Impunity for January 2022 crackdown and restrictions to peaceful assembly

A major area of concern during the review was Kazakhstan’s response to protests, mainly the January 2022 events, and the broader legal and institutional framework governing peaceful assembly and the use of force. The 2022 unrest erupted over a sudden spike in fuel prices but quickly escalated into nationwide protests against economic hardship, government corruption, and authoritarian rule. Committee members raised the issue of lethal force used during the unrest, including reports of a “shoot-to-kill” order issued by authorities, which led to 238 deaths. The Committee questioned whether any meaningful investigations had been carried out and expressed concern that an amnesty issued later in 2022 might have prevented law enforcement officials from being held accountable.

Kazakhstan’s delegation stated that the January 2022 events were not peaceful protests but an armed uprising involving attacks on State institutions and security personnel. The delegation maintained that law enforcement agents acted within the bounds of national legislation and public safety mandates. They also pointed to existing laws regulating the use of force, and noted that internal investigations had resulted in some disciplinary action, though comprehensive figures were not provided.

The Committee also scrutinized Kazakhstan’s legal framework on peaceful assembly, with Committee member Ms. Donders questioning the low approval rate for protest notifications—only 13% during the reporting period—and the ban on participation for foreigners and stateless persons. She expressed concern that the requirement to notify authorities in advance, combined with surveillance and preventive arrests, effectively discouraged public protest.

In response, the Kazakh delegation emphasized that recent legal changes had moved from a permission-based to a notification-based system and that restrictions were applied only to maintain public order and safety. They did not, however, respond in detail to concerns about arbitrary detentions, lack of spontaneous protest allowances, or barriers for non-citizens to participate in assemblies.

Strengthening judicial independence and access to justice

As for judicial independence and access to legal remedies, the Committee questioned the dominant role of the President in judicial appointments, particularly within the Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Council. It also highlighted persistent barriers to justice, including limited availability of legal services in rural areas and shortcomings in the quality of legal aid. Further issues included reports of legal proceedings lacking transparency and due process, including restricted access to case files and recorded attorney-client conversations. Lastly, the Committee asked whether there were safeguards in place to ensure that online trials, introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic, did not compromise fair trial rights.

In its response, Kazakhstan’s delegation cited recent legislation strengthening disciplinary oversight of judges and the expansion of public legal aid services. Officials acknowledged challenges in guaranteeing access, but affirmed the State’s commitment to ongoing reforms. They provided few details, however, on measures to ensure attorney independence or to address the persistent gaps identified by the Committee.

Independence and role of the Human Rights Commissioner

Another central topic was the role and independence of Kazakhstan’s Human Rights Commissioner. The Committee questioned why the Ombudsman had never exercised its constitutional right to appeal laws to the Constitutional Court and expressed concern about its continued B status signaling incomplete compliance with international standards for national human rights institutions.

In response, Kazakhstan pointed to the adoption of a new constitutional law in 2022 that expanded the Ombudsman’s mandate, incorporating recommendations from the Venice Commission. Officials explained that the absence of constitutional appeals reflected a strategic and cautious use of powers, reserved for serious systemic issues. They also emphasized that the National Preventive Mechanism (NPM), coordinated by the Ombudsman’s office, conducts unannounced visits to closed facilities and works closely with civil society. However, questions about the Ombudsman’s operational independence from the executive branch remained only partially addressed.

Watch the review session again here (day 1) and here (day 2).

Disclaimer: Transcripts of the dialogue available here powered by WIPO Speech-to-Text served as the main source of the presented article and content was also generated with the assistance of artificial intelligence. While all the information was carefully checked, please refer to the audio or UN WebTV for an official version of the dialogue.