Kyrgyzstan

• CIVICUS calls on interim government of Kyrgyzstan to cease intimidating civil society activists

  30 June 2010. Johannesburg. CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is concerned that two prominent human rights defenders in Kyrgyzstan -- who are among the leading voices documenting the ongoing crisis -- were detained and interrogated by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Osh Oblast, Kyrgyzstan on 28 June. This action of the authorities sends a negative message to civil society groups working towards restoring peace in the country.

  According to local sources, Tolekan Ismailova of Human Rights Center "Citizens against Corruption" and Aziza Abdirasulova of Public Foundation "Kylym Shamy" were interrogated as witnesses, related to misinformation about death toll published in the online newspaper 24.kg.

  Although the news site journalist received news of 20 deaths during the military operations in Nariman village of Karasuu district on 21 June via online mailing lists, Ismailova and Abdirasulova feel they were wrongly accused of spreading misinformation. Ismailova had immediately contacted 24.kg upon hearing the news, to inform the paper that the actual death toll was two individuals.

• CIVICUS Concerned over Increased Harassment of Human Rights Defenders in Uzbekistan

  13 July, 2010-- Johannesburg ---CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation is concerned by recent reports that Uzbek officials are intensifying pressure against human rights defenders in response to the political upheaval and violence in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. 
  
  In Uzbekistan, many human rights defenders have long faced harassment and state scrutiny of their activities. Often, the state has demonstrated a deep distrust for human rights advocacy, labeling activists as "enemies" of the state and accusing them of criminal activities. Now local sources report that Uzbek law enforcement agencies have received orders from their superiors to increase vigilance and take preventative measures with the population.
  
  According to local sources, human rights activists Saida Kurbanova and Mamir Asimov of Human Rights Society of Uzbekistan (HRSU), have been summoned by a local police station, where they have been questioned and forced into signing warning notices about their "illegal activities against the public." Another HRSU staff has reported the spreading of false rumors about his work that he believes may be part of an attempt by the security forces to build a case against him. Human Rights Alliance leader Elena Urlayeva, who has been working with Kyrgyz refugees, was harassed at her home on July 4, 2010 by an unknown woman aggressively demanding that she stop her advocacy work. That same night, her husband was attacked and severely beaten near their home by two men instructing him to "tame" his wife.

• KYRGYZSTAN: ‘Civil society realises the importance of joint actions to protect rights and freedoms’

  CIVICUS speaks about the potential approval of aLaw on Foreign Representatives that would further restrict civil society in Kyrgyzstan with Murat Karypov, Project Coordinator of the legal programme of Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan.

  Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan is a human rights organisation and one of Kyrgyzstan’s oldest and largest civil society organisations (CSO). Founded in 1999, it works to protect and promote human rights and freedoms, particularly freedoms of association and expression. It provides legal help to civic activists, people from excluded groups and torture victims. It also promotes human rights through arts, including through its annual International Documentary Film Festival on Human Rights.

  How is civil society changing in Kyrgyzstan?

  Civil society in Kyrgyzstan has changed significantly in recent years. More and more young people are involved in processes to protect and promote human rights and freedoms, and young activists are particularly interested in raising the level of legal consciousness, awareness of international law and international treaties and agreements to which Kyrgyzstan is a party. A large number of young people are interested in improving the situation in the country and openly talk about their proposals and ideas for the socio-economic and political development of Kyrgyzstan. Projects by international organisations aimed at promoting women’s leadership and increasing the level of participation of local communities in decision-making processes at the national level are gaining popularity.

  Since 2018, Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan has successfully implemented a study in partnership with the Global Association for Disaster Risk Reduction on promoting the voices of local communities to decision-makers from local to global and reducing gaps between communities. The resulting methodology was effectively applied by Bir Duino to train women community deputies to increase their participation in decision-making processes.

  Today, civil society realises the importance of joint actions to protect rights and freedoms in Kyrgyzstan. Activists are more united.

  What is the Law on Foreign Representatives?

  A new law on CSOs, the Law on Foreign representatives, is making its way through parliament. Its main purpose is to increase the national authorities’ monitoring and evaluation of CSOs.

  It’s a version of laws adopted in different countries known as foreign agents’ laws. It’s much like the law in Russia. The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law did a comparative analysis and found that these two laws are very similar.

  Already all CSOs regularly provide many mandatory reports in electronic and written form, every month and annually. So the requirement to provide some additional reports is not a challenge for us. But the main issue is how the law will be implemented, and whether it leads to more control over CSO activities.

  Some members of parliament say the main reason for this new law is because a lot of CSOs don’t provide sufficient information about their activities, particularly their budgets. They further accuse CSOs of hiding their real purposes, saying some are involved in political lobbying and creating political instability.

  As a CSO, we’re responsible for every dollar we receive from international donors. We’re open to providing any kind of information about activities within a funded project. International donors are very strict in their requirements about how funding should be used. I think it’s almost impossible to spend even one dollar for other purposes. That’s why for our organisation and a lot of CSOs, we’re absolutely sure we’re transparent and accountable for any kind of funding we receive from international donors.

  How could the new law affect civil society in Kyrgyzstan?

  The question is still open. Will this law be accepted or not? Because even after the results of the third stage of consideration, we have some hope the president will use his veto power to refuse this law.

  Even after the acceptance of this law, our organisation and partners, and a lot of other CSOs, will go on with our activities and our project implementation, but it will definitely affect our activities, particularly those on human rights. A lot of activities could be classed as political activities, meaning they will be restricted.

  Activists have joined efforts to inform international organisations and financial institutions about the need for the president to veto the law due to its inconsistency with human rights principles and standards under the key UN guidelines and the Aarhus Convention, an environmental rights treaty.

  Joint appeals on this bill were made on behalf of local CSOs, international organisations and international financial institutions. Domestically, almost 100 local CSOs issued a statement on their position, and over 30 international CSOs published a statement on the new law, including some from the Russian Federation as well as other European countries. They are showing solidarity with our position.

  The next steps are to wait for the president’s final decision. There is nothing more the international community can do in this matter.

  How might international donors respond?

  Even if international donors can no longer implement projects that are seen as political, there are many fields of work they can support. If human rights funding is going to be limited, attention could be given to implementing projects, for example, in the sphere of education, public health or environment.

  For example, our organisation closely and actively works with local communities in distant and mountainous regions. People at the local level are not very well informed about the activities of international donors. That’s why their opinions can be manipulated. More conservative groups will tell them that international donors or CSOs are involved in political issues. It can be difficult for us to change their mind and explain we are not involved in political issues. But just imagine if, for example, an organisation supports the construction of a hospital or school of some kind, or reconstruction work, then people in the community will understand that international donors provided support. And nobody will have opportunity to say it’s a political issue or some kind of foreign influence.

  Bir Duino Kyrgyzstan has been targeted for pressure and discrimination by conservative groups. Nevertheless, we continue to work to engage with local communities, raise their awareness of the importance of advancing international principles of human rights and freedoms, along with disaster risk reduction, and promote community voices to local to global decision makers.

  ---

  Civic space in Kyrgyzstan is rated ‘repressed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.

  Get in touch withBir Duino Kyrgyzstan through itswebpage orFacebook page, and follow@birduino_kg on Instagram.

• KYRGYZSTAN: ‘The citizens' choice in the referendum will be decisive for our future’

  CIVICUS and the International Partnership for Human Rights speak to Ulugbek Azimov, legal expert at the Legal Prosperity Foundation, about the protests that took place in Kyrgyzstan in October 2020 and subsequent political developments. The Legal Prosperity Foundation (previously the Youth Human Rights Group) is an independent civil society organisation that has worked to promote human rights and democratic principles in Kyrgyzstan since 1995. The organisation carries out educational programmes, conducts human rights monitoring, interacts with international human rights mechanisms and promotes respect for human rights in the context of legal reforms.

  Kyrgyzstan is often referred to as Central Asia’s only democracy. How close to truth is this depiction?

  It is true that in the early 1990s, that is, in the first years of independence, democracy sprouted and began developing in Kyrgyzstan. Compared to other countries in the region, Kyrgyzstan was characterised by a higher level of citizen participation, a more developed civil society and more favourable conditions for the functioning and participation of political parties in the political process. For this reason, Kyrgyzstan was called an ‘island of democracy’ in Central Asia.

  However, during the 30 years since independence, Kyrgyzstan has faced serious challenges. Attempts by former presidents to preserve and strengthen their hold on power by putting pressure on the opposition, persecuting independent media and journalists, restricting the freedom of expression, using public resources in their favour, bribing voters and falsifying the results of elections have resulted in major political upheavals on several occasions. In the past 15 years, the government has been overthrown three times during the so-called Tulip, April and October revolutions, in 2005, 2010 and 2020, respectively, with two former presidents being forced to flee the country, and the third forced to resign ahead of time.

  Each upheaval has, unfortunately, been followed by developments undermining previous democratic gains. It is therefore not surprising that Freedom House has consistently rated Kyrgyzstan as only ‘partially free’ in its annual Freedom in the World survey. Moreover, in the most recent survey published this year, Kyrgyzstan’s rating deteriorated to that of ‘not free’ because of the fall-out of the October 2020 parliamentary elections, which were marred by serious violations. Thus, Kyrgyzstan is now in the same category in which other Central Asian countries have been for many years. 

  Were pandemic-related restrictions imposed in the run-up to the 2020 elections?

  In response to the rapid increase in COVID-19 cases in the spring of 2020, the Kyrgyzstani authorities adopted emergency measures and introduced a lockdown in the capital, Bishkek, and in several other regions of the country, which led to restrictions on the right to the freedom of movement and other, related rights. All public events, including rallies, were banned.

  Measures taken in the context of the pandemic also gave rise to concerns about restrictions on the freedom of expression and access to information. The authorities seriously tightened the screws on critical voices in response to widespread criticism of those in power, including then-President Sooronbai Jeenbekov, for their failure to fight the pandemic effectively. Law enforcement authorities tracked down inconvenient bloggers and social media commentators, visited them in their homes and held ‘prophylactic’ discussions with them. In some cases, social media users were detained for allegedly posting false information about the pandemic and forced to apologise publicly under threat of prosecution.

  The law on ‘manipulation of information’, which parliament passed in June 2020, is of particular concern. Although the initiators of the law claimed that it was solely intended to address the problem of fake online accounts, it was clear from the start that this was an attempt by the authorities to introduce internet censorship and close down objectionable sites on the eve of the elections. Following an avalanche of criticism from the media community and human rights defenders, then-President Jeenbekov declined to sign the law and returned it to parliament for revision in August 2020. Since then, the law has remained with parliament. 

  What triggered the post-election demonstrations in October 2020? Who protested, and why?

  The main reason for the October 2020 protests, which again led to a change in power, was people’s dissatisfaction with the official results of the parliamentary elections held on 4 October. 

  Out of the 16 parties running for seats in parliament, only five passed the seven per cent electoral threshold required to get into parliament. Although then-President Jeenbekov publicly stated that he did not support any party, the one that received most votes – Birimdik (Unity) – was associated with him since his brother and other people from the ruling elite were running on its ticket. The party that ended up second, Mekenim Kyrgyzstan (Motherland Kyrgyzstan), was also viewed as pro-government and was associated with the family of former high-ranking customs service official Raiymbek Matraimov, who was implicated in a high-profile media investigation into corruption published in November 2019. Jeenbekov’s government ignored the findings of this investigation and failed to initiate a criminal case against Matraimov, despite public calls to this end.

  It was predictable that Birimdik and Mekenim Kyrgyzstan would fare well in the elections given the use of public resources and reported vote-buying in favour of their candidates. These two parties, which took part in parliamentary elections for the first time, received almost half of the votes and therefore an absolute majority of the seats in parliament. The methods used by the two winning parties to secure control over parliament caused indignation among other political parties that participated in the elections, their voters and even apolitical people.

  The elections took place against the backdrop of growing discontent with the social and economic difficulties caused by the pandemic, as well as growing anti-government sentiments among the population.

  The ‘dirty’ elections, characterised by an unprecedented scale of violations, became a catalyst for subsequent events. Protests began immediately after the announcement of the preliminary results on the evening of election day, 4 October, and continued throughout the next day. Young people played a decisive role in them: most of those who took to the streets to protest and gathered in the central square of the capital were young people. Unfortunately, most of those who were injured, as well as the protester who died during the October events, were young people too.

  What was the government’s reaction to the protests?

  The authorities had the opportunity to take control of the situation and resolve it peacefully, but they did not take it. Only in the evening of 5 October did then-President Jeenbekov announce that he would meet with the leaders of the different parties that competed in the elections. He set up a meeting for the morning of 6 October, but this turned out to be too late, as in the night of 5 October the peaceful protests devolved into clashes between protesters and law enforcement officials in Bishkek, ending with the seizure of the White House (the seat of the president and parliament) and other public buildings by protesters. During the clashes, law enforcement authorities used rubber bullets, stun grenades and teargas against the protesters. As a result of the clashes, a 19-year-old young man was killed and more than 1,000 people needed medical attention, including protesters and law enforcement officials, with over 600 police officers injured. During the unrest, police cars, ambulances, surveillance cameras and other property were also damaged, to an estimated value of over 17 million Som (approx. US$200,000).

  Did the snap presidential elections held in January 2021 solve the problems raised by the protests?

  The main demand of the protesters was to cancel the results of the October 2020 parliamentary elections and hold new, fair elections. This demand was partly satisfied on 6 October 2020, when the Central Election Commission (CEC) declared the election results invalid. However, up to now, no date has been fixed for the new parliamentary elections. The CEC initially scheduled them for 20 December 2020 but parliament responded by promptly adopting a law that suspended the elections pending a revision of the constitution and extended the terms in office of the members of the outgoing parliament until 1 June 2021.

  In its assessment of this law, the Venice Commission – an advisory body of the Council of Europe, composed of independent constitutional law experts – concluded that during the current transitional period parliament should exercise limited functions and refrain from approving extraordinary measures, such as constitutional reforms. However, the outgoing parliament has continued its work as usual and approved the holding of a constitutional referendum in April 2021. Newly elected President Sadyr Japarov has suggested holding new parliamentary elections in the autumn of 2021, which would mean that members of the outgoing parliament would continue in their positions even after 1 June 2021.

  In accordance with other demands of the protesters, the country’s electoral legislation was amended in October 2020 to reduce the electoral threshold from seven to three percentage points for parties to gain representation in parliament and to reduce the electoral fee from 5 to 1 million Som (approx. US$12,000). These amendments were made to facilitate the participation of a larger number of parties, including newer ones, and to promote pluralism and competition.

  The protesters also expressed resentment about the inadequate measures taken to fight corruption. They demanded that the authorities bring to justice corrupt officials, particularly Matraimov, and return stolen property to the state. Speaking in front of the protesters before he became president, Japarov promised that Matraimov would be arrested and punished.

  To be fair, Japarov kept his word. After Japarov rose to power in October 2020, Matraimov was arrested in connection with an investigation into corruption schemes within the customs service, pleaded guilty and agreed to compensate the damage by paying back more than 2 billion Som (approx. US$24 million). A local court subsequently convicted him, but handed him a mitigated sentence in the form of a fine of 260,000 Som (approx. US$3,000) and lifted freezing orders on his property, since he had cooperated with the investigation. This extremely lenient sentence caused public outrage. On 18 February 2021, Matraimov was arrested again on new charges of money laundering, but after a few days he was transferred from the pre-trial detention facility where he was being held to a private clinic to undergo treatment for health problems. After that, many labelled the anti-corruption measures of the current authorities as ‘populist’.

  In January 2021 Kyrgyz citizens also voted in a constitutional referendum. What were its results, and what consequences will they have for the quality of democracy?

  According to the results of the referendum, which took place on the same day as the presidential election in January 2021, 84 per cent of voters supported a transition from a parliamentary to a presidential system of government.

  Based on comparative experience, many lawyers and civil society activists do not view this change as negative per se, provided that a well-functioning system of checks and balances is put in place. However, they are seriously concerned that the authorities are attempting to push through the transition at an unjustifiably quick pace using questionable approaches and methods that do not correspond to generally accepted principles and established legal rules and procedures.

  The first draft constitution providing for a presidential system of governance, put forward in November 2020, was dubbed a ‘khanstitution’ in reference to the historic autocratic rulers of Central Asia. Critics accused Japarov, who has advocated for this change since taking office in October 2020, of trying to usurp power.

  The draft constitution granted the president practically unlimited powers, while reducing the status and powers of parliament to a minimum, thereby jeopardising checks and balances and creating the risk of presidential abuse of power. It also provided for a complicated impeachment procedure that would be impossible to implement in practice. Moreover, while it did not mention the principle of the rule of law even once, the text repeatedly referred to moral values and principles. Many provisions of the current constitution that guarantee human rights and freedoms were excluded.

  Because of harsh criticism, the authorities were forced to abandon their initial plans to submit the draft constitution to referendum on the same day as the presidential election in January 2021 and agreed to organise a broader discussion. To this end, a so-called constitutional conference was convened and its members worked for two and a half months, in spite of facing accusations that their activities were illegitimate. At the beginning of February 2021, the constitutional conference submitted its suggestions to parliament.

  It should be acknowledged that as a result of the discussion and proposals submitted by the constitutional conference, parts of the draft constitution were improved. For example, the reference to the principle of the rule of law was restored, and significant amendments were made to the sections on human rights and freedoms, including with respect to protecting the freedom of expression, the role of independent media and the right to access information. But it remained practically unchanged with respect to the provisions that set out unlimited powers for the president.

  In March 2021, parliament adopted a law on holding a referendum on the revised draft constitution, setting the date for 11 April 2021. This sparked a new wave of indignation among politicians, lawyers and civil society activists, who pointed out that this was against the established procedure for constitutional change and warned again that the concentration of power in the hands of the president might result in authoritarian rule. Their concerns were echoed in a joint opinion of the Venice Commission and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, issued in March 2021 at the request of the Ombudsman of Kyrgyzstan.

  The draft constitution has two other problematic provisions. One allows for restrictions to be imposed on any events that contradict ‘moral and ethical values’ or ‘the public consciousness of the people of the Kyrgyz Republic’. These concepts are not defined or regulated, so they might be interpreted differently in different cases, creating the risk of overly broad and subjective interpretation and arbitrary application. This, in turn, might lead to excessive restrictions on human rights and freedoms, including the rights to the freedoms of peaceful assembly and expression.

  The other provision requires political parties, trade unions and other public associations to ensure the transparency of their financial and economic activities. Against the background of recent attempts to step up control over civil society organisations (CSOs), there are concerns that it might be used to put pressure on them. On the same day that parliament voted in favour of holding a referendum on the draft constitution, some legislators accused CSOs of allegedly undermining ‘traditional values’ and posing a threat to the state. 

  Civil society activists continue to call on the current parliament, which in their eyes has lost its legitimacy, to dissolve and on the president to call new elections promptly. Activists are holding an ongoing rally to this end and, if their demands are not met, they plan to turn to the courts on the grounds of the usurpation of power.

  The president, however, has rejected all concerns voiced about the constitutional reform. He has assured that Kyrgyzstan will remain a democratic country, that the freedom of expression and the personal safety of journalists will be respected, and that there will be no further political persecution. 

  The citizens of Kyrgyzstan must make their choice. The upcoming referendum on the current draft constitution may become another turning point in the history of Kyrgyzstan, and the choice made by citizens will be decisive for the future development towards stability and prosperity.

  Civic space in Kyrgyzstan is rated as ‘obstructed’ by theCIVICUS Monitor.
  Get in touch with the Legal Prosperity Foundation through itsFacebook page and followlpf_kg on Instagram.

• Kyrgyzstan: Joint NGO report for UN Human Rights Committee review

  The United Nations Human Rights Committee will review Kyrgyzstan’s human rights record at its upcoming session in Geneva, which starts on 10 October 2022. The Committee will assess Kyrgyzstan’s compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and adopt conclusions and recommendations based on the third periodic report about the implementation of the covenant submitted by Kyrgyzstan’s government, as well as other information, including NGO reports.

• Kyrgyzstan: Mass arrests of government critics in escalating crackdown on dissent

  We, the undersigned organisations call on the authorities in Kyrgyzstan to immediately release and drop the charges against people arrested without credible reason in the past week after speaking out against a controversial draft border agreement with neighbouring Uzbekistan. We believe that the criminal cases initiated against them constitute retaliation for their legitimate criticism of government policies and their civic engagement on this issue. Instead of persecuting critical voices, the authorities should safeguard open discussion on this and other matters of public concern.

• Kyrgyzstan: rights organisations raise alarm over rapid decline in civic freedoms to the UN Human Rights Committee

  Oral statement by International Partnership for Human Rights, Legal Prosperity Foundation and CIVICUS

  Delivered by Nicola Paccamiccio

  Examination of Kyrgyzstan ICCPR Report under the Covenant

  Dear Committee Members, colleagues, I’m speaking on behalf of CIVICUS, the Brussels-based International Partnership for Human Rights, and the Bishkek-based Legal Prosperity Foundation. I would like to draw your attention to a few key concerns documented in our joint written submission on Kyrgyzstan.

  We are concerned that the Kyrgyzstani authorities have increasingly sought to suppress discussion on issues of public interest and stifle free speech, including by exploiting the fight against disinformation for this purpose.

  A new law adopted last year grants the government discretionary powers to order the blocking of online resources found to have posted ‘’false’’ information, with some news sites already having been blocked. Law enforcement authorities have also summoned, warned and opened investigations against a growing number of social media users accused of posting ‘’false’’ information.

  Moreover, we have witnessed increasing intimidation and harassment of journalists, bloggers, civil society activists and lawyers who have criticised the authorities and spoken out on corruption and other sensitive issues. They have, among others, been subjected to online trolling, surveillance, searches of their homes, detention, interrogation and criminal prosecution in apparent retaliation for exercising freedom of expression and other fundamental freedoms. In several cases, charges have been brought under broadly worded criminal code provisions which can be used to restrict legitimate expression, such as a provision that penalises ‘’incitement’’ to inter-ethnic and other discord without clearly defining this offense.

  We are further concerned about the introduction of a new unjustified and discriminatory financial reporting scheme for NGOs, and the attempts of some decision-makers and their supports to reinitiate a repressive ‘’foreign agents’’ draft NGO law, which parliament previously rejected. Those advocating for tighter NGO control have used hostile language, for example accusing NGOs of threatening national security and so-called traditional values, thereby fuelling mistrust against them. There have also been several attacks on NGOs by unidentified perpetrators acting with impunity.

  Finally, we are concerned about a series of court-sanctioned blanket bans on peaceful protests in the centre of the capital, Bishkek, which have been issued in violation of national and international standards. Most recently, assemblies have been banned outside the Russian embassy and in other central locations to prevent protests against Russia’s war in Ukraine. Police have also detained peaceful protesters based on these bans. You can find more information (including case examples) in our joint written submission.

  Thank you for your attention.

  ---

   Civic space in the Kyrgyzstan is rated as 'Repressed' by the CIVICUS Monitor

• Kyrgyzstan: Withdraw draft law threatening NGOs

  International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) and CIVICUS call on the authorities of Kyrgyzstan to withdraw the highly restrictive draft law on NGOs, which was recently introduced, and to ensure that any legislation affecting freedom of association that is adopted is in line with the country’s international human obligations. 

  The draft NGO law, elaborated by the presidential administration, wasput forward for public discussion on 2 November 2022 after it was prepared in what appears to have been a rushed manner without adequate consultation with experts and civil society representatives. The draft significantly increases state control over NGOs, provides for excessive restrictions on the operations of such organisations, and raises concerns that it could be used to target groups working on issues which are sensitive to authorities.  

  ‘’This draft law mirrors NGO legislation seen in other, more repressive countries in the post-Soviet region.Going ahead with this initiative would seriously endanger the operating freedom of NGOs in Kyrgyzstan and undermine hard-won gains in terms of civil society participation in the country,’’ said Brigitte Dufour, Director of IPHR. “The Kyrgyzstani authorities should drop this ill-considered draft law and focus instead on securing an environment in which human rights and other NGOs can carry out their crucial work without hindrance and intimidation.” 

  The introduction of the draft law is particularly worrisome as it comes in the context of aworsening environment for free speech and civic space in Kyrgyzstan. In recent months, the authorities have widened their campaign against critical voices, including throughmass arrests and criminal charges initiated against activists, journalists and human rights defenders who have spoken out against the government. Activists and bloggers have also been intimidated and warned because of social media posts critical of the government – most recently a veteran human rights activist wassingled out for pressure.

  The draft law requires all NGOs, including branches and representations of foreign NGOs, to register with the authorities in order to operate lawfully in the country, unlike existing legislation that does not require compulsory state registration of such organisations. NGOs that are already registered would have to re-register within seven months after the law enters into force; otherwise, they would be liquidated. At the same time, some of the grounds on which NGOs may be denied registration are vaguely worded. For example, applications for registration could be rejected if the name of NGOs is considered to ‘’offend’’ ‘’morality’’ or ‘’national and religious feelings of citizens’’ or – in the case of branches of foreign NGOs – if they are deemed to ‘’pose a threat’’ to ‘’national unity and identity’’ or to ‘’cultural heritage and national interests’’. As these terms are not defined by the law, authorities would have wide discretion to apply them and potentially use them to deny registration to groups working on minority rights or other sensitive issues. 

  Moreover, the draft law grants broad powers to authorities to oversee NGOs’ compliance not only with national law but also with their statutes, thus affording state bodies the role of controlling and assessing whether NGOs ‘’correctly’’ implement their own mandates. As part of their oversight functions, state bodies would be able to request access to a range of NGO documents, including bank information; to send representatives to attend any events organised by NGOs; and to carry out annual inspections of NGO activities. In this way, they would be able to interfere in the internal affairs of NGOs and potentially put pressure on groups they do not like, including by issuing written warnings to them or threatening them with closure.

  In accordance with the draft law, authorities would be able to request courts to close NGOs because of even minor violations of national laws; activities considered to be contrary to their statutes; or ‘’systematic’’ failures to provide required information. Authorities would not be expected to exhaust other, less harsh measures prior to taking this step. These provisions are inconsistent with international human rights standards, under which the forced dissolution of NGOs should only be used as a last resort when necessary and proportionate in response to serious misconduct. The implementation of these provisions could result in arbitrary decisions to close down NGOs which challenge public policies and seek accountability for human rights violations and other misconduct among officials. 

  Additionally, the draft law creates confusion by regulating the activities of ‘’non-governmental non-commercial organisations’’, although this term is not used in pre-existing legislation, which only distinguishes between commercial and non-commercial organisations. Several other provisions of the draft law create uncertainty for affected organisations because of their unclear and ambiguous wording. For example, the draft lawstates that ‘’restrictions’’ on permissible types of activities for NGOs, as well as on their income ‘’might be established’’ by national legislation without providing any further information on what such restrictions might be. 

  The draft law contains several discriminatory provisions, in particular provisions which prohibit foreign citizens and stateless persons from acting as founders of NGOs and which impose requirements and obligations on NGOs that do not apply to other types of non-commercial or commercial organisations. While the initiators of the draft law claim that one of its objectives is to ensure transparency of NGOs, this objective is already met by existing legislation, which sets out extensive reporting obligations for non-commercial organisations, including through a new, controversialfinancial reporting scheme introduced in 2021.

  “If adopted, the draft NGO law would deal a serious blow to Kyrgyzstan’s vibrant civil society.It is so broadly worded that it can easily be used to arbitrarily obstruct the work of organisations that are ‘thorns in the side’ of those in power because they criticise government policies, expose human rights violations or stand up against injustice,’’said Aarti Narse, Civic Space Research Officer at CIVICUS. 

  As a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Kyrgyzstani authorities have an obligation to protect the right to freedom of association in a non-discriminatory manner and ensure that any restrictions on this right meet strict requirements of necessity, legality and proportionality. The UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association has emphasised that associations should not be required to register in order to legally carry out their work and that registration procedures should be viewed as an exercise of notifying rather than asking for permission from authorities. Previously registered groupsshould not be required to reregister under newly-adopted laws to protect them against arbitrary rejection and any rejection of an application for registration must be clearly motivated. 

  States are also obliged to avoid measures that disproportionately target or burden civil society organisations and to ensure that such groups are able to carry out their activities without unwarranted state interference. In its recently adoptedconcluding observations on Kyrgyzstan’s implementation of the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee specifically called on the authorities to ensure that any legislation governing NGOs ‘’does not lead in practice to undue control over or interference in the activities of NGOs’’. Authorities must ensure that the involuntary dissolution of NGOs isonly used when there is a clear and imminent danger resulting in a flagrant violation of national law and other, less drastic measures have been insufficient. 

  The draft law runs counter to thecommitments made by the Kyrgyzstani government prior to its recent election as a member of the UN Human Rights Council for the period 2023-2025. As part of its membership bid, the government specifically undertook to enhance the capacity of civil society in the country. The draft law also endangers Kyrgyzstan’s GSP+ status, under which it enjoys generous trade preferences with the EU. In order to maintain this status, Kyrgyzstan isrequired to effectively implement its obligations under international human rights conventions, including the ICCPR.

  The current public consultation on the draft NGO law will last at least one month, in accordance with national legislation. Following this, it will go to parliament for consideration and is planned to enter into force on 1 May 2023. The draft law has already been severely criticised by NGO representatives, human rights defenders and lawyers. 

  The draft NGO law was put forward shortly after another problematic draft law concerning media, also elaborated by the presidential administration. According to media reports, the presidential administration has nowagreed to revise the draft media law based on feedback from the media community, as well as to submit it to the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission for an expert assessment. 

  We urge the Kyrgyzstani authorities to put a halt to the consideration of the draft NGO law in its current format and to ensure that any draft legislation affecting NGOs is elaborated through close and effective consultation with civil society representatives and national experts. The authorities should also request and welcome international expert comments on such draft legislation from the Venice Commission, the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, and the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

  ---

   Civic space in the Kyrgyzstan is rated as 'Repressed' by the CIVICUS Monitor

• Open Letter to the UN Secretary General on the situation in Kyrgyzstan

  Click here to download

• The Press and the New President: A Review of Freedom of Speech in Kyrgyzstan

  By Ann-Sofie Nyman and Bobbie Jo Traut

  In November, Kyrgyzstan inaugurated its new president Sooronbay Jeenbekov who has promised to continue the previous presidential administration’s policies. This does not bode well for independent journalists and other critical voices who were publicly labeled as national enemies, threatened and taken to court under the previous president’s tenure. 

  Read on: Diplomatic Courier