UN Rules Kyrgyzstan Violated Rights of Lawyer and Journalist for Criticizing President

In a landmark decision reinforcing the primacy of free expression in democratic societies, the UN Human Rights Committee has ruled that Kyrgyzstan violated the rights of a prominent lawyer and a journalist by prosecuting them for criticizing former President Almazbek Atambaev. The Committee found that the State’s actions infringed upon both their freedom of speech and freedom of movement, protected under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The Committee's findings underscore the international legal principle that public figures, including heads of state, are not immune from criticism and that using the judiciary to suppress dissent is a grave violation of human rights.

Background of the Case

The case centers on Cholpon Djakupova, a widely respected lawyer and civil society advocate, and Narynbek Idinov, a journalist known for his critical reporting. In 2017, Djakupova made remarks critical of President Atambaev during a public roundtable discussion focused on freedom of assembly and speech. Idinov subsequently published both the speech and his commentary on an online news portal, amplifying her critique.

These actions triggered legal backlash. The General Prosecutor sued both individuals for “discrediting the honour and reputation” of the then-president—a charge which, under Kyrgyz law, permitted the imposition of sweeping penalties even before the matter was adjudicated.

A local court imposed a pre-judgment travel ban on both Djakupova and Idinov, and ordered the seizure of their personal assets, including Djakupova’s residence and bank accounts. These measures remained in place throughout the court proceedings, despite the fact that neither had missed a single court session.

Eventually, both were found liable and ordered to pay 3 million Kyrgyz soms each (approximately USD 34,000), a sum that, in Idinov’s case, represented 31 years of income.

UN Committee: Measures Were Disproportionate and Punitive

The UN Human Rights Committee found that these punitive actions violated Articles 19 and 12 of the ICCPR, which guarantee freedom of expression and freedom of movement, respectively.

Committee member Imeru Yigezu stated that the sanctions were excessive and served more as punishment than legitimate legal remedy. “Ms Djakupova’s speech and Mr Idinov’s reporting clearly concerned matters of public interest,” he said. “Open debate must be protected, and the fact that speech may offend a public figure does not, on its own, justify penalties or blanket restrictions.”

The Committee emphasized that for any restriction on speech to be lawful under international human rights law, it must meet a three-part test: it must be provided by law, serve a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate. The measures taken by Kyrgyzstan, it ruled, failed on all three counts.

Judicial Overreach and the Chilling Effect

Of particular concern to the Committee was the pre-emptive use of travel bans and asset seizures, which it described as a form of judicial intimidation. By imposing such restrictions before any court ruling had been made, the authorities created a chilling effect not only on the individuals involved, but also on broader civil society and media actors.

“These actions represent a dangerous form of pressure against critical voices,” said Yigezu. “Using the courts to silence criticism undermines the very foundations of democracy.”

The Committee also warned against the continued use of defamation laws to shield public officials from scrutiny, noting that heads of state are not above public accountability, and that criticism of powerful figures is an essential component of democratic oversight.

Remedies and Recommendations

The UN body has called on Kyrgyzstan to provide full compensation to both Djakupova and Idinov, including reimbursement for legal expenses and damages incurred due to the violations. It also urged the State to revise its defamation laws and legal procedures to prevent future abuses.

Specifically, the Committee recommended:

• Repealing or amending laws that criminalize defamation or insult to public officials;

• Ensuring judicial independence to avoid the misuse of courts for political ends;

• Safeguarding the rights of journalists and civil society advocates to report and speak freely on issues of public concern.

The ruling adds to a growing body of international decisions aimed at limiting the misuse of defamation laws by governments to silence dissent. It reinforces the principle that freedom of expression must be protected, especially when it pertains to matters of governance and public interest.

Broader Implications

The case is emblematic of a wider global trend where authoritarian-leaning governments use legal tools to intimidate and punish critics under the guise of protecting national dignity or public order. The UN’s decision sends a strong message that such tactics are incompatible with international human rights obligations.

For Kyrgyzstan, once considered a beacon of relative liberalism in Central Asia, the ruling is a stark reminder of its commitments under international treaties. Observers hope it will prompt legal and institutional reforms to restore trust in the rule of law and protect civic space.