CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

GE.25-05889 (E)

Human Rights Committee

Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the

Optional Protocol, concerning communications

No. 3195/2018**, ***

Communication submitted by:

Cholpon Djakupova and Narynbek Idinov

(represented by counsel, Timur Sultanov)

Alleged victims:

The authors

State Party:

Kyrgyzstan

Date of communication:

27 April 2018 (initial submission)

Document references:

Decision taken pursuant to rule 92 of the

Committee’s rules of procedure, transmitted to

the State Party on 14 September 2018

Date of adoption of Views:

14 March 2025

Subject matter:

Defamation of the Head of State

Procedural issue:

None

Substantive issues:

Freedom of expression; freedom of movement

Articles of the Covenant:

12 (2), 14 (1) and 19 (2)

Article of the Optional Protocol:

2

1.

The authors of the communication are Cholpon Djakupova and Narynbek Idinov, both

nationals of Kyrgyzstan, born in 1959 and 1952, respectively. They claim that the State Party

has violated their rights under articles 12 (2), 14 (1) and 19 (2) of the Covenant. The Optional

Protocol entered into force for the State Party on 7 January 1995. The authors are represented

by counsel.

Facts as submitted by the authors

2.1

The authors submit that, since 2016, there has been a marked increase in State-driven

pressure on freedom of expression in Kyrgyzstan. In 2016, the security agencies began

investigating material that was critical of then-President Almazbek Atambaev on social

media and interrogated authors of such publications about their posts. In March 2017, the

Prosecutor General initiated four lawsuits against different media outlets, journalists and

* Reissued for technical reasons on 7 August 2025.

** Adopted by the Committee at its 143rd session (3–28 March 2025).

*** The following members of the Committee participated in the examination of the communication:

Tania María Abdo Rocholl, Wafaa Ashraf Moharram Bassim, Rodrigo A. Carazo, Yvonne Donders,

Mahjoub El Haiba, Carlos Ramón Fernández Liesa, Laurence R. Helfer, Konstantin Korkelia, Dalia

Leinarte, Bacre Waly Ndiaye, Hernán Quezada Cabrera, Akmal Saidov, Ivan Šimonović, Soh

Changrok, Teraya Koji, Hélène Tigroudja and Imeru Tamerat Yigezu.

United Nations

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018*

International Covenant on

Civil and Political Rights

Distr.: General

3 July 2025

Original: English

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

2

GE.25-05889

human rights defenders on behalf of the President under the domestic legislation that protects

the President’s honour and dignity,1 seeking compensation in the amount of 48 million soms.

During his public speeches, President Atambaev harshly criticized independent media and

condemned the activities of human rights defenders representing the interests of journalists

and the media.2

2.2

Both authors are civil activists and are well known in Kyrgyzstan for their public

engagement in the protection of human rights. Ms. Djakupova, a director of the legal clinic

Adilet and a former deputy of the Kyrgyz parliament, agreed to represent the defendants in

all four civil cases initiated by the Prosecutor General. On 30 March 2017, the Ombudsperson

organized a round table on freedom of assembly and freedom of speech to facilitate a

discussion between civil society and the Kyrgyz authorities. During the round table,

Ms. Djakupova took the floor and delivered a critical speech, in which she condemned the

authorities and President Atambaev for interfering with freedom of expression and

information in the country. On the same day, Mr. Idinov, a journalist and co-founder of the

Internet news portal Zanoza, published an article containing Ms. Djakupova’s speech on his

website.

2.3

On 20 April 2017, the Prosecutor General, relying on the provisions of article 4 of the

Law on the Guarantees of the Activities of the President of Kyrgyzstan and article 18 of the

Civil Code, which guarantees the protection of a person’s honour, dignity and professional

reputation, filed a civil lawsuit to protect the honour and dignity of the President and to seek

moral compensation in the amount of 3 million soms from each of the authors.3 The lawsuit

also named another individual and a public foundation as co-defendants in the case. The

authors claim that it is unprecedented in the judicial history of Kyrgyzstan to seek such a

large amount as compensation and that for Mr. Idinov to pay such an amount would require

him to surrender his entire income for the next 31 years. They also note that, in 2017, the

average amount of compensation for non-pecuniary damages awarded by domestic courts,

in, for example, cases of murder or rape, was between 100,000 and 200,000 soms. The

Prosecutor General also requested the court to declare parts of Ms. Djakupova’s speech

untrue and to order the removal of the article from Mr. Idinov’s website. The lawsuit alleged

that Ms. Djakupova’s speech was inappropriate and contained emotionally expressive

elements, irony and sarcasm aimed at negatively influencing public opinion, thereby

affecting the reputation of the President.

2.4

On 26 April 2017, at the request of the Prosecutor General, Oktyabrsky District Court

in Bishkek issued an injunction prohibiting the authors from leaving the country before the

end of the court proceedings and ordering the temporary seizure of their assets to secure the

payout of potential damages. As a result of the injunction order, court bailiffs froze a bank

account and a house belonging to Ms. Djakupova. The court considered these measures

necessary to ensure that nothing would hinder or prevent the implementation of the court’s

final decision. The authors lodged an appeal against the injunction measures with Bishkek

City Court; however, their appeal was denied on 18 May 2017. The authors also filed an

appeal for a supervisory review with the Supreme Court, which was dismissed on 19 June

2017.

2.5

On 30 June 2017, Oktyabrsky District Court ruled that, in her speech, Ms. Djakupova

defamed the honour and dignity of President Atambaev and ordered the article containing

her speech to be deleted from Mr. Idinov’s website. Although the lawsuit was filed against

four defendants, the trial lasted only two days. There were also numerous violations of

procedural and substantive law: the authors’ counsels were not given sufficient time to

examine case materials or to prepare legal arguments; the presiding judge interrupted the

defendants’ testimonies, indicating that they had exceeded their time limit; and the authors’

motions for a linguistic expert testimony and additional time to prepare for closing arguments

1 The Law on the Guarantees of the Activities of the President of Kyrgyzstan.

2 The authors refer to a meeting that the President held with several ambassadors to Kyrgyzstan at

which he complained that some journalists had sold out Kyrgyzstan, calling those journalists “rotten”.

https://kaktus.media/doc/354121_chto_govoril_prezident_atambaev_poslam_vystypaia_na_kyrgyzsk

om.html (in Russian).

3 Approximately $43,500.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

GE.25-05889

3

were dismissed without substantiation. The court ordered each of the authors to pay President

Atambaev non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 3 million soms, as requested by the

Prosecutor General. On 17 August 2017, Bishkek City Court denied the authors’ appeal. On

an unspecified date, the authors lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court, which

was dismissed on 30 November 2017.

2.6

On 6 December 2017, the authors requested Oktyabrsky District Court to approve an

instalment plan to execute the court’s decision regarding compensation, whereby 50 per cent

of the authors’ monthly income would be withheld until the entire amount of the

compensation had been paid. The authors provided the court with detailed information about

their income and showed that they would not be able to pay the awarded damages at once.

On 19 December 2017, Oktyabrsky District Court denied the authors’ request. The authors

lodged an appeal against the decision with Bishkek City Court, but their appeal was denied

on 7 February 2018.

2.7

On 12 January 2018, a legal representative of President Atambaev requested

Oktyabrsky District Court to execute the court’s final decision by initiating foreclosure

proceedings on the authors’ seized property with a view to its subsequent sale. On 14

February 2018, this request was granted in relation to Ms. Djakupova’s property. At the time

of the submission of this communication, the foreclosure proceedings were in process.

2.8

The authors submit that they have exhausted all available domestic remedies.

Complaint

3.1

The authors claim that the State Party has violated their rights under articles 12 (2),

14 (1) and 19 (2) of the Covenant.

3.2

The authors claim that, by imposing a travel ban on them, the State Party has violated

their rights under article 12 (2) of the Covenant. The authors note that the Committee has held

that, while restrictive measures are admissible under certain circumstances provided by

article 12 (3), those restrictive measures must conform to the principle of proportionality and

must be appropriate to achieve their protective function and proportionate to the interest to

be protected.4 The authors submit that the travel ban resulted in their inability to fully pursue

their professional activity, given that both of them, as part of their work, had to travel abroad.

The authors note that the travel ban remained in force after the decision of the court of first

instance, pending full payment of the awarded damages.

3.3

The authors also consider that their rights under article 14 (1) of the Covenant have

been violated because of procedural irregularities and the violation of the principle of equality

of arms. The authors claim that the domestic courts did not give them sufficient time to

prepare their defence, did not allow them to fully present their arguments and summarily

dismissed their motions, thus failing to ensure that each side was given the opportunity to

contest all the arguments and evidence adduced by the other party.5 They also note that the

proceedings took place in a general environment of shrinking space for freedom of expression,

in which public officials openly criticized human rights defenders and journalists. In

particular, the President repeatedly criticized local media outlets in his speeches and

condemned the activities of human rights defenders. The authors consider that the President

influenced the Prosecutor General’s decision to start legal proceedings against them.

3.4

Referring to article 19 (2) of the Covenant, the authors submit that the restriction

imposed on them was not provided for by law and was neither necessary in a democratic

society nor proportionate to the aim pursued. The authors claim that the Kyrgyz authorities

failed to take into consideration that Ms. Djakupova’s speech was of public interest and

primarily urged government officials to uphold the standards of the Constitution and the rule

of law in general, while Mr. Idinov simply reproduced and critically reported a political event.

The authors note that the courts did not consider that public figures, especially the President,

should be subject to the highest level of scrutiny, and failed to establish any pressing social

4 General comment No. 27 (1999) on freedom of movement, para. 14.

5 General comment No. 32 (2007) on the right to equality before courts and tribunals and to fair trial,

para. 13.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

4

GE.25-05889

need for placing the protection of the President’s reputation above the authors’ own freedom

of expression. The authors also argue that the amount of the damages awarded by the

domestic courts is void of any logic or explanation as to how it was calculated.

State Party’s observations on the merits

4.1

In a note verbale dated 20 December 2018, the State Party submitted its observations

on the merits of the communication. The State Party notes that, at a public event held on

30 March 2017, Ms. Djakupova voiced a number of statements and accusations that

discredited and degraded the honour, dignity and reputation of President Atambaev. In

particular, she, without providing any evidence or facts, stated that the President persecuted

the media out of personal revenge and interfered in the administration of justice, effectively

accusing him of committing the crime of abuse of office. She publicly accused the President

of ignorance of the Constitution and the law and of abusing his authority as the Head of State.

She also condemned the President for creating a situation in which a coup and a civil war

could occur and said that he had a mania for revenge and referred to him as someone with a

manic personality and sick tendencies.

4.2

The State Party submits that, on the same day, Zanoza published an article entitled

“Cholpon Djakupova: It’s time to reprimand a person with manic tendencies” that contained

Ms. Djakupova’s speech, which was reproduced without any prior fact-checking. It also

submits that the article distorted some of Ms. Djakupova’s statements to strengthen the

negative presentation of the information to the public, such as by adding the phrase “It’s time

to reprimand” in the heading of the article as if it had been said by the speaker, when, in fact,

Ms. Djakupova had not used such a phrase in her speech. The State Party notes that a

linguistics expert from the State Forensic Centre of the Ministry of Justice conducted a

forensic linguistic examination of the videotape and transcript of Ms. Djakupova’s speech,

which revealed that it contained emotionally expressive elements, irony and sarcasm.

According to the Centre’s report, by characterizing the President’s ethical and moral

standards negatively, Ms. Djakupova had undermined his status and tarnished his

professional reputation and public image, degrading his honour and dignity.

4.3

The State Party submits that, on 20 April 2017, the Prosecutor General filed a lawsuit

with Oktyabrsky District Court to protect the honour and dignity of the President and

requested the removal of the article containing Ms. Djakupova’s speech from the Zanoza

website. The Prosecutor General also asked the court to award non-pecuniary damages, with

an amount of 3 million soms to be paid by each of the defendants.

4.4

With regard to the authors’ claim that the injunction measures violated their rights

under the Covenant, the State Party submits that the Code of Civil Procedure provides for

injunction measures that include temporarily seizing a defendant’s assets to guarantee the

payment of damages, should the defendant be unable to pay the court-awarded compensation.

The State Party further notes that the travel ban was imposed by the trial court at the request

of the Prosecutor General, given that the nature of the authors’ work required frequent trips

abroad and that their departure before consideration of the merits of the case could complicate

and delay the trial. The State Party notes that, at the time the lawsuit was filed, article 46 (8)

of the law on external migration provided for the possibility of a temporary travel ban in the

case of a pending civil lawsuit. However, on 30 May 2018, the Constitutional Chamber of

the Supreme Court ruled that the above-mentioned article was contrary to the Constitution of

Kyrgyzstan.

4.5

With regard to the proportionality of the damages sought by the Prosecutor General,

the State Party notes that, when determining the amount of monetary compensation to be

recovered from the authors, several factors were taken into account, including the nature and

content of the public statements, the method and duration of the publication, the degree of

influence of the statements and publications in forming a negative public opinion of the

victim and the extent to which his dignity, social status and business reputation were affected,

along with other negative consequences that he had faced. At the same time, it notes that

current legislation does not provide an established methodology for determining the amount

of monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damages in such cases. It considers that the

domestic courts have complied with the requirements of reasonableness, fairness and

proportionality in determining the amount of the compensation for moral damages.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

GE.25-05889

5

4.6

The State Party submits that, on 23 May 2018, President Atambaev waived part of his

claim for non-pecuniary damages and requested Oktyabrsky District Court to lift the

injunction measures issued by the court on 26 April 2017. On 4 June 2018, Oktyabrsky

District Court granted the request and lifted all injunction measures against the authors. The

State Party submits that the waiver of non-pecuniary damages by President Atambaev

rendered the decisions of the domestic courts devoid of any legal consequences. Moreover,

on 17 October 2018, the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that the

provisions of article 4 of the Law on the Guarantees of the Activities of the President of

Kyrgyzstan were contrary to the Constitution insofar as they allowed for the protection of the

President’s honour and dignity and determination of the amount of moral compensation by

the Prosecutor General without the President’s explicit consent.

4.7

As to the procedural irregularities and the violation of the principle of equality of arms

alleged by the authors, the State Party considers that the trial court maintained its objectivity

and impartiality throughout the process, providing all necessary conditions for a

comprehensive examination of evidence and correct application of domestic law in resolving

the case. It notes that the trial was open to the public and that the rights of all parties involved

in the case were fully observed by the court.

4.8

Lastly, with regard to the authors’ claim under article 19 of the Covenant, the State

Party notes that, in accordance with article 29 of the Constitution, everyone, including the

President, has the right to the protection of honour and dignity. In addition, article 12 of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that no one is to be subjected to attacks upon

his honour and reputation and everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such

attacks. Moreover, article 8 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides that

everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts

violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law. The State Party

refers to the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which has held that,

despite the role that the press plays in a State governed by the rule of law, it is obliged to

adhere to certain frameworks set by the law.6 Therefore, the State Party argues that the

judgments of the domestic courts were based on the relevant provisions of Kyrgyz legislation,

and that their application pursued the legitimate aim of the protection of the reputation or

rights of others, namely President Atambaev.

Authors’ comments on the State Party’s observations on the merits

5.1

On 25 February 2019, the authors provided their comments on the State Party’s

observations on the merits. The authors reject the legality and the legal sufficiency of the

forensic linguistic examination of Ms. Djakupova’s speech because it was not commissioned

and conducted on the basis of an independent court decision, but rather was ordered by the

Office of the Prosecutor General, which was one of the parties in the case. The authors note

that, in accordance with national legislation, if a forensic examination is ordered by a court,

each of the parties has the right to petition the court to include questions for the consideration

of experts or to give objections on issues proposed by the other party to the court process.

However, as the linguistic examination was ordered by the Office of the Prosecutor General,

they were deprived of this opportunity.

5.2

The authors reject the State Party’s submission that the trial court maintained its

objectivity and impartiality throughout the process and provided necessary conditions for a

comprehensive examination of evidence in the case. They note that the trial court did not

grant their lawyers sufficient time to examine case materials and to properly prepare their

arguments. During their cassation appeal, it took the Supreme Court only 30 minutes to hear

three separate appeals of three co-defendants in the case. The authors note that they were

repeatedly and rudely interrupted by the court and reminded of the time constraints.

5.3

The authors argue that the Prosecutor General demanded that the authors pay an

excessively high amount of compensation for moral damages, in violation of the principle of

6 The State Party refers to European Court of Human Rights, Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria,

Application No. 15974/90, Judgment, 26 April 1995; and Flux v. Moldova (No. 6), Application

No. 22824/04, Judgment, 29 July 2008.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

6

GE.25-05889

reasonableness and proportionality, knowing that the authors would not be able to pay it. This

has resulted in other violations of the authors’ rights, such as the prolonged freezing of their

property and bank accounts. The authors note that, throughout the domestic proceedings, they

repeatedly drew the courts’ attention to the fact that President Atambaev had not given his

formal consent to the Prosecutor General to file a lawsuit to protect his honour and dignity

or approved the amount of the compensation sought. Later, after the authors submitted a

complaint to the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court, that court ruled that the

provision of the law that had allowed the Prosecutor General to file a lawsuit against the

authors without the President’s consent was unconstitutional.

5.4

The authors disagree with the arguments of the State Party on the reasonableness and

proportionality of imposing travel restrictions when filing and considering claims relating to

the protection of honour and dignity. They note that they never missed or delayed a court

hearing in their case, and that the courts did not have any reason to believe that they would

obstruct or delay the consideration of the case. Moreover, they submit that their case was the

first such case concerning the protection of honour and dignity in the history of Kyrgyzstan

for which such an injunction measure had been applied. The authors note that they had to

appeal the unconstitutionality of the travel ban and, on 30 May 2018, the Constitutional

Chamber of the Supreme Court concluded that a travel ban as an injunction measure in civil

cases was inconsistent with the principles of proportionality and exceeded the limits of

restriction on the rights protected by the Constitution, since there are other judicial

mechanisms available to courts aimed at forcing defendants to participate in a trial. Only after

President Atambaev waived part of his claim for non-pecuniary damages and requested the

court to lift the injunction measures on 4 June 2018 did Oktyabrsky District Court lift the

authors’ travel ban. The authors submit that they had to cancel several trips abroad during

the duration of their travel ban, between 26 April 2017 and 4 June 2018, which had a negative

effect on their professional work.

5.5

The authors reject the State Party’s submission that the domestic courts have complied

with the requirements of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality in determining the

amount of compensation for moral damage. They note that neither the Prosecutor General

nor the court of first instance provided the methodology that had been used to calculate the

amount of the compensation. They note that, in 2017, Ms. Djakupova’s monthly income was

104,795 soms, while Mr. Idinov was making only 8,000 soms a month, and that this

information was provided to the trial court. They also note that, according to the National

Statistics Committee, the median monthly salary in Bishkek in 2016 was 18,311 soms.

5.6

With regard to the State Party’s observations on the authors’ claim of a violation of

article 19 of the Covenant, the authors note that the two cases referenced by the State Party

in its submission differ substantially from the case of the authors and cannot be used as

precedents for a number of reasons, one being that those exercising the highest political

authority, such as Heads of State, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.

They submit that, amid repeated attacks against human rights defenders and mass media

outlets in Kyrgyzstan at the time of the events in question, the State Party’s legal actions must

be interpreted as an attempt to interfere with and suppress the expression of views

contradicting official views. The authors note that, in 2017, the Prosecutor General filed five

lawsuits against independent journalists and human rights defenders to defend the honour

and dignity of President Atambaev, including the case against them.

Issues and proceedings before the Committee

Consideration of admissibility

6.1

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must

decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is

admissible under the Optional Protocol.

6.2

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional

Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international

investigation or settlement.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

GE.25-05889

7

6.3

The Committee notes the authors’ submission that they have exhausted all effective

domestic remedies available to them. In the absence of any objection by the State Party in

that regard, the Committee considers that it is not precluded by article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional

Protocol from examining the communication.

6.4

The Committee observes in this regard that the authors’ claims under article 14 (1) of

the Covenant refer primarily to the appraisal of evidence adduced during the court

proceedings and the application of domestic legislation, matters falling in principle to the

national courts, unless the evaluation of evidence was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a

manifest error or denial of justice, or the court otherwise violated its obligation of

independence and impartiality.7 In the present case, the Committee is of the view that the

authors have failed to demonstrate, for the purposes of admissibility, that the conduct of the

proceedings in their case was clearly arbitrary or amounted to a manifest error or denial of

justice, or provided evidence that the courts otherwise violated their obligation of

independence and impartiality. The Committee consequently considers that this part of the

communication has not been sufficiently substantiated and thus finds it inadmissible under

article 2 of the Optional Protocol.

6.5

The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their claims

under articles 12 (2) and 19 (2) of the Covenant for the purposes of admissibility. The

Committee therefore declares the communication admissible and proceeds with its

consideration of the merits.

Consideration of the merits

7.1

The Committee has considered the communication in the light of all the information

submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

7.2

The Committee notes the authors’ claim that the decisions of the domestic courts

ordering the removal of the article containing Ms. Djakupova’s speech from the website

co-founded by Mr. Idinov and imposing excessive non-pecuniary damages, as well as the

injunction measures in the form of a travel ban and the freezing of assets, constituted a

restriction on the authors’ right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by article 19 (2) of

the Covenant. The Committee must therefore examine whether the imposed restrictions were

justified under the criteria provided by article 19 (3) of the Covenant.

7.3

The Committee refers to its general comment No. 34 (2011), according to which

freedom of opinion and expression are essential for any society and constitute the foundation

stone for every free and democratic society.8 According to article 19 (3) of the Covenant, the

right to freedom of expression can be subject to certain restrictions, but only such as are

provided by law and are necessary: (a) for respect for the rights or reputations of others; or

(b) for the protection of national security or public order, or of public health or morals.9 All

restrictions imposed on freedom of expression must be provided by law. They may only be

imposed on the grounds set out in subparagraphs (a) and (b) of article 19 (3) and they must

conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality.10 Furthermore, the Committee

recalls that a free, uncensored and unhindered press or other media, including Internet news

portals, as in this case, is essential in any society to ensure freedom of opinion and expression

and the enjoyment of other Covenant rights. This implies a free press and other media able

to comment on public issues without censorship or restraint and to inform public opinion. It

constitutes one of the cornerstones of a democratic society.11

7.4

The Committee notes that, in the present case, the relevant provisions of the Law on

the Guarantees of the Activities of the President of Kyrgyzstan and the Kyrgyz Civil Code

were applied with the legitimate aim of protecting the reputation or rights of others. Therefore,

the restriction imposed on the authors was provided for by law. The Committee will now

7 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 26. See also Kurakbaev and Sabdikenova v. Kazakhstan

(CCPR/C/132/D/2509/2014), para. 10.9.

8 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 2.

9 Ibid., para. 21.

10 Ibid., para. 22.

11 Ibid., para. 13.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

8

GE.25-05889

determine whether the restriction on the authors’ right to freedom of expression was

necessary and proportionate.

7.5

As the Committee notes in paragraph 35 of its general comment No. 34 (2011), when

a State Party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must

demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion why the specific action taken was

necessary and proportionate. 12 The Committee notes that Ms. Djakupova delivered her

speech during a round table involving representatives of civil society and the Kyrgyz

authorities during which she criticized the then-President and the Government for interfering

with freedom of expression and information in the country. Therefore, her critique of the

perceived interference with people’s constitutional rights was a matter of public interest. The

Committee recalls in that respect that, to meet the test of necessity, any restriction on the

right to freedom of expression which seeks to protect the reputation of others must be shown

to be appropriate to achieve its protective function; must be the least intrusive instrument

among those which might achieve their protective function; and must be proportionate to the

interest to be protected.13 In any event, a public interest in the subject matter of the criticism

should be recognized as a defence and care should be taken by States Parties to avoid

excessively punitive measures and penalties.14 Where relevant, States Parties should place

reasonable limits on the requirement for a defendant to reimburse the expenses of the

successful party. The Committee recalls that, in circumstances of public debate concerning

public figures in the political domain and public institutions, the value placed by the

Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high.15 Moreover, all public figures,

including those exercising the highest political authority, such as Heads of State, are

legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition.16 Thus, the mere fact that forms of

expression are considered to be insulting to a public figure is not sufficient to justify the

imposition of penalties, albeit public figures may also benefit from the provisions of the

Covenant.17

7.6

The Committee observes that, to protect the reputation of the then-President, the

authors were ordered to remove the article containing Ms. Djakupova’s speech from the

Zanoza website and to each pay non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 3 million soms.

The Committee notes the authors’ arguments that, based on their income, Mr. Idinov would

be required to surrender all his earnings for the next 31 years, and Ms. Djakupova for 2.5

years, in order to pay the compensation amount. At the same time, the Committee notes that

neither the domestic courts nor the State Party provided any explanation as to why such a

hefty amount of non-pecuniary damages was awarded by the courts in addition to the order

to remove the article from the website.

7.7

The Committee disagrees with the State Party’s objection that the waiver of

non-pecuniary damages by the former President had rendered the decisions of the domestic

courts devoid of any legal consequences. Although the proceedings against the author were

formally civil, the amount of the non-pecuniary damages clearly indicates the punitive nature

of the measure applied. The court’s judgment became final and enforceable, and the sole

reason for which the compensation part of the judgments was not claimed was a personal

decision of the then-President, which was an unpredictable factor, rather than a result of a

regular legal procedure.

7.8

In view of the above, the Committee concludes that the restriction imposed on the

authors’ right to freedom of expression was neither necessary nor proportionate. Therefore,

the Committee is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State Party of

article 19 (2) of the Covenant.

7.9

The Committee notes the authors’ claim that, by imposing a travel ban on them, the

State Party had violated their rights under article 12 (2) of the Covenant. The Committee

12 See also Shin v. Republic of Korea (CCPR/C/80/D/926/2000), para. 7.3; and Kozlov v. Belarus

(CCPR/C/111/D/1986/2010), para. 7.4.

13 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 34. See also Kozlov v. Belarus, para. 7.6.

14 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 47.

15 Ibid., para. 38. See also Bodrozic v. Serbia and Montenegro (CCPR/C/85/D/1180/2003), para. 7.2.

16 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 38.

17 Ibid.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

GE.25-05889

9

recalls that liberty of movement is an indispensable condition for the free development of a

person.18 However, the Committee also recalls that the rights under article 12 of the Covenant

are not absolute. Article 12 (3) provides for exceptional cases in which the exercise of rights

covered by article 12 may be restricted. In accordance with the provisions of that paragraph,

a State Party may restrict the exercise of those rights only if the restrictions are provided by

law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the

rights and freedoms of others and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the

Covenant. In its general comment No. 27 (1999), the Committee noted that restrictive

measures must conform to the principle of proportionality, must be appropriate to achieve

their protective function and proportionate to the interest to be protected.19

7.10

In the present case, the Committee observes that, on 26 April 2017, at the request of

the Prosecutor General, Oktyabrsky District Court issued an injunction prohibiting the

authors from leaving the country before the end of the court proceedings. The Committee

notes the State Party’s submission that the travel ban was imposed by the trial court given

that the nature of the authors’ work required frequent trips abroad and that their departure

before consideration of the merits of the case could complicate and delay the trial. It notes

that the restriction was based on article 46.8 of the law on external migration, which provides

for the possibility of a temporary travel ban in the case of a pending civil lawsuit. However,

the Committee observes that the travel ban remained in force even after the decision of the

court of first instance and until 4 June 2018, when the then-President waived part of his claim

for non-pecuniary damages and requested Oktyabrsky District Court to lift the injunction

measures issued by the court on 26 April 2017.

7.11

The Committee also notes the authors’ arguments that they never missed or delayed a

court hearing in their case, and that the courts did not have any reason to believe that they

would obstruct or delay the consideration of the case. According to the authors, their case

had been the first such case concerning the protection of honour and dignity in the history of

Kyrgyzstan for which such an injunction measure had been applied. The Committee observes

that the State Party has not provided any information that would address the authors’

arguments, point to the necessity of the restriction or provide any justification as to its

proportionality. Moreover, the Committee notes that, on 30 May 2018, the Constitutional

Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled that a travel ban as an injunction measure in civil cases

was inconsistent with the principles of proportionality and exceeded the limits of restriction

on the rights protected by the Constitution, since there were other judicial mechanisms

available to courts aimed at forcing defendants to participate in a trial. Accordingly, the

Committee considers that the State Party has failed to justify the restrictions imposed on the

authors, as required by article 12 (3) of the Covenant. The Committee concludes that

imposing a travel ban on the authors was contrary to the freedom of movement and therefore

amounted to a violation of their rights under article 12 (2) of the Covenant.

8.

The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that

the facts before it disclose a violation by the State Party of the authors’ rights under

articles 12 (2) and 19 (2) of the Covenant.

9.

Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State Party is under an obligation to

provide the authors with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to

individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State Party is

obligated: (a) to reimburse any legal costs and court fees paid by the authors, as well as any

expenses incurred by the authors in connection with the travel ban; and (b) to provide the

authors with adequate compensation. 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) of the Covenant may be fully enjoyed in Kyrgyzstan.

18 General comment No. 27 (1999), para. 1. See also Ruzimatov et al. v. Turkmenistan

(CCPR/C/136/D/3285/2019), para. 6.2.

19 General comment No. 27 (1999), para. 14.

CCPR/C/143/D/3195/2018

10

GE.25-05889

10.

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State Party

has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a

violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State Party has

undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the

rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when

it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from

the State Party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the

Committee’s Views. The State Party is also requested to publish the present Views and to

have them widely disseminated in the official languages of the State Party.