The state expert who concluded that 18 members of “Atajurt” showed “signs of inciting interethnic discord and hatred” refused to appear in court to testify.
Attorney Shynquat Baizhanov had demanded that the state expert, Shyryn Moldasheva—who issued the conclusion that 18 members of “Atajurt,” currently on trial under the politically charged Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (“Incitement of Interethnic Discord”), exhibited “signs of inciting hatred and ethnic enmity”—appear in court to give testimony. However, Shyryn Moldasheva failed to attend, citing a business trip in Astana and a sudden drop in temperature in Taldykorgan as reasons. In court, Mr. Shynquat stated that “the expert may be avoiding the hearing because she has no concrete evidence to support her conclusion; otherwise, what matter could possibly be more important than the fate of 18 people?” He again demanded her appearance in court. Notably, one of the defendants, Nazigul Maqsutqan, who is over eight months pregnant, travels more than 300 kilometers from her place of residence to attend the trial twice a week.
Most concerning is that the expert in question concluded that even individuals among the 18 who did not speak showed “signs of inciting hatred and ethnic discord.” Yet the prosecution is treating this unfounded expert opinion as key evidence. At the same time, professional expert assessments conducted abroad regarding this case are being completely disregarded by the prosecution.
UN Human Rights Council, 43rd session (24 February – 20 March 2020)
(Document code: A/HRC/43/46/Add.1) Fionnuala Ní Aoláin — Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, in her report on her visit to Kazakhstan, stated: “…Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not clearly define what constitutes incitement of discord, and it reiterates that, in assessing whether an expression amounts to incitement to hatred under international standards, six elements must be considered: the overall context; the identity of the speaker; intent; the content and form of the speech; the extent of its dissemination; and the likelihood of harm, including the requirement of imminence. The Special Rapporteur notes that such determinations are often formed on the basis of opinions provided by government-appointed ‘experts’ (linguists, philologists, psychologists, theologians, and political scientists).”
As UN Special Rapporteur Fionnuala Ní Aoláin warned, the fate of the 18 “Atajurt” activists may well be decided on the basis of a baseless, unlawful, and fabricated expert conclusion produced merely to fulfill the instructions of the state authorities, potentially resulting in lengthy prison sentences. We call on the democratic community that upholds freedom of speech, justice, and opposes the transnational reach of the Chinese Communist Party to help the members of “Atajurt.” Human rights defenders who stand for justice are being unjustly and groundlessly prosecuted. We urgently need assistance!!!
https://x.com/i/status/2023245537491800535
Attorney Shynquat Baizhanov had demanded that the state expert, Shyryn Moldasheva—who issued the conclusion that 18 members of “Atajurt,” currently on trial under the politically charged Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (“Incitement of Interethnic Discord”), exhibited “signs of inciting hatred and ethnic enmity”—appear in court to give testimony. However, Shyryn Moldasheva failed to attend, citing a business trip in Astana and a sudden drop in temperature in Taldykorgan as reasons. In court, Mr. Shynquat stated that “the expert may be avoiding the hearing because she has no concrete evidence to support her conclusion; otherwise, what matter could possibly be more important than the fate of 18 people?” He again demanded her appearance in court. Notably, one of the defendants, Nazigul Maqsutqan, who is over eight months pregnant, travels more than 300 kilometers from her place of residence to attend the trial twice a week.
Most concerning is that the expert in question concluded that even individuals among the 18 who did not speak showed “signs of inciting hatred and ethnic discord.” Yet the prosecution is treating this unfounded expert opinion as key evidence. At the same time, professional expert assessments conducted abroad regarding this case are being completely disregarded by the prosecution.
UN Human Rights Council, 43rd session (24 February – 20 March 2020)
(Document code: A/HRC/43/46/Add.1) Fionnuala Ní Aoláin — Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, in her report on her visit to Kazakhstan, stated: “…Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not clearly define what constitutes incitement of discord, and it reiterates that, in assessing whether an expression amounts to incitement to hatred under international standards, six elements must be considered: the overall context; the identity of the speaker; intent; the content and form of the speech; the extent of its dissemination; and the likelihood of harm, including the requirement of imminence. The Special Rapporteur notes that such determinations are often formed on the basis of opinions provided by government-appointed ‘experts’ (linguists, philologists, psychologists, theologians, and political scientists).”
As UN Special Rapporteur Fionnuala Ní Aoláin warned, the fate of the 18 “Atajurt” activists may well be decided on the basis of a baseless, unlawful, and fabricated expert conclusion produced merely to fulfill the instructions of the state authorities, potentially resulting in lengthy prison sentences. We call on the democratic community that upholds freedom of speech, justice, and opposes the transnational reach of the Chinese Communist Party to help the members of “Atajurt.” Human rights defenders who stand for justice are being unjustly and groundlessly prosecuted. We urgently need assistance!!!
https://x.com/i/status/2023245537491800535
X (formerly Twitter)
Serikzhan Bilash (@SerikzhanBilash) on X
The state expert who concluded that 18 members of “Atajurt” showed “signs of inciting interethnic discord and hatred” refused to appear in court to testify.
Attorney Shynquat Baizhanov had demanded that the state expert, Shyryn Moldasheva—who issued the…
Attorney Shynquat Baizhanov had demanded that the state expert, Shyryn Moldasheva—who issued the…
👍37❤3