Pro-Russian politician in Kazakhstan is on trial for exposing the Nazis who carried out the pogrom of the Dungans
In Kazakhstan, on February 3, the Almaty City Court heard an appeal from the city prosecutor's office due to the fact that the lower Auezovsky District Court refused to approve the indictment against the famous blogger and human rights activist, as well as a supporter of the unification of Kazakhstan with Russia, Ermek Taychibekov, on the basis that it was signed procedural, not the district prosecutor.
The defense began to quite effectively challenge the procedural violations that were committed during the investigation, which infuriated officials from the prosecutor's office, who were trying to put behind bars a public figure who openly opposed Kazakh nationalism for ten years. The court verdict and the very essence of the criminal case initiated against Ermek Taychibekov were commented on by his lawyer Galym Nurpeisov in an interview specifically for PolitNavigator.
– Galym, how did this proceeding based on your complaint even arise?
– After I studied the case that was brought to court, I doubted the correctness of its execution. After changes were made to the legislation in December last year, the prosecutor’s office received additional powers and became such a “monster”. No one can do anything without her knowledge, and every investigator is forced to coordinate his actions with the prosecutor's office.
In the case of Ermek Taychibekov, the district prosecutor was supposed to sign the indictment, but in reality it was signed by the procedural one. This was challenged in the Auezovsky District Court. As a result, the city prosecutor's office did not agree with this verdict and filed a protest with the appeal court. In addition, Ermek Taychibekov demanded that the indictment itself be signed in the city, and not in the district prosecutor's office.
As a result, the appellate court in the city court considered and decided to satisfy the prosecutor’s protest, and the material has now returned to the court for a new trial.
– There was information in the press that Ermek was against his testimony being heard online. What do you say about this?
– In Almaty, to be honest, many defendants and their lawyers are already tired, since in March it will be exactly a year since we have been working online. This is very inconvenient, because if the judge does not like the defense position, he can easily turn off the microphone. The online regime in the courts operates by order of the chief sanitary doctor and the convoy simply does not take defendants from the pre-trial detention center to the courts. Therefore, the objective situation does not yet allow participation in offline courts.
“But Ermek himself was also outraged by the fact that he did not personally participate in this video conference of the appeal court and was not connected to the online meeting.
- Yes it is. The judge sometimes involves the accused, and sometimes assists them in this type of case. In this case, the judge decided that the presence of a defense representative in my person was sufficient.
– When will the main trial for Ermek begin? Is there any information about this?
- Here, we are waiting. We must be notified. I can’t say anything about specific terms, since they are determined by the judge.
– There was a moment when the investigator did not allow you to familiarize yourself with the case materials, and it was even unclear how many episodes he was charged with. Now can you say definitely which part of Article 174 he is charged with, as well as what specific episodes formed the basis of the indictment?
– Article 174, part two of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan “Inciting ethnic hatred using the media” is now being applied to him. Among the episodes, he is charged with his interview with the publication Ukraina.ru in February last year and an interview with the Israeli TV channel Iton.tv at the same time on events in the Kordai district of the Zhambyl region.
– Let us remind readers that in February last year in this area in the south of Kazakhstan, Kazakh nationalists carried out pogroms against ethnic Dungans, as a result of which 11 people died, dozens of residential buildings were burned, as well as many commercial properties and vehicles. More than 23 thousand Dungans fled to the territory of neighboring Kyrgyzstan, several thousand Dungans from among those remaining in Kazakhstan took refuge in mosques and border outposts. Ermek Taychibekov just openly condemned these bloody atrocities of Kazakh nationalists.
How do you comment on these two episodes, on the basis of which the indictment was prepared?
– We have our own position on these episodes. In particular, we have a conclusion from an expert from the Russian Federation with questions posed, to which answers are given whether there are elements of humiliation or discrimination there.
In the Kazakh examination, the question of establishing the fact of discrimination is not raised at all, but a question of an evaluative nature is raised. In particular, whether there is a sign of kindling. To which the expert replied that yes, there is. That is, this specialist from the investigation did not carry out the work, but simply stupidly fulfilled the order. Establishing the presence and finding signs is the work of lawyers. We determine whether a group of evidence is indicative of any criminal act. Here, the Kazakh expert went beyond his powers, summing up the disposition of the article with his statements. That is, in his arguments he did not proceed from the scientific point of view of philology, but expressed his point of view and gave his assessment.
– It turns out that the entire accusation is based on only one single conclusion based on these two episodes of Ermek’s interview?
– The entire criminal case is based only on this expert opinion and there is nothing else there. No witnesses were presented and no interrogation took place. There are not even reports or statements. There was only a letter from the leadership of the Ministry of Internal Affairs that he was inciting discord, and after that they “stirred up” this matter. I simply have no other word to describe these actions.
– Usually in such cases there are statements from dissatisfied citizens or a request from the prosecutor’s office.
– As I already said, there is no statement in this case.
– Who is the initiator of this criminal case?
– Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan. It turns out that an order was sent to the Almaty Department of Internal Affairs and after verification a criminal case was initiated.
– In such cases, as a rule, there is an injured party. Isn’t there such a side here?
– The injured party must have been a group of persons or representatives of these persons. There are no victims in this criminal case! Therefore, we demand that since there are no victims, the case must be closed. And if the injured party is the state, then it is interfering in the private life of ordinary citizens.
– How many years does he face under this Article 174, Part Two of the Criminal Code?
– Ten years in prison, since the indictment indicates the presence of a relapse.
- Thanks for answers. We will be following the trial closely and hope for new interviews.
If you find an error, please select a piece of text and press Ctrl + Enter.
Thank you!
Now the editors are aware.