Sanction of an individual for not notifying about an assembly, based on an outdated law and without a current legal mandate, unjustified and unlawful

Facts

The author, a blogger, was arrested for participating in a peaceful assembly in Bishkek without notifying authorities, violating administrative laws. Despite arguing his constitutional right and citing a newer law (Law No. 64) that removed the notification requirement, all court levels, including the Supreme Court, upheld his conviction based on a perceived violation of the current notification requirement under Law No. 64.

The author argues that his rights under articles 14 (1) and 21 of the Covenant were violated when State authorities interfered with a peaceful assembly due to lack of notification. He contends that the courts wrongfully applied an outdated law to hold him administratively liable, ignoring the current Law No. 64 and the Constitution, which do not require prior notification for peaceful assemblies. He requests the Committee to recognize these violations and urge the State to prevent similar future infringements.

Admissibility

Despite the State’s claim of inadmissibility due to the author not challenging the Code on Administrative Liability’s constitutionality, the Committee found the author’s complaint focused on Covenant rights violations related to his conviction for lacking notification for a peaceful assembly. Thus, it saw no reason to deem it inadmissible for not exhausting domestic remedies. For the claim under article 14 (1) about the right to a fair trial, the Committee noted the administrative fine imposed for violating assembly procedures had criminal law characteristics, making the charge effectively criminal within the Covenant’s context. Consequently, the Committee found the claims under articles 14 (1) and 21 substantiated enough for admissibility.

Merits

The Committee highlighted the importance of peaceful assembly rights and stated that restrictions must be lawful and necessary. The Committee noted that while notifications for assemblies are allowed, failure to notify should not result in criminal charges or undue sanctions. It found the author was penalized under an outdated law, with no current legal requirement for assembly notification in domestic law or the Constitution. Concluding that the State failed to justify the restriction as lawful, the Committee determined a violation of the author’s rights under article 21.

Recommendations

The State party is obligated, inter alia, to:

a) Provide the author with an effective remedy;

b) Make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated;

c) Take appropriate steps to provide the author with adequate compensation, including reimbursement of the fine imposed on him and any legal costs incurred;

d) Take steps to prevent similar violations from occurring in the future.

Implementation

Deadline for implementation: 15 November 2023