Opinion; Subjects: KYRGYZSTAN, ARBITRARY DETENTION; [WGAD: UNO-Arbeitsgruppe über willkürliche Inhaftierung, willkürliche Haft; Groupe de travail sur la détention arbitraire; Gruppo di lavoro sulla detenzione arbitraria]
Volltext (verifizierbarer Originaltext)
GE.25-15055 (E) 201025 201025
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 103rd session, 25–29 August 2025
Opinion No. 52/2025 concerning Makhabat Tazhibek kyzy
(Kyrgyzstan)
1.
The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention was established in resolution 1991/42 of
the Commission on Human Rights. In its resolution 1997/50, the Commission extended and
clarified the mandate of the Working Group. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 60/251
and Human Rights Council decision 1/102, the Council assumed the mandate of the
Commission. The Council most recently extended the mandate of the Working Group for a
three-year period in its resolution 51/8.
2.
In accordance with its working methods,1 on 11 February 2025, the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Kyrgyzstan a communication concerning Makhabat
Tazhibek kyzy. The Government has not replied to the communication. The State is a Party
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
3.
The Working Group regards deprivation of liberty as arbitrary in the following cases:
(a)
When it is clearly impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying the
deprivation of liberty (as when a person is kept in detention after the completion of his or her
sentence or despite an amnesty law applicable to him or her) (category I);
(b)
When the deprivation of liberty results from the exercise of the rights or
freedoms guaranteed by articles 7, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights and, insofar as States Parties are concerned, by articles 12, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25,
26 and 27 of the Covenant (category II);
(c)
When the total or partial non-observance of the international norms relating to
the right to a fair trial, established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the
relevant international instruments accepted by the States concerned, is of such gravity as to
give the deprivation of liberty an arbitrary character (category III);
(d)
When asylum-seekers, immigrants or refugees are subjected to prolonged
administrative custody without the possibility of administrative or judicial review or remedy
(category IV);
(e)
When the deprivation of liberty constitutes a violation of international law on
the grounds of discrimination, based on birth, national, ethnic or social origin, language,
religion, economic condition, political or other opinion, gender, sexual orientation, disability
or any other status, that aims towards or can result in ignoring the equality of human beings
(category V).
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
General Assembly
Distr.: General
20 October 2025
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
2
GE.25-15055
1.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Makhabat Tazhibek kyzy, born on 13 May 1991, is a national of Kyrgyzstan. She is a
journalist and the current Director of Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese, which are,
respectively, a YouTube-based media outlet that investigates and reports on alleged
corruption among State and non-State actors in Kyrgyzstan and a YouTube-based project
aimed at popularizing human rights issues by performing and publishing folk songs. Her
usual place of residence is Bishkek.
5.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy is married to one of the country’s leading anti-corruption
journalists, who is also the founder of Temirov LIVE and who was deported from
Kyrgyzstan.
(i)
Context
6.
According to the source, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention is consistent with the ongoing
campaign in Kyrgyzstan to stifle dissent, including by criminalizing independent media and
journalists. Journalists and bloggers covering major events, including alleged corruption
cases, have regularly faced intimidation, detention and interference.
7.
Constitutional changes in 2021 concentrated political power in the presidency by
eliminating the office of Prime Minister and reducing the size and powers of the legislature,
reportedly enabling the authorities to target human rights advocates and independent media
outlets.
8.
The constitutional changes in 2021 granted the President the power to appoint judges
and heads of law enforcement agencies. The Human Rights Committee has expressed
concern about the lack of independence and impartiality in the judiciary and reports of undue
government pressure on human rights defenders, lawyers, politicians, journalists and other
individuals for expressing their opinion, in particular opinions that are critical of the
Government’s initiatives, including the initiation of criminal proceedings against bloggers
and journalists. The Committee has called upon Kyrgyzstan to refrain from the use of
criminal prosecution as a tool to suppress critical reporting and to strengthen the protection
of bloggers, journalists, human rights defenders and government critics.2
9.
Despite these calls, criminal prosecutions for free speech and independent reporting
have continued. In January 2022, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s husband was arrested on drug charges
following months of surveillance and harassment, shortly after posting a video alleging
corruption involving family members of the Head of the State Committee for National
Security. Additional charges were brought for crossing a border illegally and falsifying
documents. The drug charges were dismissed but he was convicted of using forged
documents, stripped of his citizenship and removed from the country, despite having been
born in Kyrgyzstan.
10.
The authorities have blocked access to and shut down independent media outlets
against the backdrop of newly passed speech-restriction laws. The Law on Protection from
Unreliable (False) Information, signed into law in 2021, has been used to suppress
independent reporting. The Human Rights Committee has expressed concerns about
provisions of that law that allow executive bodies to block any Internet resource without due
process and without any preceding judicial oversight.3
11.
A draft law on mass media recently introduced in parliament is designed to
significantly restrict civil society organizations and the media. The Special Rapporteur on the
promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression has expressed her
concern that the draft law would have severe implications for freedom of expression and
media freedom in Kyrgyzstan, creating far-reaching and disproportional powers for the
2 CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/3, paras. 37, 45 and 46 (a) and (b).
3 Ibid., para. 45.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
3
Government to regulate the online space.4 The Human Rights Committee has also expressed
concern about the law.5
12.
On 14 March 2024, the parliament adopted a law requiring non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) that receive foreign financial support and engage in broadly defined
political activities to register as foreign representatives. NGOs that fail to register could face
sanctions, including suspension of activities for up to six months without court approval.
NGO representatives could face up to five years in prison if convicted of activities causing
significant harm to citizens’ rights, society or the State.
13.
Lawmakers voted to adopt the law without debate in under 10 minutes, despite
widespread calls from international observers for amendments.
14.
The beginning of 2024 saw the continuing criminalization of journalists, including the
arrest of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy and 10 other current or former employees and affiliates of
Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese in morning raids.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
15.
Between November and 26 December 2023, Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese
published videos in which journalists, including Ms. Tazhibek kyzy, reported on
investigations into alleged corruption by the authorities. In one video, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy
criticized State officials, naming the President, for allegedly failing to address government
corruption. This video was later cited by authorities during their investigation.
16.
On 30 December 2023, the Ministry of Internal Affairs began investigating Temirov
LIVE and Ait Ait Dese. According to a resolution on initiating a criminal case filed on
13 January 2024, results of a “forensic linguistic examination” found that a YouTube video
entitled “I have no respect for officials who have occupied their positions for 30 years”,
featuring Ms. Tazhibek kyzy, “contained linguistic signs of calls for violent protests and mass
unrest through discrediting government bodies”.
17.
The source notes that the video did not contain any violent language or call for
violence. Rather, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy denounced the political leadership directly, stating:
“You can’t use the power given to you properly. You promise, but you don’t deliver. Why
do you take innocent ordinary people into custody, but not the leaders? … Those who tell the
truth, you detain one by one; the people have no choice but to exist. Conscientious people
are being forced to flee all over the world. To detain everyone who speaks their mind and
think this will solve all problems is uneducated.”6
18.
At approximately 6 a.m. on 16 January 2024, officers from the Investigation Service
entered and searched Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s personal residence. After the search, they arrested
her and took her to the Temirov LIVE offices, where they searched the premises and seized
computer equipment and documents, including the birth certificate of her child.
19.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was not presented with an arrest warrant at the time of her arrest
or informed of the basis for her charges. The searches were conducted without legal counsel.
Officers did not inform Ms. Tazhibek kyzy of her rights to legal assistance and prohibited
her lawyer from entering the Temirov LIVE building during the search, claiming that she had
refused a lawyer – an allegation she later denied.
20.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was taken to the Main Investigation Department of the Ministry
of Internal Affairs, where she was detained and questioned. Her lawyer was initially denied
access and only allowed to see her after an hour. She was initially brought in as a witness and
then, after questioning, at approximately 8.45 p.m., she was presented with an arrest warrant
and charged as a suspect under article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code. She was transferred to
the temporary detention centre under the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
4 See https://kyrgyzstan.un.org/en/251211-un-special-rapporteur-expresses-concerns-draft-mass-media-
law-kyrgyz-republic.
5 CCPR/C/KGZ/CO/3, para. 45.
6 See https://youtu.be/MRIhMxCHyyQ?si=rn9KVLdTlnJVd9TQ.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
4
GE.25-15055
21.
On 17 January 2024, the Pervomaisky District Court considered the legality of her
detention. Access to the courtroom was limited to relatives; journalists were prohibited from
entering.
22.
Before the hearing, investigators announced the charges and gave her a copy of the
indictment, on which it alleged that “Ms. Tazhibek kyzy, via her audience on online social
networks, actively discredited the State power of the Kyrgyz Republic, thereby committing
such actions as would foster a negative opinion among citizens in regards to the policies
carried out by the Head of State and encouraged citizens to secretly overthrow the current
Government and participate in mass unrest actions in an attempt to seize power by force”.
She was also charged as an “organizer” under article 41 (2) of the Criminal Code.
23.
The resolution on initiating a criminal case did not specify which statements were
considered calls for mass disorder. It only contained reference to a video featuring
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy dated 13 December 2023, stating that “a user named Makhabat Tazhibek
kyzy made a video message calling for discrediting government bodies, and these messages
could lead to various riots”. Despite the legality of the charges depending on the forensic
linguistic report, her lawyer was not allowed to access the report until just before the
detention hearing and was not provided a copy or allowed to take notes.
24.
The Court held that pretrial detention was lawful and ordered her detention for two
months (until 13 March 2024) in remand centre No. 21. However, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was
not transferred until 29 January 2024, that is, 14 days after her arrest and 13 days after the
court decision. During this time, the Ombudsman Institute visited her and sent a letter asking
for an explanation for why she and other detained journalists had not been transferred to the
pretrial detention centre.
25.
The authorities only transferred Ms. Tazhibek kyzy after representatives from the
National Centre for the Prevention of Torture visited and issued a public statement
demanding immediate transfer, stating that “further detention in the temporary detention
facility would be considered torture”.
26.
The temporary detention facility in which Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was held for the first
14 days was under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, the same body that had
arrested and charged her. Representatives of the Ministry allegedly had unrestricted access
during this period. Investigators reportedly attempted to conduct multiple interrogations in
the absence of legal counsel and threatened to transfer her 11-year-old child into State
custody.
27.
On 19 January 2024, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s lawyers appealed the detention order.
28.
On 5 February 2024, the Bishkek City Court considered the appeal. Ms. Tazhibek
kyzy was transferred in handcuffs with a large police convoy and brought before the court in
a metal cage. Her legal counsel argued that individual personal circumstances had not been
taken into account and that the Court’s decision did not explain why alternative measures
could not be applied. The Prosecutor focused primarily on the gravity of the alleged offence.
29.
A three-judge panel issued a ruling fully rejecting the appeal, holding that “there are
sufficient grounds to assume that the accused, if released, may hide from the pretrial
proceedings body or the court, hinder the conduct of the case and continue to engage in
criminal activity and cause harm”. The Court upheld the decision to hold Ms. Tazhibek kyzy
in pretrial detention until 13 March 2024.
30.
On 12 March 2024, the Pervomaisky District Court reviewed whether the pretrial
detention of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was still appropriate. The Court considered a motion
requesting the extension of her detention for two months, until 13 May 2024, citing reasons
such as the investigative process not being completed and the seriousness of the alleged
crime. Defence counsel was not provided with a copy of the motion before the hearing and
was only allowed to read it immediately before. The Court extended the period of detention,
citing the prosecution’s need for further investigation.
31.
On 5 April 2024, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy filed a complaint against staff of the pretrial
detention facility, detailing mistreatment in detention. She alleged that, on 4 April 2024, she
and other female inmates had been beaten by facility staff. The physical assault was
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
5
subsequently confirmed by Ombudsman Institute representatives who found that
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy had bruises on both hands, on her face (left side of the jaw) and at her
left armpit. However, the staff of the facility refused to allow the Ombudsman Institute to
take pictures or videos.
32.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s trial took place before the Lenin District Court from 7 June 2024
to 12 September 2024. The prosecution relied principally on expert testimony. The experts
struggled to identify specific videos in which mass riots were called for and could identify
only two phrases: “Freedom is not given; you need to fight for freedom” and “With revolution
comes crime; there is no evolution”. Even for those phrases, experts clarified that the words
themselves did not alone indicate calls for mass riots but that such calls allegedly stemmed
from the context because the defendant “conveys negative information in all the videos”.
33.
On 10 October 2024, the Lenin District Court issued its judgment, stating that
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy had allegedly “engaged in deliberate and baseless defamation of
government institutions” and “expressed dissatisfaction with the current Government, aiming
to subtly persuade the audience to consider changing the regime”. The Court found her guilty
under articles 41 (2) and 278 (3) of the Criminal Code and sentenced her to six years in
prison.
34.
The judgment referenced expert testimonies but failed to address inconsistencies
identified by defence counsel, stating that the videos “contained linguistic markers of calls
for mass unrest”.
35.
The Court noted that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy had a dependent minor child and directed
authorities to find a solution for the child’s care. However, rather than allowing the child to
remain with relatives, authorities are seeking to commit the child to State care.
36.
On 18 December 2024, the Bishkek City Court confirmed her sentence.
37.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy is currently being held at in a pretrial detention facility.
(iii)
Legal analysis
38.
The source argues that the arrest and detention of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy are arbitrary
under categories I, II, III and V of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
39.
The source argues that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention lacks legal basis because it is
based on an excessively broad and vague law and that her detention is disproportionate and
unnecessary, in violation of article 9 of the Covenant.
40.
The source recalls that the Working Group has stated that one of the fundamental
guarantees of due process is the principle of legality, including the principle of certainty. It
has emphasized that, under the principle of legality, an act can be punished only if, at the
time of its commission, the act was the object of a valid, sufficiently precise, written criminal
law and that vaguely and broadly worded provisions violate due process of law.7
41.
The source submits that the Working Group has consistently found that vague and
overly broad provisions that could result in penalties for individuals who merely exercise
their rights to freedom of expression cannot be regarded as consistent with international
human rights law. 8 It recalls that the Working Group has found that laws such as
article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan are impermissibly vague and fail to
provide a legal basis for detention.9
42.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was investigated and detained pursuant to article 278 (3) of the
Criminal Code, which prohibits “calls for active disobedience and for mass riots, as well as
calls for violence against citizens”. The source argues that there is no clear definition of
“disobedience”, a term so broad that it could encompass protected activities. The expert who
7 Opinion No. 10/2018, paras. 50 and 52.
8 Opinion No. 9/2018, para. 44. See also Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34 (2011),
para. 25.
9 Opinions No. 8/2017, paras. 8–11, 36 and 38; and No. 9/2018, para. 44.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
6
GE.25-15055
analysed Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s video appeared to equate “riots” with “mass unrest”, a vague
expression that could include peaceful demonstrations.
43.
The source argues that article 278 of the Criminal Code does not specify the requisite
connection between speech and potential harms, leaving individuals uncertain about criminal
exposure. It is stated in the resolution on initiating a criminal case that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy
“made a video message calling for discrediting government bodies, and these messages could
lead to various riots”. The authorities arrested Ms. Tazhibek kyzy based on fears that her
criticism might resonate with the public and potentially inspire unrest.
44.
The trial judgment provides additional evidence of the vagueness of article 278 (3).
Neither the prosecution nor the court identified specific calls for violence, instead conflating
government criticism with incitement to violence. The source asserts that the judgment was
insufficiently reasoned under article 14 (5) of the Covenant.
45.
The source asserts that article 278 of the Criminal Code is impermissibly vague and
cannot provide a basis for deprivation of liberty, rendering Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention
arbitrary under category I.
46.
The source recalls that article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that it shall not be the
general rule that persons awaiting trial are detained in custody. The Human Rights Committee
has stated that detention pending trial must be based on an individualized determination that
it is reasonable and necessary, taking into account all the circumstances.10
47.
The Working Group has found detention to be arbitrary where authorities failed to
conduct an individualized assessment. 11 Vague standards such as “public security” are
insufficient to justify pretrial detention: a “present, direct and imperative threat” must be
shown.12
48.
The authorities failed to substantiate the decision for pretrial detention and the Court’s
decision did not outline individualized, specific risks. Instead, the Court ruled that detention
was necessary because Ms. Tazhibek kyzy “is accused of committing a serious crime, which
poses a threat to ordinary behaviour. By continuing her criminal actions, she may continue
to have a negative impact on public opinion”. The source asserts the Court improperly relied
on vague standards and even referenced “public opinion”, which is an unacceptable
justification under article 9 of the Covenant.
49.
Personal circumstances, including her lack of prior convictions and the fact that her
dependent 11-year-old child would be left without care, were not considered. The Court
failed to assess whether alternative measures might be effective.
50.
The Bishkek City Court’s appeal decision similarly failed to set forth individualized
risks, holding that “there are sufficient grounds to assume that the accused, if released, may
hide from proceedings or continue to engage in criminal activity”, without identifying
specific facts or considering alternatives.
51.
In extending detention for an additional two months, the Court likewise did not engage
in individualized assessment, simply stating that the investigation process had not yet been
conducted, the crime was serious and the persons to be questioned were too large in number.
52.
Article 9 (1) of the Covenant provides that no one shall be deprived of liberty except
in accordance with procedures established by law.
53.
On 17 January 2024, the Court ordered detention at remand centre No. 21 until
13 March 2024. Under article 266 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Code, such orders must be
executed within 48 hours. However, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was not transferred within 48 hours;
instead, she was held at the temporary detention centre for 13 additional days. This period of
detention did not comply with domestic legal procedure and was without legal basis under
category I of the Working Group.
10 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38.
11 Opinions No. 56/2017, paras. 67 and 68; and No. 62/2017, paras. 45 and 46.
12 Opinion No. 44/2017, paras. 29 and 30.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
7
54.
Article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone arrested is to be informed, at the
time of arrest, of the reasons for arrest and is to be promptly informed of the charges.
55.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was arrested without an arrest warrant and without being informed
of the reasons for the arrest. She was not informed of the allegations against her when officers
first searched her home and detained her at 6 a.m. on 16 January 2024, nor when she was
taken to the Temirov LIVE office. It was not until 8.45 p.m. on that day, after interrogation,
that investigators informed her of charges under article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code and
presented an arrest warrant. The source argues this violated article 9 (2) of the Covenant.
b.
Category II
56.
The source asserts that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s imprisonment falls within category II as
her arrest and detention for posting videos that allegedly called for “active disobedience” and
incited “mass riots” violated her right to freedom of expression.
57.
Under article 19 (2) of the Covenant, everyone shall have the right to freedom of
expression. Article 19 (3) enumerates limited grounds for restricting freedom of expression
(including the protection of national security, public order and public health) and restrictions
must be necessary and proportionate.
58.
The Working Group has analysed whether restrictions on freedom of expression are
necessary and proportionate by assessing four factors: (a) whether the objective is sufficiently
important to justify limitation; (b) whether the measure is rationally connected to the
objective; (c) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used; and (d) whether the
severity of effects outweighs the importance of the objective.13
59.
The source argues that Governments seeking to justify restrictions on speech must
specifically identify relevant language that creates the threat.
60.
The resolution on initiating a criminal case, the indictment and the court decisions fail
to identify specific excerpts that entail appeals to violence in materials published by Ait Ait
Dese and Temirov LIVE. Authorities relied on vague pronouncements and possibilities of
unrest, without connecting this risk to actual language posing violent threats. The resolution
stated only that videos “could lead to various mass disturbances” without specifying or
providing evidence of actual disruption.
61.
The conflation of inciting disobedience or riots with defamation confirms the
disproportionate nature of the Government’s response. The resolution specifically quoted
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy saying that she had no respect for officials who had occupied their
positions for 30 years.
62.
The Working Group has held that proper remedy for defamation lies in civil rather
than criminal sanctions.14 The Human Rights Committee has held that imprisonment is never
appropriate for defamation and that no detention based on defamation charges may ever be
considered necessary or proportionate.15
63.
The indictment contains quotes from Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s video, with excerpts
indicating that authorities conflated inciting disobedience with defamation. The indictment
refers to statements that political leaders “only think about their own pockets” and should
“create a glorious era” rather than “dismiss justice”. The indictment points to Ms. Tazhibek
kyzy’s proclamation of a “fight for freedom”, which was not a call to violence but an
invocation within the bounds of political discourse and government criticism.
64.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s arrest has been widely condemned by international
organizations. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
expressed concern about authorities searching the premises of several independent media
outlets and temporarily detaining 14 journalists.16
13 Opinion No. 58/2017, para. 48.
14 Opinion No. 51/2017, para. 38.
15 See General comment No. 34 (2011).
16 See https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2024/01/comment-un-human-rights-office-spokesperson-
liz-throssell-freedom-expression.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
8
GE.25-15055
65.
The source concludes that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention violates her right to freedom
of expression.
c.
Category III
66.
The source argues that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention is arbitrary under category III
as she has been denied the right to due process.
67.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s right to counsel was violated during arrest, interrogation and
pretrial detention. Under article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant, all persons charged with a crime
have the right to communicate with counsel of their own choosing. The Human Rights
Committee has stated that States Parties should permit and facilitate access to counsel for
detainees in criminal cases from the outset of their detention.17
68.
Under article 14 (3) (d), individuals facing criminal charges are entitled to be informed
of the right to legal assistance immediately upon arrest.
69.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was not notified of her right to counsel upon arrest. Authorities
carried out searches at her residence and the Temirov LIVE office in the absence of her
lawyer, despite her immediate request for access. When her lawyer tried to enter the Temirov
LIVE building, officers claimed that she had refused a lawyer, which she later denied.
70.
Her lawyer was initially denied access to the Main Investigation Department and had
to wait an hour to meet his client.
71.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s arrest and detention took place without legal counsel because of
apparent obstruction by authorities.
72.
Article 14 (2) of the Covenant guarantees that everyone charged with a criminal
offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. This right
imposes on prosecution the burden of proving the charge and requires that persons accused
must be treated in accordance with this principle.
73.
In accordance with article 14 (2) of the Covenant, all public authorities have a duty to
refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by refraining from making public statements
asserting the guilt of the accused.
74.
Authorities repeatedly made public statements about Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s case,
prejudging the trial outcome. On the day of arrest, a report was published stating that
information calling for mass disorder had been found,18 amounting to prejudging her guilt.
75.
The President made public comments about detained journalists. In an interview on
19 January 2024, the President specifically mentioned Ms. Tazhibek kyzy as author of videos
allegedly calling for mass unrest, stating that there were “signs of calls for mass riots” in her
videos. The President characterized detained journalists as not professional journalists but
bloggers who twisted facts. He stated that authorities had been “forced to take preventive
measures” against those engaged in “denigrating State policy”.19 In another interview, on
7 February 2024, the President stated that some citizens, “under the guise of democracy,
spreading false information”, were “calling for unrest”.20
76.
On 29 January 2024, the Deputy Head of the Cabinet stated that the journalists had
made a mistake and that their detention was a disciplinary measure, describing the detention
as “a fatherly, brotherly duty … In some cases, the head of the family … must restore some
order”.21
17 General comment No. 35 (2014), para. 35.
18 See https://24.kg/obschestvo/284259_vmvd_nazvali_prichinu_provedeniya_obyiskov_ujurnalistov/.
19 See https://kabar.kg/news/svoboda-slova-zaderzhanie-blogerov-vyzov-na-dopros-rukovoditelei-ia-
ocherednoe-interv-iu-prezidenta-sadyra-zhaparova/.
20 See https://en.kabar.kg/news/sadyr-zhaparov-spoke-about-freedom-of-speech-and-human-rights-in-
kyrgyzstan/.
21 See https://kloop.kg/blog/2024/01/29/bajsalov-zayavil-chto-arest-11-zhurnalistov-temirov-live-eto-
mery-vospitaniya/.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
9
77.
On 28 September 2024, the President publicly implied the defendants’ guilt, stating:
“How can one deny the fact that they were paid money to sit on social networks and spread
false messages calling for unrest?”22
78.
These comments by high-level officials violated Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s right to be
presumed innocent.
79.
Her right to be presumed innocent was also violated when she was brought before the
court in a metal cage on 5 February 2024. The Human Rights Committee has stated that
defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during trials.23 No explanation
was given for keeping Ms. Tazhibek kyzy in a cage.
80.
The Human Rights Committee has explained that equality of arms under article 14 (1)
of the Covenant requires that each side be given the opportunity to contest all arguments and
evidence adduced by the other party.24
81.
The court relied extensively on prosecution experts’ testimony without considering
gaps in testimonies. During the trial, experts struggled to identify specific videos “calling for
mass riots”. One expert contradicted himself when asked to list exact videos. Neither key
expert could identify specific words calling for mass riots, except two phrases. The court’s
judgment simply listed expert reports and testimony, without critical analysis.
82.
The court’s overreliance on prosecution experts violates article 14 (5), establishing
the right to appeal. Exercise of appeal rights necessitates a duly reasoned written judgment:
if a court does not provide sufficient rationale, a defendant cannot effectively challenge the
decision.
83.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s right to fair trial was therefore violated and her deprivation of
liberty is arbitrary under category III.
d.
Category V
84.
The source argues that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was investigated, arrested and prosecuted
based on political opinions expressed in her capacity as a journalist for Temirov LIVE and
Ait Ait Dese, specifically in YouTube videos alleging corruption and criticizing officials and
government policy.
85.
Authorities have routinely used the State apparatus to target Temirov LIVE.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention follows years of persecution of her husband, the founder of
Temirov LIVE, who was deported on charges widely believed to result from his criticism
and investigations into corruption. Ms. Tazhibek kyzy, who took over Temirov LIVE, was
targeted because she is seen as an extension of him.
86.
Kyrgyzstan has launched a campaign of harassment against other independent
journalists and bloggers who report critically on leadership. Other independent journalists
have been prosecuted under article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code.
87.
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention is situated within a wider crackdown on dissent. There
is an overlap between category II (freedom of expression) and category V (political opinion)
claims.
88.
The Working Group has stated that, where deprivation of liberty results from political
expression, there is strong presumption that it also constitutes discrimination based on
political views.25 This presumption is supported by official submissions asserting her arrest
was related to “discrediting government bodies”.
22 See https://kabar.kg/news/v-kyrgyzstane-svoboda-slova-vsegda-byla-est-i-budet-ocherednoe-interv-
iu-glavy-gosudarstva.
23 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 30.
24 Ibid., para. 13.
25 Opinion No. 88/2017, para. 43.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
10
GE.25-15055
(b)
Response from the Government
89.
On 11 February 2025, the Working Group transmitted allegations to the Government
of Kyrgyzstan requesting detailed information by 14 April 2025 about Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s
situation and the legal provisions justifying her continued detention and their compatibility
with international human rights law.
90.
The Working Group regrets having not received a response from the Government.
2.
Discussion
91.
In the absence of a response from the Government, the Working Group has decided
to render the present opinion, in conformity with paragraph 15 of its methods of work.
92.
In determining whether the detention of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy is arbitrary, the Working
Group has regard to the principles established in its jurisprudence to deal with evidentiary
issues. If the source has established a prima facie case for breach of international law
constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof should be understood to rest upon the
Government if it wishes to refute the allegations. In the present case, the Government has
chosen not to challenge the prima facie credible allegations made by the source.
93.
The source has argued that the detention of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy is arbitrary and falls
under categories I, II, III and V. The Working Group shall proceed to examine these in turn.
(a)
Category I
94.
The Working Group notes that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was arrested without being
presented with an arrest warrant and was not informed of the reasons for her arrest at the time
of detention on 16 January 2024 at approximately 6 a.m. According to the source’s
uncontested submissions, officers from the Investigation Service of the Ministry of Internal
Affairs entered and searched her personal residence, arrested her and subsequently took her
to the Temirov LIVE offices, where they conducted additional searches and seized computer
equipment and documents, including the birth certificate of her child. The source submits
that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was only informed of the charges against her at 8.45 p.m. that
evening, more than 14 hours after her initial arrest, when she was presented with an arrest
warrant and charged as a suspect.
95.
The Working Group recalls that article 9 (2) of the Covenant provides that anyone
who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for the arrest and shall
be promptly informed of any charges. It finds that, in the particular circumstances of the
present case, the 14-hour delay in presenting Ms. Tazhibek kyzy with an arrest warrant and
informing her of the charges constitutes a violation of article 9 (2) of the Covenant, which
requires that anyone arrested be informed at the time of arrest of the reasons for the arrest
and be promptly informed of any charges. The Working Group notes that the phrase “at the
time of arrest” establishes an immediate obligation that cannot be satisfied by eventual
compliance hours later. During the critical 14-hour period following her arrest, Ms. Tazhibek
kyzy was subjected to multiple intrusive procedures – including searches of her home and
workplace, seizure of personal documents, including her child’s birth certificate, and
interrogation – without being informed of the legal basis for those actions or her rights as a
detained person. The Working Group emphasizes that the right to be informed of the reasons
for arrest serves essential protective functions that cannot be fulfilled retroactively: it enables
detained persons to understand the basis for their detention, to mount an immediate legal
challenge if appropriate and to make informed decisions about their cooperation with
authorities. The authorities’ failure to comply with this fundamental safeguard for the
requisite 14-hour period constituted a substantial violation of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s rights
under article 9 (2) of the Covenant, regardless of their eventual compliance later that day.
96.
Moreover, the source argues that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s pretrial detention was
disproportionate and unnecessary and in violation of article 9 (3) of the Covenant. The
Working Group recalls that it is a well-established norm of international law that pretrial
detention is to be the exception and not the rule and that it should be ordered for as short a
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
11
time as possible.26 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that it shall not be the general rule
that persons awaiting trial shall be detained, but release may be subject to guarantees to
appear for trial and at any other stage of the judicial proceedings. It follows that liberty is
recognized as a principle and detention as an exception in the interests of justice. Moreover,
the need to continue the deprivation of liberty cannot be assessed from this purely abstract
point of view, taking into consideration only the gravity of the offence and using stereotyped
formulas without any individualized assessment or considering alternative preventive
measures.
97.
In the present case, the Working Group considers that, by failing to address specific
facts and alleged risks and consider alternative, less severe preventive measures, the
authorities failed to properly justify the pretrial detention of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy. The District
Court’s initial detention order relied on vague and impermissible justifications, stating only
that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was accused of committing a serious crime that posed a threat to “the
order of ordinary behaviour” and that “by continuing her criminal actions, she may continue
to have a negative impact on public opinion”. The Working Group notes that such abstract
references to the gravity of the alleged offence and speculative concerns about “public
opinion” fail to constitute the individualized assessment required under article 9 (3) of the
Covenant. The court made no consideration of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s personal circumstances,
including her lack of prior criminal convictions, her role as the sole caretaker of a child, her
strong community ties or the fact that her parental responsibilities would serve as a natural
deterrent to flight. Furthermore, the courts failed to provide an individualized assessment,
relying instead on the formulaic assumption that there were sufficient grounds to assume that
the accused, if released, may hide from the pretrial proceedings body or the court, hinder the
conduct of the case in pretrial proceedings and court proceedings and may continue to engage
in criminal activity and cause harm, without identifying any specific facts supporting such
assumptions or considering alternative preventive measures. In the absence of any argument
to the contrary, the Working Group finds that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention violates
article 9 (3) of the Covenant.
98.
The above considerations are sufficient to conclude that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s
detention, being contrary to the requirements of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant, is arbitrary under category I.
(b)
Category II
99.
The source argues that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention falls within category II as her
arrest and detention violated her right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by article 19 of
the Covenant.
100.
The Working Group observes that the legal basis for Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention
under article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code, punishable by up to eight years of imprisonment,
is impermissibly broad and vague, as the provision prohibiting “calls for active disobedience
to the lawful demands of representatives of the authorities and for mass riots” fails to provide
sufficient precision, as required for restrictions on freedom of expression. The Working
Group notes that there is no clear definition of “disobedience” in the law, a term so broad
that it could encompass a wide range of protected activities, and that, during the investigation
and trial proceedings, authorities appeared to equate “riots” with “mass unrest”, a vague
expression that could easily include peaceful demonstrations. The Working Group has
consistently found that vague and overly broad provisions that could result in penalties being
imposed on individuals who have merely exercised their rights to freedom of opinion and
expression cannot be regarded as being consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights or the Covenant. The Working Group recalls its recent opinion concerning nine
individuals from Kyrgyzstan, in which it found that article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code had
been employed to suppress legitimate criticism of the Government and that this provision, by
26 Opinions No. 57/2014, para. 26, and No. 8/2020, para. 54; Human Rights Committee, general
comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; and A/HRC/19/57, paras. 48–58.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
12
GE.25-15055
criminalizing broad and vague concepts such as “disobedience” and “riots”, failed to meet
the rigorous standards set by article 19 (3) of the Covenant.27
101.
The Working Group notes that the authorities failed to identify any specific excerpts
in Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s videos that constituted calls for violence or posed a genuine threat to
public order. The court decisions failed to identify any specific language that entailed an
appeal to violence in the materials published by Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese. Instead,
the authorities relied on vague pronouncements and speculative possibilities of unrest,
without directly connecting this alleged risk to actual language posing a violent threat. The
investigative body, in its resolution, stated only that the videos “could lead to various mass
disturbances” in Kyrgyzstan, without providing any explanation of likelihood or causation.
During trial proceedings, prosecution experts struggled to identify specific videos in which
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy had called for mass riots, with one expert contradicting himself when
asked by defence counsel to list exact videos containing such calls. Neither of the two key
experts could identify specific words that called for mass riots, except for two phrases:
“Freedom is not given; you need to fight for freedom” and “With revolution comes crime;
there is no evolution”. Even with regard to those phrases, the expert admitted that the words
themselves did not alone indicate calls for mass riots.
102.
The Working Group emphasizes that article 19 (2) protects journalists and includes
the right of individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their Governments without
fear of interference or punishment. 28 The Human Rights Council has stipulated that
discussing government policies, reporting on corruption and expressing dissent should not be
subject to restrictions. 29 Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s videos constituted legitimate journalistic
criticism of alleged government corruption. The assertion made in the indictment that
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy encouraged citizens to “secretly overthrow the current Government” is
not supported by any specific excerpts demonstrating violent threats, and her proclamation
of a “fight for freedom” was clearly within the bounds of protected political discourse and
government criticism.
103.
The authorities’ conflation of criticism with incitement to violence demonstrates the
disproportionate and unnecessary nature of the Government’s response. The resolution
specifically cited Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s statement that she had no respect for officials who
had occupied their positions for 30 years, treating such criticism as evidence of calls for mass
disorder. The Human Rights Committee has determined that imprisonment is never an
appropriate penalty for defamation. 30 The authorities criminalized Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s
legitimate exercise of her right to freedom of expression by treating government criticism as
tantamount to incitement to violence.
104.
The Working Group recalls its recent findings concerning nine individuals from
Kyrgyzstan, in which it concluded that article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code had been
employed to suppress legitimate criticism and that by misusing legal provisions to suppress
dissent, the authorities appeared to stifle public discourse, which was essential to democratic
governance and accountability. It also stated that the impugned provision had been wielded
as a tool of political repression rather than as a legitimate means of maintaining public order.31
The same pattern is evident in Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s case, as authorities arrested and detained
her based on fears that her criticism might resonate with the public and potentially inspire
unrest, without any demonstration of actual threat or harm. Given the context of
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s work as a journalist investigating government corruption, the Working
Group finds that the basis for her arrest and detention was her exercise of freedom of
expression guaranteed by article 19 of the Covenant and article 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
105.
Therefore, the Working Group concludes that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention is
arbitrary under category II.
27 Opinion No. 57/2024.
28 Marques de Morais v. Angola (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 6.7.
29 Resolution 12/16, para. 5 (p) (i).
30 General comment No. 34 (2011), para. 47.
31 Opinion No. 57/2024, para. 105.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
13
(c)
Category III
106.
Given its finding that the deprivation of liberty of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy is arbitrary
under category II, the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place.
Nevertheless, since the trial took place and she was convicted, the Working Group will
examine whether these proceedings were consistent with international norms relating to the
right to a fair trial.
107.
The source submits that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was denied access to legal counsel during
critical stages of her detention, in violation of her right to a fair trial. According to the source’s
uncontested allegations, Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was not notified of her right to counsel upon
arrest, and the authorities prevented her from accessing legal assistance during the searches
of her residence and office. The Working Group recalls that article 14 (3) (b) of the Covenant
guarantees the right of persons charged with a criminal offence to have adequate time and
facilities for the preparation of their defence and to communicate with counsel of their own
choosing at any time during their detention, including immediately after their apprehension,
and such access shall be provided without delay. The Working Group also recalls that,
according to principle 2 of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, detainees should
have access to effective counsel at the earliest appropriate time, and considers that this
principle is fundamentally related to the principle of equality of arms, as enshrined in article
2 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
108.
In the present case, the Working Group notes that, after arresting Ms. Tazhibek kyzy,
the authorities carried out searches at her personal residence and subsequently brought her to
the Temirov LIVE office to conduct additional searches, all in the absence of her lawyer,
despite her immediate request for legal assistance. When her lawyer attempted to enter the
Temirov LIVE building during the search, investigative officers prohibited his entry, falsely
claiming that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy had refused a lawyer – an allegation she later denied.
Furthermore, when Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was transferred to the Ministry of Internal Affairs,
her lawyer was initially denied access to the building and was only allowed to see her after
an hour. The Working Group considers that this denial, when Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was
subjected to questioning and investigative procedures, deprived her of her right to legal
counsel at critical stages and exposed her to a risk of coercion. The Working Group finds that
these violations of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s right to counsel constitute a breach of
article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant.
109.
The source alleges that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s right to be presumed innocent was
violated through public statements by high-ranking officials that prejudged her guilt before
trial and because she was seated in a metal cage during court proceedings.
110.
The Working Group notes that, under article 14 (2) of the Covenant, all public
authorities have a duty to refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by, for example,
refraining from making public statements asserting the guilt of the accused. In the present
case, the Working Group observes that, on the same day as Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s arrest, the
official website of the Ministry of Internal Affairs published a report stating that information
calling for mass disorder had been found on the Ait Ait Dese and Temirov LIVE pages,
effectively declaring her guilt before any judicial determination. More significantly, the
President of Kyrgyzstan made multiple public statements prejudging Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s
guilt while her case was pending. In an interview with the Kyrgyz National News Agency on
19 January 2024, just three days after her arrest, the President specifically mentioned
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy as the author of videos that allegedly called for mass unrest, stating that
there were signs of calls for mass riots in her videos. The President further characterized
detained journalists from Temirov LIVE as “not professional journalists” but “bloggers” who
twisted facts and manipulated and misled society, and stated that the authorities had been
forced to take preventive measures against those engaged in “denigrating State policy” and
“anti-constitutional calls”. In a subsequent interview, on 7 February 2024, the President again
commented on the detention, stating that the journalists, under the guise of democracy,
spreading false information, were calling for unrest. The Working Group finds that these
statements by the highest executive authority amounted to a declaration of Ms. Tazhibek
kyzy’s guilt and prejudged the assessment of facts by the competent judicial authority, in
breach of article 14 (2) of the Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
14
GE.25-15055
111.
The Working Group also notes that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s right to be presumed
innocent was violated when she was brought before the Court in a metal cage without any
justification provided by the State. The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights
Committee has stated that defendants should normally not be shackled or kept in cages during
trials or otherwise presented to the court in a manner indicating that they may be dangerous
criminals. The Working Group notes that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was not accused of violent
offences and presented no flight risk or danger to the public that might justify such restraints.
Thus, she had objectively justified fears that her confinement in a cage during the hearings
would project a negative image to the judges responsible for determining her criminal
liability and liberty. This also led to a violation of her presumption of innocence.
112.
The source alleges that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s right to a fair trial was violated through
the court’s overreliance on prosecution experts and the failure to ensure equality of arms
during the proceedings. The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Committee has
explained that the principle of equality of arms, as guaranteed by article 14 (1) of the
Covenant, requires that each side be given the opportunity to contest all the arguments and
evidence adduced by the other party.32 The Working Group emphasizes that this principle
requires a fair balance between the parties, ensuring that each party is afforded a reasonable
opportunity to present their case under conditions that do not place them at a disadvantage
compared with their opponent.
113.
In the present case, the Working Group notes that the court relied extensively on the
testimony of prosecution experts without adequately considering the significant gaps and
contradictions in their testimonies. According to the source’s uncontested submissions,
during the trial proceedings, the prosecution experts struggled to identify specific videos that
called for mass riots, with one expert contradicting himself when asked by defence counsel
to list the exact videos containing such calls. Neither of the two key experts could identify
specific words that called for mass riots. The court’s judgment failed to address any of the
inconsistencies identified by the defence counsel during the trial.
114.
Regarding the source’s allegations on the defence’s inability to effectively challenge
the prosecution’s expert evidence, the Working Group recalls that the rules on admissibility
of evidence must not deprive the defence of the opportunity to challenge expert findings
effectively, particularly by introducing or obtaining alternative opinions and reports. The
principle of equality of arms requires that, where the prosecution relies heavily on expert
evidence as the primary basis for conviction, the defence must have meaningful opportunities
to contest such evidence through cross-examination, alternative expert opinions or other
procedural safeguards. In the present case, the court’s uncritical acceptance of contradictory
and inconclusive expert testimony, combined with its failure to address substantial challenges
raised by the defence, created an imbalance that favoured the prosecution and violated the
principle of equality of arms, enshrined in article 14 of the Covenant and article 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
115.
The Working Group observes that this violation was not remedied at the appeal stage,
as the appeal court upheld Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s sentence without addressing the fundamental
procedural defects in the original trial. Article 14 (5) of the Covenant establishes the right to
appeal, and the Human Rights Committee has stated that the exercise of this right necessitates
a duly reasoned written judgment.33 If a court does not provide a sufficient rationale for
conviction and fails to address substantial procedural violations, a defendant cannot
effectively challenge the decision before a higher tribunal. The Working Group concludes
that the lack of adequate remedial measures at the appeal stage constitute violations of
articles 14 (1) and 14 (5) of the Covenant.
116.
Given the above, the Working Group finds that the violations of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s
right to a fair trial are of such gravity as to give her deprivation of liberty an arbitrary
character, falling under category III.
32 General comment No. 32 (2007), para. 13.
33 Ibid., para. 49.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
15
(d)
Category V
117.
The source alleges that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was deprived of her liberty based on
discrimination resulting from her political opinions expressed in her capacity as a journalist
for Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese, specifically through YouTube videos in which she
alleged corruption and criticized senior officials and government policy. The Government
has chosen not to address these allegations.
118.
The Working Group has found under Category II that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention
resulted from her legitimate exercise of freedom of expression through her journalistic work
investigating government corruption and criticizing political leadership. The Working Group
recalls that, where a deprivation of liberty results from political expression, there is a strong
presumption that the deprivation of liberty also constitutes discrimination based on political
views. This presumption is further supported by various official submissions by investigators
and prosecutors asserting that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s arrest was related to discrediting
government bodies, demonstrating that the authorities had targeted her specifically for her
critical political opinions.
119.
The Working Group observes the source’s uncontested submissions that Ms. Tazhibek
kyzy’s detention forms part of a broader pattern of State harassment against journalists
associated with Temirov LIVE and Ait Ait Dese, media outlets known for their investigations
into corruption and criticism of the President. It notes that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention
allegedly follows years of persecution of her husband, Temirov LIVE’s founder, who was
removed from Kyrgyzstan on charges widely believed to result from his outspoken criticism
and investigations into corruption. The authorities have routinely used the State apparatus to
target Temirov LIVE, and the facts indicate that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy, who took over Temirov
LIVE in her husband’s place, was targeted in part because she is seen as an extension of him
and his critical political views.
120.
In its recent opinion, the Working Group came to the conclusion that the detention of
nine journalists related to the same media outlets and also prosecuted under article 278 (3) of
the Criminal Code was based on discrimination resulting from their expressed political
opinions,34 reflecting a systematic pattern of targeting those who criticize the Government.
No information has been presented to depart from this conclusion in the present case. The
evidence demonstrates that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy was targeted and detained because of her
political opinions as expressed through her journalistic work. The timing of her arrest
following the publication of videos critical of the Government, the nature of the charges
against her under the vague provisions of article 278 (3) and the broader context of systematic
harassment of Temirov LIVE and other independent media outlets all indicate that she has
been discriminated against based on her political views.
121.
The Working Group therefore finds that Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s detention constitutes a
violation of international law on the grounds of discrimination based on political opinion in
violation of articles 2 and 26 of the Covenant and articles 2 and 7 of the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights and is arbitrary under category V of the Working Group.
(e)
Concluding remarks
122.
The Working Group is deeply concerned by the systematic misuse of article 278 of
the Criminal Code of Kyrgyzstan to suppress legitimate criticism and silence independent
media, continuing the troubling pattern identified in opinion No. 57/2024 concerning nine
other journalists from the same media outlets. This case demonstrates that the authorities are
wielding this vague and overly broad provision as a tool of political repression to
systematically target journalists and civil society in violation of the international human
rights obligations of Kyrgyzstan. The Working Group calls upon the Government to
immediately cease its campaign of intimidation against independent media and undertake
urgent legislative reforms to bring article 278 into compliance with international human
rights law.
34 Opinion No. 57/2024.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
16
GE.25-15055
3.
Disposition
123.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Makhabat Tazhibek kyzy, being in contravention of
articles 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
articles 2, 9, 10, 14, 19 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II, III and V.
124.
The Working Group requests the Government of Kyrgyzstan to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Tazhibek kyzy without delay and bring it into
conformity with the relevant international norms, including those set out in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
125.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Tazhibek kyzy immediately and accord
her an enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with
international law.
126.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the
violation of her rights.
127.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
4.
Follow-up procedure
128.
In accordance with paragraph 20 of its methods of work, the Working Group requests
the source and the Government to provide it with information on action taken in follow-up
to the recommendations made in the present opinion, including:
(a)
Whether Ms. Tazhibek kyzy has been released and, if so, on what date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to Ms. Tazhibek
kyzy;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of
Ms. Tazhibek kyzy’s rights and, if so, the outcome of the investigation;
(d)
Whether any legislative amendments or changes in practice have been made to
harmonize the laws and practices of Kyrgyzstan with its international obligations in line with
the present opinion;
(e)
Whether any other action has been taken to implement the present opinion.
129.
The Government is invited to inform the Working Group of any difficulties it may
have encountered in implementing the recommendations made in the present opinion and
whether further technical assistance is required, for example through a visit by the Working
Group.
130.
The Working Group requests the source and the Government to provide the above-
mentioned information within six months of the date of transmission of the present opinion.
However, the Working Group reserves the right to take its own action in follow-up to the
opinion if new concerns in relation to the case are brought to its attention. Such action would
enable the Working Group to inform the Human Rights Council of progress made in
implementing its recommendations, as well as any failure to take action.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/52
GE.25-15055
17
131.
The Working Group recalls that the Human Rights Council has encouraged all States
to cooperate with the Working Group and has requested them to take account of its views
and, where necessary, to take appropriate steps to remedy the situation of persons arbitrarily
deprived of their liberty, and to inform the Working Group of the steps they have taken.35
[Adopted on 27 August 2025]
35 Human Rights Council resolution 51/8, paras. 6 and 9.