s younger brother has told journalists that the accusations are false. The blogger was talking to an acquaintance on the street at the moment of his arrest and was made by police to touch money planted in his car, the brother said. 

Haydarov pleaded not guilty and insisted on his innocence during a trial that lasted only a month. Prosecutor Mirzohid Ermatov had asked for 9-and-a-half years in prison.

The plaintiffs and victims are reported to have included a khokim, or mayor, of the city of Kokand and several law enforcement officers. 

In addition to ordering prison time in his December 1 verdict, the judge in Haydarov’s trial ordered that the content of the journalist’s social media accounts be expunged.

Haydarov’s relatives say that he plans to appeal.

Political commentator Kamoliddin Rabbimov said this trial should be seen as a warning. 

“Olimjon Haydarov has been imprisoned for eight years. This means he will be released at the end of 2031. This is a horrendous ruling. The goal of the trial was to intimidate the public, and this has been achieved,” Rabbimov wrote in his Telegram channel. 

Rasul Kusherbayev, a fellow blogger and a former member of parliament, offered a similarly gloomy judgement. 

“The verdict against a blogger Olimjon Haydarov is a sign of intolerance towards freedom of speech in Uzbekistan”, he said. 

Haydarov is only the latest in the string of Uzbek bloggers to have ended up behind bars in the past few months. In August, a court in Tashkent sentenced Abduqodir Muminov to more than seven years in prison on charges of violation of privacy, extortion and fraud. 

Another extortion trial concluded in late September with guilty verdicts for a group of journalists and bloggers accused of blackmailing officials using the Kompromat.uzb Telegram channel.

Source: Eurasianet

The post Uzbekistan: Court Sentences Citizen Reporter to Eight Years in Prison appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

France and the United Kingdom (UK) have jointly made a request in favour of Sri Lanka to the court of the Southern District of New York, for a six-month freeze on any litigation in the Hamilton Reserve Bank case until Sri Lanka’s external debt restructuring is completed, the Financial Times reported.

Accordingly, last week the two countries filed a joint “amicus curiae” to the New York judge hearing the case, arguing in favour of Sri Lanka’s request for a six-month freeze on any litigation.

The co-signatories in their “amicus curiae” want the judge to grant Sri Lanka the six-month stay it has requested, because they worry that the lawsuit by Hamilton Reserve Bank/Benjamin Wey could wreck ongoing restructuring talks.

France and UK have jointly made a request to the court of the Southern District of New York, for a six-month freeze on any litigation in the Hamilton Reserve Bank case until Sri Lanka’s external debt restructuring is completed.

“A judgement in favour of the plaintiff before the completion of the debt restructuring process would risk disrupting the ongoing negotiations by creating an incentive for holdout creditors, thereby jeopardising the comparability of treatment between different categories of creditors,” the filing said.

It also said that the relevant principle is at the core of all sovereign debt restructuring processes, as it is key to securing the consent of all creditors, and that disruption would lead to delays in the negotiations, delaying the cash disbursement by the International Monetary Fund to the debtor country and resulting in significant costs for Sri Lanka and the official creditors’ taxpayers.

France is naturally interested in the Sri Lanka lawsuit as it hosts the so-called Paris Club, where government-to-government debts are restructured. The UK is part of the Paris Club but presumably cosigned the amicus brief because it historically oversaw the London Club, the less formal group for private creditors to negotiate with sovereign borrowers.

Last month, the Financial Times also reported that the United States (US) Government has also intervened in the matter where “the US is actively considering whether to file a Statement of Interest with respect to the pending motion to stay”.

The Hamilton Reserve Bank vs. Government of Sri Lanka case was filed in June 2022 after Sri Lanka declared bankruptcy and defaulted on $ 1 billion of this particular bond issue, of which Hamilton Reserve Bank holds $ 250 million.

Source : The Morning

The post France, UK Jointly Ask US Court to Freeze Litigation on Sri Lanka appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

On October 3, Kyrgyzstan’s President Sadyr Japarov signed a bill into law that allows the Constitutional Court to revise prior decisions. 

Revisions can be instigated by the court’s chairperson or the president in three cases: if constitutional norms have shifted since a decision was made, if circumstances relevant to a decision come to light after a decision was made, or if a decision contradicts the “moral values” or “public consciousness” of the people of the Kyrgyz Republic.

Others have written about how this is another instance of Japarov invoking vague notions of “morality” to justify eroding the rule of law. The history of Kyrgyzstan’s Constitutional Court – and Japarov’s efforts to actually give it more power – are worth exploring as well. 

Kyrgyzstan’s Constitutional Court theoretically has sole authority over constitutional interpretation. Individual citizens, registered organizations, lower courts, or political parties can appeal to the Constitutional Court if they believe a law goes against the spirit or letter of the constitution. Other courts, even Kyrgyzstan’s Supreme Court, do not have the authority to make sense of what the constitution does or does not allow.

This model of concentrating the authority of constitutional interpretation in one court was widely embraced in countries across Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Many countries that emerged from communist rule took their time with adopting new constitutions that formalized rights and civic responsibilities, but they were quick to establish Constitutional Courts with teeth.

Small differences in how these Constitutional Courts were designed had big impacts on political trajectories across the post-Soviet space. Design features like term limits and the process for appointing judges could be tweaked to reflect the interests of political parties. Even in contexts where a single party controls the political system, and could theoretically do away with the Constitutional Court altogether, leaders of some post-Soviet countries kept them around and used them as tools to legitimate their rule by requiring judicial intervention in elections and other big political controversies.

That’s how Kyrgyzstan’s Constitutional Court was used under the country’s second president, Kurmanbek Bakiyev, when the Constitutional Court ruled that reforms adopted following the Tulip Revolution were null and void. The politicization of the court led post-2010 reformers to demote it to a Constitutional Chamber situated under the Supreme Court. The 2010 Constitution said that the chamber’s “decisions shall be final and not subject to appeal,” as well, but its symbolic authority was slightly reduced.

Fast forward to January 2021, when Kyrgyzstan held a referendum on a new constitution that concentrated power in the hands of the president. Among the bundle of changes was reestablishing the Constitutional Court, a move that was welcomed by the Venice Commission. ADVERTISEMENT

It may seem counterintuitive that someone trying to build a power vertical would also empower a court with more authority to check his influence. But research on the justice systems in Russia and Central Asia shows that strong patronal regimes accept the risks of strong courts because of their legitimation benefits. An autocrat can point to a constitutional court decision affirming his re-election, for example, to deflect criticisms.

The very same president that revived the Constitutional Court and expanded its authority has, two years later, pushed through a law that restricts the court’s power. How should we make sense of the contradiction?

Almazbek Moldobaev, the president’s permanent representative to the Constitutional Court, might say that this law merely matches international precedent. On July 17, immediately following the bill’s introduction in parliament, Moldobaev pointed to similar legislation in Lithuania (although Lithuania’s Constitutional Court has never flexed that feature), as well as neighboring Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. 

This law has been framed from the beginning by the presidential administration as a response to the Constitutional Court’s decision about matronymics, another instance of Japarov deftly employing populist and nationalist rhetoric. I previously wrote about how activist Altyn Kapalova’s efforts to give her children her own name in lieu of their father’s has been leveraged by politicians to distract from the government’s shortcomings and justify a presidential power grab.

Certainly, the speed with which this bill was passed in parliament and the slipperiness of “morality” as a reason to undermine the court’s authority are deeply concerning. As Chris Rickleton wrote for RFE/RL, it’s a clear example of Japarov “saying the quiet part out loud.”

Given that this law directly contradicts Kyrgyzstan’s constitution, which reads, “Decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final and not subject to appeal,” there is a clear opening for activists to challenge it in the Constitutional Court. 

It is highly unlikely that the Constitutional Court will be sympathetic to such an appeal, however. The fate of former Constitutional Chamber judge Klara Sooronkulova is illustrative. She was dismissed in 2015 for criticizing a government-sponsored law. She advocated in front of the court in December 2020 to challenge the constitutionality of the referendum that reinstated the court. And in October 2022 Sooronkulova was detained for six months and now faces aggravated charges of “forcible seizure of power.” 

The government has made an example of judicial activism with Sooronkulova. Three of the court’s nine members were appointed during Japarov’s administration, one of whom, Zamirbek Bazarbekov, was once the president’s lawyer. This means that regardless of the blatant contradiction of the constitution, it will be nearly impossible to challenge from the inside. 

Source: The Diplomat

The post Kyrgyzstan Undermines Constitutional Court With New Avenues to Revise Decisions appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

New York, September 25, 2023—The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns a Belarusian court’s Monday sentencing of journalist Vyacheslau Lazarau to 5.5 years in prison for allegedly facilitating extremism.

“Vyacheslau Lazarau’s sentencing to 5.5 years in prison demonstrates how the country’s ‘extremist’ laws have become the most frequent tool the Belarusian authorities use to jail journalists for their independent reporting,” said Gulnoza Said, CPJ’s Europe and Central Asia program coordinator. “Belarusian authorities must drop all charges against Lazarau, release him and other jailed journalists immediately, and repeal the country’s shameful extremism legislation.”

A court in the northeastern city of Vitebsk convicted Lazarau, a freelance camera operator who has covered local news, and also his wife, Tatsiana Pytko, who was sentenced to 3 years on charges of participating in an extremist formation, according to the banned human rights group Viasna. CPJ could not immediately determine whether Lazarau and Pytko plan to appeal their sentence.

The closed-door trial began on September 5. Authorities accused Lazarau of cooperating with the banned Poland-based independent broadcaster Belsat TV and claimed Pytko helped him.

Authorities detained Lazarau in February 2023 and Pytko in June after investigators examined the content of Lazarau’s computer and phone and observed his wife in some of the footage, according to the Belarusian Association of Journalists, an advocacy and trade group operating from exile.

Lazarau was previously detained in 2020 while documenting the protests against President Aleksandr Lukashenko, according to news reports and as CPJ documented at the time.

Belarus was the world’s fifth worst jailer of journalists, with at least 26 journalists behind bars on December 1, 2022, when CPJ conducted its most recent prison census.

Source: Reliefweb

The post Belarusian Court Sentences Journalist Vyacheslau Lazarau to 5.5 Years on Extremism Charges appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.

ASTANA – The Constitutional Court has enacted a series of decisions that enshrine fundamental principles established within the Constitution to advance human rights in Kazakhstan, said Elvira Azimova, chairwoman of the Constitutional Court. In an interview with The Astana Times, she outlined the work carried out since the court’s establishment in an interview with The Astana Times, she outlined the work carried out since the court’s establishment in January.

Establishment of the Constitutional Court

In his address to the nation in March 2022, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev set out plans to re-establish the Constitutional Court in Kazakhstan with the aim of ensuring that national laws comply with the country’s constitution and strengthen human rights. 

The Constitutional Court began operating in January. Previously it operated from 1992 to 1995.

“The establishment of the Constitutional Court is one of the outcomes of the constitutional reform in 2022 that was supported by more than 77% of Kazakh citizens in a nationwide referendum,” said Azimova.

The Constitutional Court is accessible to all citizens, including the President, the Speaker of the Senate, the upper house of the Parliament, and the Mazhilis, the lower house of Parliament, members of Parliament, the Prime Minister, courts, as well as the Human Rights Ombudsperson and the Prosecutor General.

Appeals from citizens

“The Constitutional Court has been working actively for the past eight months,” said Azimova.

“There have been around 4,000 citizen appeals. However, a significant majority of them raised issues outside the remit of the Constitutional Court, for example revising verdicts, challenging court decisions, addressing social issues, canceling decisions of entities or officials that do not have the characteristics of normative legal acts. The Constitutional Court could not consider these appeals. Nevertheless, detailed legal explanations were provided to the citizens,” Azimova said.

The high number of citizen appeals is a testament to the high level of accessibility of the Constitutional Court for citizens, according to Azimova.

“During this short period, judges reviewed more than a quarter of citizen appeals. The judges issued final decisions on 23 appeals and there are currently around 40 cases under their consideration,” she said. 

“By comparison, during the 27 years of the work of the Constitutional Council, to which citizens could not appeal, only 140 final decisions were issued. As you can see, the legal foundation of the Constitutional Court is geared towards active work,” added Azimova.

Among the 23 normative decisions of the Constitutional Court, Azimova highlighted three decisions published on July 11.

“These decisions were related to appeals of the President of the country that involved the examination of the Social Code, the law on decentralization of powers of the government and executive bodies and the law on the return of unlawfully withdrawn state assets,” said Azimova.

The Constitutional Court determined that these draft laws adopted by the Parliament on June 20 and June 29 comply with the Constitution.

“These laws were actively discussed in society both before and during their consideration in Parliament and adoption by its members. President Tokayev made the decision to refer these laws to the Constitutional Court in order to review their compliance with the Constitution before signing them,” she added.

Approximately 41% of the lodged appeals were about discontent with court decisions and on matters related to social rights, pension provisions, access to information, access to justice and labor rights. 

Only 26% of citizen appeals were related to recognizing regulatory legal acts or their specific provisions as unconstitutional. 

Promoting public awareness

The court also carries out work to promote public awareness and understanding of its role and functions among citizens, lawyers, legal consultants and universities through seminars, conferences and panel discussions.

“The Constitutional Court organized a webinar for over 1,300 lawyers and legal consultants. Also, more than 200 students from the law faculties of leading universities in the country participated in open lectures conducted by Constitutional Court judges. Over 150 informational campaigns, interviews in the media and articles have been published on the Constitutional Court’s website,” said Azimova.

“Moreover, the Scientific Advisory Council which consists of more than 30 Kazakh scholars with the Doctor of Law degrees in various fields was established in order to gather opinions of the academic and expert community,” she added.  

The court works closely with leading advisory bodies on constitutional matters, including the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe.

“The recommendations of the Venice Commission, which includes experts from more than 60 countries and of which Kazakhstan has been a member since 2012, concern the development of constitutional law as a fundamental path to democracy through the rule of law,” said Azimova.

Implemented amendments

The Constitutional Court is key to Kazakhstan’s wide-ranging strategy to develop a firm foundation for its human rights policies going forward, according to Azimova.

“As a result of last year’s constitutional reform, Kazakhstan’s legal system is acquiring a human-centered and democratic character, enhancing its potential for safeguarding rights,” she said.

Azimova highlighted outcomes that have been achieved in eight months, including enacting a series of laws and regulations that enshrine certain fundamental rights.

“Over the course of eight months, the Constitutional Court recognized five out of 30 existing legal norms as unconstitutional and provided new interpretations for 11 norms of normative legal acts in accordance with the Constitution,” said Azimova.

“Consequently, amendments were made to the Tax Code regarding the amount of state fees since the previous fee amount hindered citizens’ access to justice,” she said, citing one example of the amendments.  

Another case involved repealing the requirement for a molecular-genetic examination as a condition for filing a lawsuit, as such a requirement limited the right to access justice, according to Azimova.

“Furthermore, a case involving a requirement for simplified adoption contradicted the state’s constitutional obligation to protect children, maternity and parenthood as well as its international commitment to ensuring the best interests of the child according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child that is ratified by Kazakhstan. Provisions of the Social Code that could potentially lead to discrimination against specific social groups in terms of guaranteed state benefits and allowances were revised,” said Azimova.

The government is working on accommodating all the recommendations and is preparing a series of other legislative amendments to present to the Parliament by the end of the year.

Responding to a question about whether the court monitors the implementation of its final decisions, Azimova said the institute is involved in “external monitoring.”

“The Constitutional Court closely monitors the implementation of these recommendations by the government, courts and other state bodies. This is a process of external monitoring. However, interfering in the activities of the government, courts and other state bodies is unacceptable. If the Constitutional Court is not satisfied with the level of implementation of its final decisions, it has the right to make additional decisions,” said Azimova.

She emphasized that transparency is crucial and that the court investigates appeals and publishes the decisions.

“It should be noted that all final decisions of the Constitutional Court are obligatory to be published. They come into force from the day of their adoption and are binding throughout Kazakhstan, and not subject to appeal. They have direct effect and do not require confirmation by other state bodies and officials,” she explained.

Cooperation with international organizations

The Constitutional Court has operated for eight months, but much work lies ahead.

“As the successor to the Constitutional Council, we will continue to collaborate with the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe, the Eurasian Association of Constitutional Control Bodies, the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, the Association of Asian Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Institutions and Turk-Ai,” Azimova said.

“Moreover, proposals and recommendations of the scholarly and expert community within the framework of the Scientific Advisory Council, and participation as experts in specific constitutional proceedings also remain crucial,” she added.

“We hope that the political authorities will actively engage in constitutional proceedings, draw their own conclusions and take preventive measures. This was the recommendation of the Venice Commission to states that established constitutional control bodies to uphold the rule of law and protect human rights,” said Azimova.

Source: Astana Times

The post Kazakhstan’s Constitutional Court Advances Human Rights, Says Chairperson appeared first on Tashkent Citizen.