Criminal prosecution and house arrest of Jehovah’s Witnesses amid allegations of religious persecution in Kyrgyzstan found inadmissible

Facts

The authors, O.K. and N.S., Jehovah’s Witnesses from Kyrgyzstan, claim they were falsely prosecuted as part of broader religious persecution. They were arrested in March 2013 in Osh on fraud charges, placed in police custody, and later put under house arrest, which lasted for over two years, covering their trial and appeal proceedings. During this period, police raided Jehovah’s Witness gatherings, detaining and allegedly threatening attendees with torture and rape. In August 2015, officers brutally beat a worshipper and detained six others, who were also beaten in custody. Despite a criminal complaint, no investigation was opened.

The authors’ trial faced repeated delays due to judicial recusals and procedural challenges before they were acquitted in October 2014 for lack of evidence. The Osh Regional Court upheld the acquittal in October 2015. However, following prosecutorial appeals, the Supreme Court quashed their acquittals in February 2016, ordering a retrial, arguing that the lower courts had prematurely dismissed the evidence. At the hearing, the Supreme Court allegedly accepted fabricated evidence without allowing the authors to review it. Fearing reprisals, the authors sought interim measures from the Committee, which were granted in April 2016. Despite this, the State proceeded with the retrial, but the case was ultimately dismissed due to the statute of limitations in April 2016.

In the present communication, the authors allege violations of articles 7, 9 (1), 14 (1) and (3) (b) and (c), 18 (1), (2) and (3), 26, and 27 of the Covenant, arguing that they were subjected to arbitrary detention, unfair prosecution, and religious discrimination.

Admissibility

The Committee found the communication inadmissible under articles 2 and 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, concluding that the authors failed to exhaust domestic remedies. While the authors challenged the Supreme Court’s decision to order a retrial, the Committee noted that no final decision had been reached regarding their conviction or acquittal. Since they requested case dismissal due to the statute of limitations, they deprived themselves of the opportunity to demonstrate how procedural flaws impacted their trial. Regarding articles 9 (1) and 18, the Committee found that the authors failed to raise these claims domestically or show that remedies were unavailable. For article 14 (3) (c), it noted the trial faced delays but found no evidence they were excessive or due to judicial misconduct.