Lawyer Galym Nurpeisov: “The case of Ermek Taychibekov is a political order”
Why is the examination that formed the basis for the prosecution of Ermek Taychibekov not even liked by Kazakh judges? Why does the repressive system of Kazakhstan keep behind bars a person who does not pose a danger to society during the investigation and trial? How did the scandal with violent criminals being placed in Ermek’s cell end?
Taychibekov’s lawyer, Galym Nurpeisov, told the PolitNavigator correspondent about this and much more.
Dossier
Ermek Taychibekov is a consistent pro-Russian public figure and human rights activist in Kazakhstan. He advocates the revival of a single country in the form of the Russian Empire or the USSR, and submitted to the Parliament of Kazakhstan a petition that collected 200 thousand signatures to give the Russian language the status of a state language (today, the Russian language in Kazakhstan has been assigned the status of an official language).
He calls those Kazakhs who oppose integration with Russia “separatists”, reminds that the Russians gave the Kazakhs civilizational foundations and helped them to establish themselves as a nation, considers Kazakhstan an integral part of Russia, and supports the LPR and DPR.
He has a financial education, worked in banks, ran a business. In November 2015, he was arrested, and in December of the same year, he was sentenced to four years on charges of “inciting ethnic hatred.”
They tried to declare Taichibekov insane, but an examination showed that he was capable and mentally adequate. Two years later he was released on parole.
The Financial Monitoring Committee of the Ministry of Finance and the Prosecutor General's Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan imposed lifelong sanctions on Taychibekov: he is prohibited from engaging in entrepreneurial activities, working in government agencies, or officially receiving financial assistance.
The activist’s property was confiscated and seized for the state’s account; he is on the “black list” of banks in Kazakhstan, in the registration authorities, as a person financing international terrorism (support for the LDPR).
After his release, he became disillusioned with Russian foreign policy and concentrated on advisory protection of the rights of the Russian population of Kazakhstan and the fight against corruption and arbitrariness of the authorities in relation to their fellow tribesmen.
In September of this year, he was arrested in Almaty for his activity on social networks, interviews with the Russian portal Ukraina.ru and the Israeli TV channel ITON TV, in which he spoke critically about the policies of the Kazakh leadership, in particular about building a mono-ethnic state and infringement of the rights of the local Russian population.
Ermek Taychibekov
P.N.: According to available information, the trial against Taichibekov has stalled, no hearings are being held, and the defendant continues to sit in the isolation ward. What is the reason for this break?
G.N.: The primary examination that took place in the case did not give a clear understanding of what my client was accused of. Everything there is replete with the wording “if”, “suddenly”, “maybe”. And, most importantly, it says “there are signs of inciting ethnic hatred.” We don’t have such a concept – we only have “inciting ethnic hatred.” That is, this examination did not stand up to criticism when we examined it, and therefore, at the initiative of the court, a new philological examination was appointed. Our examination, which we did in Moscow, was accepted by the court, but we have not yet reached it.
In turn, the Alamaata Institute of Forensic Expertise, having received the materials of the criminal case, kept them for a whole month, did not carry out the work and returned the materials back to the court. In this regard, the court re-sent the examination to another city. To Shymkent. So that experts can look at it and give their opinion. Accordingly, we filed a petition to change the preventive measure, because it was already the second month since the trial was interrupted. The court rejected the petition. We have filed an objection to the judge's actions. The whole process stopped because of this examination, because the entire accusation was built on it.
But apart from the examination, we have not even come close to examining the case materials in order to show the absurdity and illegality of collecting these materials that Ermek is now charged with. This is the first thing. Secondly, we have not yet examined how Ermek’s basic rights were violated during the pre-trial investigation. I believe that if the court considered the case strictly according to the law, then in principle it should have been dismissed. Let's see how the court considers all this. At least, there are a huge number of violations of Ermek’s rights in this case.
How do judges explain their actions and why they keep a person behind bars?
I consider this pressure on my client. To refer to the fact that his act is classified as serious, and only this is the basis for detention - in my opinion, all this has no basis. Because according to current practice, people who pose a real threat to society are kept in custody. Or they commit criminal acts. Or they are trying to hide from the investigation. Ermek had nothing like this. He is being held in a pre-trial detention center only because he is accused of a serious crime. He now faces ten years in prison just for the interview. For example, as a lawyer, it is not clear to me how an interview, an opinion expressed, can be considered a criminal act.
Those who are not indifferent to the fate of Ermek have concerns that the examination carried out in Shymkent, a southern city where Kazakh nationalism flourishes and the level of corruption is high, will be extremely biased and unprofessional...
The fact that this is the southern region is a fact, geography. As for what kind of experts we have there, I cannot say anything, because I have never encountered experts from Shymkent. I had the opportunity to collaborate with experts from Almaty, Astana, and Eastern Kazakhstan, but I have never worked with Shymkent, I don’t even know the names of the professionals there, so I can’t comment yet. But I can immediately say that veterans of the old school are leaving expert work; three of our leading experts recently left the Almaty expert examination, and the young ones, as a rule, do what they are told. It's my opinion.
Are you allowed to see your client? What is his state of health and spirit today?
Before the trial, he was subjected to psychological pressure. They put very violent people in his cell, who provoked him and did not allow him to concentrate or write. We filed a petition for judicial protection for Ermek. And, interestingly, the prosecutor was very strongly opposed to judicial protection. But the court granted our request. And after the petition was granted, Ermek is now in a cell where people are also accused under political charges, not criminal elements. And when I last saw him two weeks ago, he was fine. Tired, of course, the person has been in a pre-trial detention center for more than six months, this is a prison. But it holds on.
Kazakh nationalists splattered your name on social networks, calling you a traitor...
At the very beginning, when I first started working on the Ermek case, these questions were raised, yes. But then I clearly outlined my position, and today no one says anything to me about it.
How much did the appearance of a second lawyer, Oksana Buryak, help you in defending Taichibekov?
Oksana Vladimirovna and I have been working together for a long time. There have already been several trials in our joint criminal case. We know each other very well, and in this part of the process, when the judge realized that the examination did not match, Oksana got involved. So far she has participated in only one court hearing. One head is good, two are better. In the legal community, it is very difficult to find a partner so that they think in the same direction and do not try to pull the blanket on themselves. In this part, Oksana and I formed a very good duet, and my impression of her, both as a professional and as a person, is very good. I am sure that in tandem we will be able to build a much clearer defensive position.
I can’t help but ask about this: do you think that the case of Ermek Taychibekov is a political order?
I will answer you unequivocally - yes. Why? Since 2011, I have experience as a lawyer in defending cases of inciting national, religious and social hatred. Quite an extensive case. Accordingly, I know how such criminal cases are formed. Initially, they were led by the Committee of National Security (KNB - the Kazakh analogue of the FSB - ed.), and there were, of course, much more professionals there than in the police department.
Accordingly, when they formed criminal cases, their materials were identical. That is, one thing followed from the other, and accordingly, there was a logical chain. In the Ermek case, they consider three episodes, the second episode was stuck in the first, the third in the second, and the very first in the very last. At the same time, according to the Criminal Procedure Code, we have the following position: if additional time is needed to make a procedural decision in order to collect evidence, then registration, in the motivated opinion of the investigator, can be postponed to a later date. In our country, the National Security Committee, when it sees the material, quickly obtains the facts and forwards it to the expert. The expert examines and gives his opinion. And at the end of the conclusion, a procedural decision is made.
In the Ermek case, a case was opened once, then a month and a half later they ordered an examination, the examination arrived, they sit and think about what to do next. Or, the operatives also said: “They could not establish the whereabouts of Taichibekov.” At the same time, Taichibekov lived in his house in Almaty, the quarantine period happened there, he did not go anywhere. And why all these stupid replies that “we couldn’t establish the location” and others, what nonsense?!
On the second day after the arrest, when I came to Ermek and we concluded an agreement, and I began to work on his defense, the investigator created such pressure on my client! And, accordingly, on me. He blocked my access to the pre-trial detention center, he sent a motion to bring me before the disciplinary commission, checked my bank accounts, this is unacceptable!
Ermek wrote three times about refusing the services of an appointed lawyer and demanded me. I appealed to the appellate authorities, I made inquiries about Ermek, and after a month and a half had passed, I asked the investigator to provide me with additional information, according to the criminal procedure code, the investigator responded with silence.
I applied again a week later, again silence, I appealed the investigator’s inaction to the prosecutor, the prosecutor is silent. And then I filed a lawsuit against the investigator’s inaction, and in court I found out that it turns out I was removed from this case! I urgently filed a complaint against the investigator’s illegal actions in removing me; the chairman of the Investigative Court himself considered my complaint; he fully supported my arguments, recognizing the investigator’s actions as illegal. But even after this the investigator is not released!
Naturally, if we know that the investigator conducted this case with an accusatory bias, and in the materials we see large gaps when the court, based on a basic expert opinion, could not make a decision, because it was carried out incorrectly, and the expert examination from Moscow was in vain Ashes shatter the entire approach of this examination. Accordingly, having such data, how can one not say that there is no political component in this matter?
Ermek expressed his convictions. You can't judge someone for their beliefs. The conclusion suggests itself.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.