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.26-01371 (E)
Human Rights Council
Working Group on Arbitrary Detention
Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary
Detention at its 104th session, 10–14 November 2025
Opinion No. 61/2025 concerning Klara Sooronkulova, Rita
Karasartova, Gulnara Dzhurabayeva, Asya (Asiya) Sasykbayeva and
Perizat Suranova (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 60/8.
2.
In accordance with its methods of work, 1 on 18 July 2025 the Working Group
transmitted to the Government of Kyrgyzstan a communication concerning Klara
Sooronkulova, Rita Karasartova, Gulnara Dzhurabayeva, Asya (Asiya) Sasykbayeva and
Perizat Suranova. The Government replied to the communication on 11 September 2025. 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);
* Mumba Malila and Miriam Estrada Castillo did not participate in the discussion of the case.
1 A/HRC/36/38.
United Nations
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
General Assembly
Distr.: General
12 February 2026
Original: English
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
2
GE.26-01371
(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.
Submissions
(a)
Communication from the source
4.
Klara Sooronkulova is a national of Kyrgyzstan. She is the Chair of “School of Law”,
a non-governmental organization, and is also a Chair of the Committee to Protect Political
Prisoners. She is a former Constitutional Court judge and a leader of the Reforma Party.
5.
Rita Karasartova is a national of Kyrgyzstan. She is an employee at the Institute of
Civic Analysis, a human rights organization and think tank that monitors the rotation process
within the Kyrgyz judicial system.
6.
Gulnara Dzhurabayeva is a national of Kyrgyzstan. She is a human rights defender
who has been collaborating with Interbilim, an organization promoting democracy and
human rights, since 2020. She is also a former member of the Central Elections Commission.
7.
Asya (Asiya) Sasykbayeva is a national of Kyrgyzstan. She is the founder and former
head of Interbilim. She is also a former parliamentary deputy.
8.
Perizat Suranova is a national of Kyrgyzstan. She is a member of the Women’s
Democratic Network of Kyrgyzstan.
(i)
Context
9.
The source indicates that the constitutional reform of 2021 significantly weakened the
parliament of Kyrgyzstan: its membership was reduced from 120 to 90, and some of its
powers were removed. Furthermore, the President reportedly has the power to alter election
laws and to initiate criminal proceedings against members of the parliament.
10.
The source notes that in October 2022, the Governments of Kyrgyzstan and
Uzbekistan agreed to establish a clear delineation of the border between the two countries,
which reportedly included the transfer of the Kempir-Abad reservoir – a critical source of
water for both countries – to Uzbekistan. Citizens of Kyrgyzstan living near the reservoir
reportedly expressed concern about the possibility of losing access to water from the
reservoir.
11.
According to the source, when the legislature gathered on 10 October 2022 to approve
the border agreement, the session was held behind closed doors and allegedly in violation of
the applicable procedural rules. Despite opposition from the public, the agreement was
formalized on 3 November 2023.
(ii)
Arrest and detention
12.
The source states that on 22 October 2022, the five women, along with other
politicians, activists and citizens, formed the Committee for Protection of the Kempir-Abad
Reservoir. The committee was formed in response to the announcement of the border deal
between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to transfer the reservoir in the Kempir-Abad area of
southern Kyrgyzstan to Uzbekistan. The committee aimed to discuss the border deal and the
concerns of the local citizens. The committee met once for an inaugural meeting at Casa Italia
Café. The committee’s initial and only demand was for the administration to hold the rest of
the border deal negotiations openly rather than in secret.
13.
The source reports that on 23 October 2022, the day after the Committee for Protection
of the Kempir-Abad Reservoir had been formed, law enforcement officials began conducting
searches of the committee members’ residences, including those of the five women. The
source adds that many of the officials conducting the searches arrived in unmarked vehicles
and in plain clothes. The searches of the five women’s residences lasted approximately two
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
GE.26-01371
3
hours. At the time of the searches, the officials did not provide evidence of a warrant or other
lawful order for the search.
14.
Reportedly, video footage taken during the search of Ms. Karasartova’s home shows
that the police arrived at her house in plain clothes, did not immediately identify themselves
in the required manner or show identification cards, and forced their way into her home.
Despite failing to show identification documents or search warrants, the police took personal
items such as phones, computers, notebooks and other belongings from the homes of the
committee members. Police also tried to prevent any video recording or documentation of
the arrests and searches.
15.
After the searches, the five women were arrested and taken to various police stations,
where the arrests were registered and they were shown arrest orders. They were transferred
to a temporary detention centre for 48 hours.
16.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs stated that the investigations revealed evidence of
organizing and preparing for mass riots, to be followed by an illegal seizure of power.
17.
After the arrests, recordings of wiretapped conversations among committee members
were published online. Reportedly, these recordings were edited and manipulated to make it
appear as if some detainees were calling for the overthrow of the Government.
(iii)
Pretrial and trial proceedings
18.
On 24 and 25 October 2022, Pervomaisky District Court in Bishkek held a hearing
for the women and ordered that they be held in pretrial detention for two months at the city’s
SIZO-1 facility while the investigation continued. The court did not inform the women of the
grounds for the criminal case and conducted the hearing without formally initiating criminal
proceedings. Even if the court had attempted to justify their detention, there were no
legitimate reasons for detaining them, as the women’s gathering was peaceful and did not
pose a threat to society. Furthermore, at the time of their arrest – on 23 and 24 October 2022
– all five women were residents of Kyrgyzstan and did not present a flight risk. Thus,
following the jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee, the decision to detain them was
not based on any individualized assessment.
19.
On 24 October 2022, the above-mentioned persons were charged under articles 36
and 278 (1) of the Criminal Code, and Pervomaisky District Court imposed a preventive
measure in the form of detention in the SIZO-1 facility.
20.
The deprivation of liberty for the five women began immediately after their arrests.
Although the women remained peaceful and complied with the court’s orders, their requests
to have their pretrial detention changed to house arrest were denied, and the court extended
their pretrial detention until as late as 20 April 2023 – six months after their initial arrest.
Two of the women, Ms. Sooronkulova and Ms. Suranova, had to be hospitalized owing to a
sharp decline in their health. Despite clear evidence that the women posed no threat to society,
the court refused to release them, offering no explanation or justification.
21.
On 11 January 2023, investigators classified all materials relating to the case.
Although the Criminal Procedure Code guarantees defendants and their lawyers access to
case materials, the judge refused all petitions.
22.
When the trial began, the presiding judge held it behind closed doors. Courts
repeatedly postponed hearings and denied appeals over a period of more than 16 months,
without providing reasons.
23.
On 14 June 2024, Pervomaisky District Court acquitted all five women due to the
absence of any criminal offence in their actions. However, all five women remained under
house arrest. The prosecutor’s office appealed, and the case is currently being reviewed by
Bishkek City Court.
24.
The source asserts, in regard to Ms. Karasartova, that although she was initially also
placed under house arrest, she was re-arrested on 14 April 2025. She is now detained as part
of an investigation into alleged violations of article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code for inciting
unrest, on the basis of a Facebook post in which she shared a letter written by another Kyrgyz
dissident. Although the letter did not incite or call for violence, the authorities have ordered
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
4
GE.26-01371
that Ms. Karasartova remain in pretrial detention while the investigation continues. She is
currently being held at SIZO-1 in Bishkek.
(iv)
Legal analysis
25.
The source argues that the arrest and detention of the five women are arbitrary, falling
within categories I, II and III of the Working Group.
a.
Category I
26.
The source submits that the detention is arbitrary under category I, as no legal basis
can be invoked to justify the deprivation of liberty.
27.
The women were arrested for forming a committee to discuss matters of public
concern – the border deal and the Kempir-Abad reservoir – which is protected activity under
international law.
28.
The acquittal on 14 June 2024 confirms the absence of any criminal offence. Yet, the
women remain under house arrest, despite this judicial determination.
29.
The Government failed to produce evidence justifying the arrests. Witness testimony
uniformly confirmed no discussion of violence or overthrow of the Government at the
committee meeting, contradicting government allegations.
30.
The timing of the arrests – one day after the committee was formed – demonstrates a
lack of genuine criminal investigation.
31.
Articles 278 and 327 of the Criminal Code are vague and overbroad. Article 278
criminalizes “calls for active disobedience to the demands of authorities” as well as “calls for
mass disorder or violence against citizens”. Article 327 criminalizes “public calls for the
violent seizure or violent retention of power” and for “violent change of the constitutional
order”. These provisions are being applied to criminalize peaceful civic activity.
32.
The classification of the case materials prevented the women and their lawyers from
accessing the evidence and preparing an adequate defence.
b.
Category II
33.
The source submits that the women’s detention results from the exercise of their rights
guaranteed under articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
34.
The source asserts that the Government of Kyrgyzstan has violated the five women’s
right to freedom of opinion and expression under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. This right also extends to allowing citizens “to criticize or openly and publicly
evaluate their Governments”, and to “the ability of the press to express political opinion,
including criticism of those who wield political power”.2
35.
The five women were arrested for forming a committee to discuss the border deal and
the Kempir-Abad reservoir and for seeking transparency in government negotiations.
Witnesses uniformly testified that there was no discussion about violence or overthrowing
the Government. The women’s conduct constituted peaceful exercise of their rights to
freedom of expression, assembly and association.
36.
The source asserts that in arresting and detaining the five women in charge of
organizing the committee, the Government is infringing on these women’s rights to criticize
and openly and publicly evaluate their Government and is violating the fundamental right of
freedom of expression of opinion and thought.
37.
The source further alleges that articles 278 and 327 of the Criminal Code are
excessively vague and overbroad. Article 278 criminalizes conspiring to organize or
participate in mass riots and any calls for active disobedience to the demands of authorities,
as well as any calls for mass disorder or violence against citizens. Similarly, article 327
criminalizes public calls for the violent seizure or violent retention of power, as well as for
2 Marques de Morais v. Angola (CCPR/C/83/D/1128/2002), para. 3.8.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
GE.26-01371
5
violent change of the constitutional order. The vague nature of the provisions in the Criminal
Code makes it possible for the Kyrgyz authorities to improperly clamp down on non-violent
civil society activity in order to meet political aims.
38.
According to witness statements, there is no concrete evidence of incitement to
violence, so this claim lacks intent. The source states that under article 20 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, everyone is guaranteed the right to freedom of peaceful
assembly and association. The Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful
assembly and of association has defined an “assembly” as “an intentional and temporary
gathering in a private or public space for a specific purpose” and has stated that it “includes
demonstrations, inside meetings, strikes, processions, rallies or even sits-in”. Furthermore,
the Special Rapporteur has emphasized that assemblies are crucial in “mobilizing the
population and formulating grievances and aspirations, facilitating the celebration of events
and, importantly, influencing States’ public policy”.3
39.
The source argues that the Government’s use of criminal provisions relating to “mass
riot” in order to criminalize individuals engaged in advocacy efforts that included peaceful
assemblies in opposition to the Kempir-Abad border deal is an unjustified restriction on the
right to freedom of association. Finally, the committee that was set up was “an intentional
gathering” in a private space conducted for “a specific purpose” to discuss the Kempir-Abad
border deal. The Government lacks a legitimate basis for restricting the women’s rights to
freedom of assembly. As a result, the creation and the meeting of the committee were lawful,
and the Government violated the women’s right of peaceful assembly and association by
arresting and detaining them on these grounds.
(b)
Category III
(i)
Violation of right to release pending trial
40.
Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that it is not to be the general rule that persons
awaiting trial are detained in custody. The Human Rights Committee has clarified that
“detention pending trial must be based on an individualized determination that it is reasonable
and necessary taking into account all the circumstances, for such purposes as to prevent flight,
interference with evidence or the recurrence of crime … Pretrial detention should not be
mandatory for all defendants charged with a particular crime, without regard to individual
circumstances.”4
41.
Pervomaisky District Court ordered the women to be held in pretrial detention without
informing them of the grounds for the detention and without formally initiating criminal
proceedings. The court provided no individualized assessment. All five women were
residents of Kyrgyzstan and did not present a flight risk or pose a threat to society. The
decision to detain them was not based on any individualized assessment.
42.
Although the women remained peaceful and complied with court orders, their requests
to change the detention to house arrest were denied, and the detention was extended until
20 April 2023 – six months after they were arrested. Two women required hospitalization
owing to declining health. Despite clear evidence that the women posed no threat, the court
refused to release them, without explanation. The prolonged and unreasonable pretrial
detention violated article 9 (3) of the Covenant and principles 38 and 39 of the Body of
Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
(ii)
Violation of the right to be tried without undue delay
43.
Article 14 (1) of the Covenant guarantees the right to “a fair and public hearing by a
competent, independent and impartial tribunal” and article 14 (3) (c) provides that an
individual is entitled “to be tried without undue delay”. The Human Rights Committee has
emphasized that an important aspect of the fairness of a hearing is its expeditiousness.5
3 A/HRC/20/27, para. 24.
4 See the Committee’s general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 38; CCPR/CO/83/MUS, para. 12; and
CCPR/C/RUS/CO/6, para. 24.
5 See the Committee’s general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 27.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
6
GE.26-01371
44.
According to the source, in the present case, the women have remained at the pretrial
stage for over a year since their arrest and the Government has prolonged the investigation
without providing any details. Indeed, in the more than 16 months since the arrest, the courts
have postponed hearings on numerous occasions and repeatedly denied the women’s appeals
for the pretrial detention to be changed to house arrest, and have extended the terms of their
pretrial detention without a reason. Moreover, while the country’s Criminal Procedure Code
guarantees defendants and their lawyers access to the criminal case materials, as well as the
opportunity to copy extracts and documents, the judge has refused all petitions.
45.
The judge’s continued delaying of the proceedings is a violation of the women’s right
to a prompt trial, and these unreasonable delays amount to a violation of article 14 (3) (c) of
the Covenant and principle 38 of the Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons
under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment.
(iii)
Violation of the right to an open trial
46.
The source recalls that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifies that
everyone charged with an offence is innocent until proven guilty according to a public trial.
A trial is allowed to be excluded from the public but only for moral, public order or national
security reasons or when required in the best interests of the private lives of the parties.
However, even in these limited cases where a trial may be made private, it may only be
excluded from the public to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special
circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. The source states that
Kyrgyzstan even emphasized that it would follow these principles, along with its other
international human rights obligations, after winning a seat on the Human Rights Council in
October 2022.
47.
The source contends that, in the present case, the criminal proceedings against the five
women have been conducted in secrecy, behind closed doors. Early on in the investigation,
on 11 January 2023, investigators classified all materials relating to the case. When the trial
began, the presiding judge chose to hold the proceedings in secret, behind closed doors. As
a result, both the investigation and the trial have effectively been concealed from full public
and media scrutiny.
48.
The source adds that, despite deciding to hold a closed trial, the Government has been
unable to provide any evidence of exceptional or special circumstances in regard to morals,
public order or national security that would justify the decision to exclude the case from the
public. Given the lack of evidence in general against the five women and the importance of
this issue, it is very important and relevant for the public to bear witness to this trial. There
has been no indication that it was strictly necessary for the court to exclude the public from
the trial because publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. Therefore, by excluding
the public from this trial, the five women are being denied their rights under article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are not receiving the right to a fair trial.
(c)
Response from the Government
49.
On 18 July 2025, the Working Group transmitted the allegations to the Government,
requesting detailed information by 16 September 2025 on the current situation of
Ms. Sooronkulova, Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva and
Ms. Suranova, and clarification about the legal provisions justifying their continued detention
and about the compatibility of the detention with the obligations of Kyrgyzstan under
international human rights law and, in particular, with regard to the treaties ratified by the
State.
50.
The Government submitted the following information in its response, dated
11 September 2025.
(i)
Regarding the 2022 criminal proceedings
51.
On 18 October 2022, the Investigative Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs
received operational intelligence indicating that a deputy and public figures, as well as other
individuals, were organizing groups of people throughout Kyrgyzstan to gather on a certain
day with banners in front of government buildings in all regions of the country. According
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
GE.26-01371
7
to the Government, the purpose of these actions was to organize mass riots accompanied by
violence, pogroms, arson and destruction of property, leading to a violent seizure of power
and violently changing the constitutional order.
52.
On 20 October 2022, the Investigative Service opened criminal case
No. 03-050-2022-000547 under articles 36 and 278 (1) of the Criminal Code. On 23 October
2022, Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva, Ms. Sooronkulova,
Ms. Suranova and others were detained as suspects under article 96 of the Criminal Procedure
Code. On 24 October 2022, the above-mentioned persons were charged under articles 36 and
278 (1) of the Criminal Code, and Pervomaisky District Court in Bishkek imposed a
preventive measure in the form of detention in the SIZO-1 facility.
53.
On 15 June 2023, the criminal case was transferred to Pervomaisky District Court in
Bishkek for trial. In a verdict issued by Pervomaisky District Court on 14 June 2024, all the
defendants were acquitted due to the absence of any criminal offence in their actions. The
prosecutor’s office has appealed this verdict and the case is currently being reviewed by
Bishkek City Court. The Government notes that, in 2022 and 2023, the Ombudsman’s Office
monitored the women’s conditions of detention as well as the compliance with procedural
norms. Also, the Ombudsman participated in more than 20 court hearings related to
reviewing the legality of their detentions and to the selection of preventive measures. More
generally, during the same period, the Ombudsman conducted more than 25 monitoring visits
to places of detention.
54.
The Ombudsman regularly met with detainees, recorded their conditions of detention,
enquired about their health and monitored their access to medical services. The Ombudsman
also interacted with relatives and lawyers of detainees and sent official appeals to various
State bodies regarding improvement of the conditions of detention, medical care, and
compliance with procedural deadlines.
(ii)
Regarding the detention of Ms. Karasartova in April 2025
55.
On 29 November 2024, the Investigative Service of the Main Directorate of Internal
Affairs of the Chui Oblast received operational information indicating that a group of
individuals and their supporters, with the aim of organizing mass riots accompanied by
violence, pogroms, arson and destruction of property, intended to organize illegal actions in
the Chui Region among the local population under the guise of inter-ethnic and interregional
hostility.
56.
On 2 December 2024, criminal case No. 03-073-2024-000257 was initiated under
articles 36 and 278 (1)–(3) of the Criminal Code.
57.
On 15 April 2025, pursuant to articles 96 and 97 of the Criminal Procedure Code,
Ms. Karasartova was detained and placed in the temporary detention facility of the
Department of Internal Affairs of Ysyq-Ata district.
58.
On 16 April 2025, Ms. Karasartova was charged with committing a crime under
articles 36, 41 (4) and 278 (1) of the Criminal Code.
59.
On 18 April 2025, Ms. Karasartova was transferred to the SIZO-1 facility.
60.
On 30 April 2025, the Investigative Service extended the investigation period to six
months, until 12 July 2025. On the same date, the investigating judge, from Sverdlovsk
District Court in Bishkek, extended the preventive measure against Ms. Karasartova until
12 July 2025.
61.
On 4 July 2025, the criminal case against Ms. Karasartova was sent to Sverdlovsk
District Court for consideration.
62.
The Government submits that in the above-mentioned criminal cases, the prosecution
authorities are taking all measures to ensure equality and the principle of adversarial
proceedings within the framework of criminal procedure law.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
8
GE.26-01371
(d)
Further comments from the source
63.
On 12 September 2025, the Government’s observations were communicated to the
source, which provided its further comments on 26 September 2025.
64.
The source submits that the Government’s response fails to meet its burden of proof.
The Government provided no evidence to rebut the allegations raised in the petition. It is an
established precedent of the Working Group that once a source has presented a prima facie
case for breach of international law constituting arbitrary detention, the burden of proof shifts
to the government. Since the Government provided no evidence or justification, its response
fails to meet its burden.
65.
The source notes that although a court in Bishkek acquitted all of the petitioners on
14 June 2024 due to insufficient evidence, the petitioners remained under house arrest. The
prosecutor’s office has appealed against the acquittal verdict.
New proceedings against Ms. Karasartova
66.
The source asserts that the Government has initiated new criminal proceedings against
Ms. Karasartova and subjected her to further arbitrary detention.
67.
On 14 April 2025, Ms. Karasartova shared on Facebook a letter written by a Kyrgyz
activist, who had requested that the letter be made public if he went missing. Later that day,
Kyrgyz authorities searched Ms. Karasartova’s home while she was absent, without a
warrant. Twelve police officers, three of whom were masked and armed, conducted the
search. Ms. Karasartova was detained outside a shopping mall as the search continued. The
Kyrgyz activist is the target of a criminal investigation in which the authorities are pursuing
charges of calling for and preparing mass riots and attempting to seize power. The
interrogation of Ms. Karasartova during her detention reportedly focused entirely on her
association with the above-mentioned Kyrgyz activist and whether she supported his political
opposition to the Government.
68.
Ms. Karasartova was detained for 48 hours, pending her detention hearing on 16 April
2025. Sverdlovsk District Court charged her with violations of articles 41 (4) and 278 (1) of
the Criminal Code for allegedly being an accomplice in the organization of mass riots
associated with violence. The hearing began after the court’s working hours and lasted until
approximately 2 a.m. on 17 April 2025. The judge refused to admit media representatives or
trial observers from local human rights organizations. During cross-examination, when
Ms. Karasartova asked the investigator about the nature of the accusations, the investigator
responded that the information was classified. The court ruled that the detention was
“justified, yet unlawful” due to procedural violations. Despite this finding, the court
continued the proceedings and sentenced Ms. Karasartova to pretrial detention. On 18 April
2025, she was transferred to the SIZO-1 facility.
69.
Ms. Karasartova spent approximately three months in pretrial detention before being
formally charged on 8 July 2025 under articles 278 and 327 (1) of the Criminal Code for
allegedly organizing mass riots and publicly calling for the violent seizure of power. Her
attorney publicly stated that they could not obtain copies of the case materials because the
investigator had determined that all the materials should be classified.
70.
On 19 September 2025, Ms. Karasartova was found guilty, fined 50,000 soms, and
sentenced to five years of probation. Her probation requires registration of her home address,
a curfew, restrictions on travel to work, restrictions on contacting certain persons and
travelling to certain places, and bimonthly check-ins with probation supervisors. Following
her conviction, Ms. Karasartova was released from custody. She has appealed against her
conviction, and her probation will come into effect pending resolution of the appeal.
71.
The source argues that Ms. Karasartova’s April 2025 detention is arbitrary under
category I. She was arrested on the same day as her sharing of a letter on Facebook – conduct
protected under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government
has provided no evidence that the Facebook post incited violence. The application of
articles 278 and 327 of the Criminal Code was vague and overbroad. Posting a letter on
Facebook at another citizen’s request is not analogous to incitement to riot or calling for
violent overthrow of a government.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
GE.26-01371
9
72.
According to the source, the detention also falls under category II. The Government
has not provided any information indicating that arresting and detaining Ms. Karasartova
would protect national security or public order. The Government designated all materials
relating to its investigation as classified, and has not demonstrated that the language in the
Facebook post or the Kyrgyz activist’s letter related to violence or protests. There is no
evidence that Ms. Karasartova’s detention was necessary to achieve any legitimate aim.
73.
The source submits that the Government has escalated its judicial harassment of
Ms. Karasartova by re-arresting and convicting her in retaliation for her legitimate exercise
of the right to freedom of expression.
2.
Discussion
74.
The Working Group thanks the source and the Government for their submissions.
75.
In determining whether the deprivation of liberty of the five individuals 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. Mere assertions by the Government that
lawful procedures have been followed are not sufficient to rebut the source’s allegations.6
Preliminary observations
76.
At the outset, the Working Group welcomes the acquittal of Ms. Sooronkulova,
Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms. Suranova by Pervomaisky
District Court on 14 June 2024. The Working Group notes, however, that despite the court’s
finding that there was no criminal offence in their actions, all five women have remained
under house arrest. Furthermore, the prosecutor’s office has appealed against the acquittal,
and the criminal case remains under review by Bishkek City Court. The Working Group also
notes with concern that Ms. Karasartova has been subjected to new criminal proceedings and
was convicted on 19 September 2025, resulting in a sentence of five years of probation, with
restrictive conditions.
77.
Upon the release of a person who is the subject of a case that it is examining, the
Working Group has the option of filing the case or rendering an opinion as to the arbitrariness
of the detention, in conformity with paragraph 17 (a) of its methods of work. In the present
case, the Working Group has decided to render the present opinion in respect of all five
individuals. In making this decision, the Working Group gives particular weight to the
following factors: the women were arrested for peacefully exercising their rights to freedom
of expression, association and assembly by forming a committee to discuss matters of public
concern; they were deprived of liberty for approximately 19 months in pretrial detention; the
acquittal verdict is not yet final, as it remains subject to appeal; they continue to be deprived
of liberty in the form of house arrest, notwithstanding their acquittal; and the Government
has not informed the Working Group of any guarantees of non-repetition. The issue of
whether continued house arrest following acquittal constitutes arbitrary detention will be
examined below.
78.
The source has argued that the arrest and detention of the five women named in the
present opinion falls within categories I, II and III of the Working Group. The Working
Group will proceed to examine the allegations in turn.
(a)
Category I
79.
The source complains, under category I, that the detention of the five women is
arbitrary. First, despite the finding by Pervomaisky District Court on 14 June 2024 that there
was no criminal offence in the women’s actions, all five women have remained under house
arrest. Second, they were held in pretrial detention without any individual assessment of the
risks that they allegedly presented. Furthermore, Ms. Karasartova was arrested again on
15 April 2025 for sharing a letter on Facebook at the request of another citizen – conduct
6 A/HRC/19/57, para. 68.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
10
GE.26-01371
protected under article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Government
has provided no evidence that this conduct constituted incitement to violence or any other
criminal offence.
80.
The Government provides no response to the allegation that the five women remain
under house arrest despite their acquittal. Regarding Ms. Karasartova’s second criminal
proceedings, it submitted that the prosecution authorities were taking all measures to ensure
equality and the principle of adversarial proceedings in the trial within the framework of
criminal procedure law.
81.
The Working Group firstly recalls its deliberation No. 1, in which it established that
“without prejudging the arbitrary character or otherwise of the measure, house arrest may be
compared to deprivation of liberty provided that it is carried out in closed premises which the
person is not allowed to leave”.7 In the present case, the source has indicated that all five
women remain under house arrest following their acquittal. The Government has not
contested this fact or provided information about the conditions of the house arrest. The
Working Group therefore considers that the five women continue to be deprived of their
liberty.
82.
The Working Group then 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 time as possible.8 Article 9 (3) of the Covenant provides that the general rule is that
persons awaiting trial should not be detained, but that 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.9 In the
present case, the Working Group considers that, by failing to address specific facts and
alleged risks or to consider alternative, less severe preventive measures, the authorities failed
to properly justify the five individuals’ pretrial detention. In the absence of any argument to
the contrary in the Government’s submission, the Working Group finds their detention to be
in violation of article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of article 9 (3) of
the Covenant.
83.
The Working Group further observes that, on 14 June 2024, Pervomaisky District
Court acquitted all five women due to the absence of any criminal offence in their actions. A
valid acquittal is the most emphatic vindication of innocence that any legal system can
provide. From the moment of acquittal, any legal basis for depriving a person of liberty on
account of the alleged offence ceases to exist. To continue to detain an acquitted person is to
treat an innocent person as guilty – a violation that strikes at the very heart of the rule of law
and constitutes a flagrant breach of articles 3 and 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights and article 9 (1) of the Covenant.
84.
The Government submits that the prosecutor’s office has appealed against the
acquittal verdict. However, the pendency of a prosecutorial appeal cannot justify the
continued detention of acquitted persons. Until and unless the acquittal is overturned by a
higher court, it remains a valid and binding judicial determination. To allow prosecutors to
nullify an acquittal by simply filing an appeal – thereby keeping innocent persons detained
indefinitely – would render the right to liberty meaningless and transform the appellate
process into an instrument of oppression.
85.
The Working Group recalls that even minimal delays in releasing detainees after the
legal grounds for detention cease to exist are impermissible. In the present case, the five
women have been detained for more than four months since their acquittal – an
unconscionable and flagrant violation of their fundamental rights.
86.
The Working Group concludes that the continued house arrest of Ms. Sooronkulova,
Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva, and Ms. Suranova following their
7 E/CN.4/1993/24, sect. II.
8 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.
9 A/HRC/19/57, para. 54.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
GE.26-01371
11
acquittal on 14 June 2024 constitutes arbitrary detention under category I, as it is clearly
impossible to invoke any legal basis justifying this deprivation of liberty.
87.
The Working Group is further particularly concerned by the pattern of charges brought
against Ms. Karasartova following her acquittal. On 15 April 2025, less than one year after
being acquitted, she was arrested on new charges for allegedly being an accomplice to
organizing mass riots. She was subsequently charged with organizing mass riots and publicly
calling for violent seizure of power – charges virtually identical to those of which she had
been acquitted in June 2024 under articles 36 and 278.
88.
The Government has not identified any specific actions by Ms. Karasartova that would
amount to these serious crimes. According to the source, she was arrested on the same day
as she shared on Facebook a letter written by another activist. The Government does not
explain how sharing this letter could constitute organizing mass riots and provides no
evidence of any violence or incitement.
89.
The Working Group has consistently expressed concern over the practice of “rotation”
or “revolving door” detention, whereby persons are acquitted but immediately subjected to
new charges substantially similar to those for which they were previously detained.10 This
practice of recycling charges is entirely incompatible with articles 3 and 9 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and article 9 of the Covenant.11 Ms. Karasartova spent 19
months in pretrial detention, was acquitted, and yet was rearrested within months on charges
alleging the same essential conduct. The Working Group concludes that this recycling of
substantially identical charges following acquittal, coupled with the Government’s failure to
provide any evidence of specific criminal conduct, demonstrates that Ms. Karasartova’s
rearrest and conviction lack any legal basis and constitute arbitrary detention under
category I.
90.
This is sufficient for the Working Group to find that the detention of the five
individuals was arbitrary under category I.
91.
The source further alleged that the detention of the above-named individuals lacked
legal basis as the provision allegedly impugned is formulated in impermissibly vague terms.
The Working Group will examine this allegation under category II.
(b)
Category II
92.
The source submits that the detention falls under category II, as it results from the
exercise of rights guaranteed by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The five women were arrested for forming a committee to discuss the border deal and
the Kempir-Abad reservoir – matters of legitimate public concern – and for seeking
transparency in government negotiations. Witnesses uniformly testified that no violence or
government overthrow was discussed at the committee meeting. The source alleges that
articles 278 and 327 of the Criminal Code are excessively vague and overbroad, criminalizing
peaceful civic activity and criticism of government policy. Regarding Ms. Karasartova’s
April 2025 arrest, the source alleges that she was detained for sharing a letter on Facebook,
with no evidence of incitement to violence.
93.
The Government submits that “operational intelligence” indicated that the women
were organizing mass riots accompanied by violence, pogroms, arson and destruction of
property, leading to a violent seizure of power, and actions aimed at violently changing the
constitutional order. With regard to Ms. Karasartova, the Government states that “operational
information” indicated plans to organize illegal actions under the guise of inter-ethnic
hostility.
94.
The Working Group notes that although the Government had the opportunity to
specify which actions by the individuals concerned constituted crimes, it chose not to do so.
The Working Group recalls that under article 19 (3) of the Covenant, any restriction imposed
on the right to freedom of expression must satisfy three requirements: the restriction must be
10 Opinions No. 34/2022, para. 87; No. 53/2022, para. 73; No. 60/2022, para. 74; No. 20/2023, para. 75;
No. 70/2023, para. 87; No. 20/2024, paras. 63 and 75; and No. 32/2025, para. 108.
11 Opinion 50/2025, para. 65.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
12
GE.26-01371
provided by law, be designed to achieve a legitimate aim (e.g. the protection of national
security, public order, or public health or morals) and be imposed in accordance with the
requirements of necessity and proportionality. In its response, the Government provided no
specific information as to how the five women – and Ms. Karasartova again in the subsequent
April 2025 proceedings – presented a threat to any of the legitimate interests enumerated in
article 19 (3) of the Covenant.
95.
The Human Rights Committee has emphasized that the form of expression is highly
relevant in assessing whether a restriction is proportionate.12 As stipulated by the Human
Rights Council in its resolution 12/16, discussion of government policies and political debate,
reporting on government activities and corruption in government, engaging in peaceful
demonstrations or political activities, and expression of opinion and dissent should never be
subject to restrictions. The Committee has also specifically recognized that article 19 (2) of
the Covenant protects the right of individuals to criticize or openly and publicly evaluate their
Governments without fear of interference or punishment.13 As such, article 19 (2) protects
the holding and expression of opinions, including those that are not in line with government
policy.
96.
In the present case, the five women formed a committee to discuss the border deal
between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan and to advocate for transparency in negotiations
concerning the Kempir-Abad reservoir – a critical water source affecting local communities.
This conduct falls squarely within the scope of protected expression: discussion of
government policies, advocacy for government accountability, and peaceful assembly to
address matters of public concern. Witnesses uniformly testified that no violence, mass riots
or government overthrow was discussed at the committee meeting. The women’s sole
demand was for the Government to conduct border negotiations openly rather than in secret
– a request entirely consistent with principles of democratic governance and public
participation.
97.
The Working Group has recently examined two cases concerning individuals from
Kyrgyzstan who were detained under similar provisions of the Criminal Code. In its opinion
No. 57/2024, the Working Group found that article 278 (3) of the Criminal Code, which
criminalizes “calls for active disobedience to the lawful demands of representatives of the
authorities and for mass riots”, had been employed to suppress legitimate criticism of the
Government, and that that provision failed to meet the rigorous standards set by article 19 (3)
of the Covenant, as it was vague and overbroad. The Working Group concluded that by
misusing legal provisions to suppress dissent, the authorities appeared to be stifling public
discourse essential to democratic governance and accountability, and that the impugned
provision, as applied, had been wielded as a tool of political repression rather than a
legitimate means of maintaining public order.
98.
In the present case, the same article 278 and article 327 of the Criminal Code have
been used to criminalize broad and vague concepts such as “disobedience”, “mass riots” and
“violent seizure of power” without, however, containing sufficient precision to distinguish
protected expression from genuine incitement to violence. The Government’s response
exemplifies this problem: it asserts in conclusory fashion that the women were planning
“mass riots accompanied by violence, pogroms, arson and destruction of property” and a
“violent seizure of power”, yet provides no information whatsoever to support these grave
allegations. The Government does not identify any specific statements made by the women
that constituted incitement to violence, does not explain how forming a committee to discuss
a border deal amounts to organizing mass riots, and ignores witness testimony that directly
contradicts its claims.
99.
This response by the authorities effectively equates dissent and public criticism with
incitement to violence – a stance that contradicts international human rights standards. The
timing of the arrests is particularly revealing: the women were arrested one day after forming
the committee, before they had taken any action beyond holding a single meeting. This
12 See the Committee’s general comment No. 34 (2011), para. 34.
13 Ibid.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
GE.26-01371
13
demonstrates that the authorities arrested them not for any actual threat to public order, but
for daring to organize civic engagement on a politically sensitive issue.
100.
Regarding Ms. Karasartova’s April 2025 arrest, the pattern is even more stark. She
was arrested for sharing a letter on Facebook written by another activist – conduct that goes
to the very core of protected expression under article 19 of the Covenant. The Government
provides no explanation of how this act constitutes organizing mass riots or calling for violent
seizure of power, and offers no evidence of incitement to violence.
101.
In the absence of any credible evidence that the women engaged in incitement to
violence or posed any genuine threat to public order, and given the context of their peaceful
advocacy on matters of public concern, it is clear to the Working Group that the basis for
their arrest and detention was their exercise of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly,
as guaranteed by articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles
19 and 21 of the Covenant.
102.
The Working Group concludes that the detention of Ms. Sooronkulova,
Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms. Suranova is arbitrary under
category II.
(c)
Category III
103.
Given its finding that the detention of the five women was arbitrary under category II,
the Working Group emphasizes that no trial should have taken place. Nevertheless, the trial
took place, and while Ms. Sooronkulova, Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva,
Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms. Suranova were acquitted, they remain in pretrial detention pending
the prosecution’s appeal. Therefore, the Working Group will proceed to examine the source’s
submissions concerning the denial of their fair trial rights.
104.
The source submitted that the detention of the five women violated the right to a fair
trial under article 14 of the Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. The women remained in pretrial detention for over a year while courts repeatedly
postponed hearings, denied appeals, and extended their detention without providing a reason.
Despite the Criminal Procedure Code guaranteeing access to case materials, the judge refused
all petitions. On 11 January 2023, investigators classified all the case materials, and the
presiding judge held the trial behind closed doors without providing evidence of exceptional
circumstances justifying such closure. With regard to Ms. Karasartova’s April 2025
proceedings, she spent three months in pretrial detention before being charged, and her
attorney was unable to obtain case materials because they had been classified. The
Government submits that the Ombudsman monitored detention conditions, participated in
more than 20 court hearings and made over 25 monitoring visits, however in respect of the
detention of the five women it provides no response to the specific allegations of prolonged
detention, delays, denial of access to materials, or closure of the trial.
105.
The Working Group recalls that the right to a public hearing is a fundamental
safeguard of the fairness and independence of the judicial process, which is protected under
article 14 (1) of the Covenant and article 11 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
As the Human Rights Committee has explained in its general comment No. 32 (2007): “The
publicity of hearings ensures the transparency of proceedings and thus provides an important
safeguard for the interest of the individual and of society at large.” Although the right to a
public hearing is not absolute, it may only be restricted “for reasons of morals, public order
(ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private
lives of the parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court
in special circumstances where publicity would be prejudicial to the interest of justice”, and,
in the absence of such exceptional circumstances, “a hearing must be open to the general
public, including members of the media”, without entrance being limited to a select group of
people.14
106.
In the present case, the Government has not provided any explanation as to why
completely closed trials were necessary. The source has established that the committee
14 See paras. 28 and 29.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
14
GE.26-01371
meeting concerned matters of public policy – a border agreement and water resources –
undermining any national security justification for closure. The Working Group finds that
holding the trials behind closed doors violated the women’s rights under article 11 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 14 (1) of the Covenant.
107.
The Working Group further observes that investigators classified all case materials
related to the five women’s case, and that the judge refused all petitions for access despite
the Criminal Procedure Code guaranteeing defendants and their lawyers access to case
materials. In Ms. Karasartova’s April 2025 proceedings, when she asked the investigator
about the nature of the accusations against her, the investigator responded that that
information was classified, and her attorney was unable to obtain copies of the case materials.
The classification of the case materials and the denial of access to them for the defence
violates the principle of equality of arms and the right to have adequate time and facilities for
the preparation of one’s defense, which are essential components of the right to a fair trial
under article 14 (1) and (3) of the Covenant. The principle of equality of arms further requires
that each party be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case under conditions that
do not place them at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis the opposing party. Denying the
defence access to case materials while the prosecution possesses them fundamentally
undermines these principles and renders the proceedings manifestly unfair.15
108.
In addition, the women remained in pretrial detention for more than 19 months while
the courts repeatedly postponed hearings and extended the detention without providing a
reason. In the absence of any information from the Government to justify these delays, the
Working Group finds that the trial was also in violation of article 14 (3) (c) of the Covenant,
which guarantees the right to be tried without undue delay.
109.
Accordingly, the Working Group concludes that the detention of Ms. Sooronkulova,
Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms. Suranova is arbitrary under
category III.
3.
Disposition
110.
In the light of the foregoing, the Working Group renders the following opinion:
The deprivation of liberty of Klara Sooronkulova, Rita Karasartova, Gulnara
Dzhurabayeva, Asya (Asiya) Sasykbayeva and Perizat Suranova, being in
contravention of articles 3, 9, 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
and articles 9, 14, 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, is arbitrary and falls within categories I, II and III.
111.
The Working Group requests the Government of Kyrgyzstan to take the steps
necessary to remedy the situation of Ms. Sooronkulova, Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva,
Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms. Suranova 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.
112.
The Working Group considers that, taking into account all the circumstances of the
case, the appropriate remedy would be to release Ms. Sooronkulova, Ms. Karasartova,
Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms. Suranova immediately and accord them an
enforceable right to compensation and other reparations, in accordance with international
law.
113.
The Working Group urges the Government to ensure a full and independent
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary deprivation of liberty of
Ms. Sooronkulova, Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva and
Ms. Suranova and to take all appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation
of their rights.
114.
The Working Group requests the Government to disseminate the present opinion
through all available means and as widely as possible.
15 Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 32 (2007), para. 32.
A/HRC/WGAD/2025/61
GE.26-01371
15
4.
Follow-up procedure
115.
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. Sooronkulova, Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva,
Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms. Suranova have been released unconditionally and, if so, on what
date;
(b)
Whether compensation or other reparations have been made to
Ms. Sooronkulova, Ms. Karasartova, Ms. Dzhurabayeva, Ms. Sasykbayeva and Ms.
Suranova;
(c)
Whether an investigation has been conducted into the violation of their 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.
116.
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.
117.
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 of any failure to act.
118.
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.16
[Adopted on 10 November 2025]
16 Human Rights Council resolution 60/8, paras. 6 and 9.