ICCPR Case Digest

CCPR/C/131/D/2452/2014

Communication

2452/2014

Submission: 2012.11.21

View Adopted: 2021.03.24

Kanat Ibragimov v. Kazakhstan

Civic activist sentenced to administrative detention for his participation in peaceful protests-violation found

Substantive Issues
  • Freedom of assembly
  • Freedom of expression
  • Right of peaceful assembly
Relevant Articles
  • Article 19.2
  • Article 21
Full Text

Facts

The author claimed that the state of Kazakhstan violated his rights under articles 19(2) and 21 of the Covenant, by placing him under administrative detention of arbitrary nature for his participation in peaceful protests. The Committee found that the State party failed to justify the restriction of the author’s right to peaceful assembly and thus violated article 19(2) and 21 of the Covenant.

The author is a painter and a civic activist, who participated in a peaceful rally on 24 March 2012. Shortly after, the author was detained by police officers and that very day was presented before the Specialized Inter-District Administrative Court of Almaty, which pronounced him guilty under the Code of Administrative Offences and sentenced him to 15 days of administrative detention. The author began a hunger strike to protest the violation of his rights, causing significant damage to his health.

The author brought multiple lawsuits, under civil proceedings, before the Bostandyk District Court in Almaty between May 2012 and July 2012, against his arbitrary detention, which were rejected by the Court. On 28 April 2012 the author attended another peaceful rally despite ill-health and was later forcibly detained by the police officers. He was presented before the Specialized Inter-District Administrative Court of Almaty against his will and was later subjected to bodily harm by the officers.

The Court found the author guilty of violating the procedure for the organization of a peaceful meeting and was again sentenced to 15 days administrative detention. The author was denied access to legal counsel and on 3 May 2012, submitted an appeal against the decision. His appeal was rejected by the Court on 4 May 2012. On 18 May 2012, the author submitted a request to the Office of the Prosecutor General to review the decision. On 15 August 2012, the author was informed that his request required an additional verification, and on 27 August 2012, the author’s request was transmitted to the Prosecutor’s Office of Almaty for that purpose. On 25 September 2012, the author was informed by the Prosecutor’s Office that there were no grounds for initiating a review.

Admissibility

The Committee found that the author had sufficiently substantiated, for the purposes of admissibility, his claims under articles 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant and declared the communication admissible.

Merits

The Committee recalled that article 21 of the Covenant provides that any restrictions must be “necessary in a democratic society”. Restrictions must therefore be necessary and proportionate in the context of a society based on democracy, the rule of law, political pluralism and human rights, as opposed to being merely reasonable or expedient. The Committee concluded that the State party had failed to justify the restriction of the author’s right to peaceful assembly and thus violated article 21 of the Covenant.

The Committee also noted that sanctioning the author for expressing his views through participation in public events interfered with his right to impart information and ideas of any kind, as protected under article 19 (2) of the Covenant. Relying on general comment no. 34 (2011), the Committee stated that restriction on the exercise of those freedoms under article 19(3) must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality. In the absence of any pertinent information from the State party explaining how the restriction was in line with the provisions of article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the Committee concluded that the author’s rights under article 19 (2) of the Covenant have been violated.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to: 

  • take appropriate steps to provide the author with adequate compensation and reimbursement of any legal costs incurred by him. 

The State party is also under an obligation to take all steps necessary to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future. In this connection, the Committee reiterates that, pursuant to its obligations under article 2 (2) of the Covenant, the State party should review its legislation with a view to ensuring that the rights under article 19 (2) and 21 of the Covenant, including organizing and conducting peaceful assemblies, meetings, processions, pickets and demonstrations, may be fully enjoyed in the State party.

Implementation

Deadline: 20th September 2021

 

By Sugandha Sawhney

deneme bonusu bonus veren siteler bonus veren siteler deneme bonusu veren siteler aiaswo.org cafetinnova.org
deneme bonusu veren siteler obeclms.com bonus veren siteler

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee

Rules of Procedure of the Human Rights Committee CCPR/C/3/Rev.10

Arabic | Chinese | English | French | Russian | Spanish

CCPR NGO Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (March 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Handbook

CCPR NHRI Participation

Documents adopted by the Human Rights Committee (November 2012)

English | French | Spanish | Russian | Arabic | Chinese