The\r\nInternational Foundation for the Protection of Freedom of Speech \"Adil\r\nSoz\" conducted a study of the situation with the right to freedom of\r\nexpression, receipt and dissemination of information in Kazakhstan in February 2019.
\r\nIt reports:
\r\n- Kazakhstan was recognized as one\r\nof top 15 countries with the worst laws on access to information.
\r\nAccording to the Global Right to Information Rating (RTI), the Law of\r\nKazakhstan “On Access to Information” does not comply with international\r\nstandards and basic principles in the field of freedom of information. The\r\nauthors of the index rated the quality of the law at 61 points out of 150\r\npossible. Kazakhstan ranked 109 out of 123 countries where similar laws have\r\nbeen adopted. Thus, Kazakhstan is among the top 15 countries with the worst\r\nlaws on access to information.
\r\nThus, according to Kazakhstani experts who agreed with the RTI rating,\r\nthe Law of Kazakhstan “On Access to Information” does not proclaim the\r\nprinciple of openness of any information and does not establish a narrow list\r\nof exceptions, as required by the basic principles: “Instead, the law\r\nestablishes various categories, “Information with limited access”,\r\n“information, access to which cannot be limited”, which does not contribute to\r\nthe change of the secrecy and closeness\r\nof public authorities to openness and\r\ntransparency ”.
\r\n- The Ministry of Information and Communications\r\nsubmitted for discussion a draft order on amending the existing rules for the\r\naccreditation of journalists.
\r\nThe\r\ndraft ministerial order proposed to oblige the journalist to provide a written\r\nconsent to comply with the internal regulations of the accrediting organization\r\nand the rules established by the moderator and to provide copies of documents\r\nconfirming contractual relationship between the journalist and the\r\nmedia.Paragraph 8 of the Rules is amended as follows: “8. Accreditation may be\r\ndenied to a journalist in the following cases: 1) failure to submit the\r\ndocuments specified in paragraph 6 of these rules; 2) inconsistencies in the\r\ncontent of the application with the requirements of these rules; (...); 4) the\r\ninability to accommodate journalists in the premises where meetings and other\r\nevents are held, if other journalists are accredited and placed.” Ministry of\r\ninormation and communications of Kazakhstan proposes to expand the grounds for\r\ndepriving journalists of their accreditation:
\r\n-\r\nin the cases established by paragraph 4 of Article 22 of the law on mass media.
\r\n-\r\nfor violation of the internal regulations of the accrediting body and moderator\r\nregulations.
\r\nIn\r\nthe current Rules, an accredited journalist loses accreditation on the basis of\r\na statement by the owner of the media or by the editors of the owner of the\r\nmedia, as well as a decision of the court, which entered into legal force.
\r\nHuman rights activists consider the proposed changes\r\ncontradicting Kazakhstan media legislation.
\r\nThe\r\nLaw “On Mass Media” provides only two grounds for depriving a journalist or a\r\nmedia outlet of accreditation: violation of the Accreditation Rules and the\r\ndissemination of information by a journalist that does not correspond to\r\nreality and discredits the honor and dignity of a state body.The ministry plans\r\nto increase the number of grounds for deprivation of accreditations and the\r\nnumber of grounds for refusal of accreditation, in particular, due to \"the\r\ninability to accommodate journalists on the premises.\"The requirement to\r\nprovide a copy of contracts confirming contractual relationship between a\r\njournalist and media discriminates bloggers. In accordance with paragraph 4 of\r\nArt. 1 of the Law “On Mass Media” Internet resources are classified as mass\r\nmedia, therefore, bloggers have the right for accreditation.The draft order\r\ncontains rules that will lead to a sharp decrease in the number of journalists\r\nand media accredited to state bodies, the end result will be that Kazakhstan\r\ncitizens will lack complete information about the work of government bodies.
\r\n\r\n
- In February, there were several\r\ndetentions of journalists performaning\r\ntheir professional duties. Police also detained bloggers who covered various\r\nactions. OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Arlem Dezir, expressed\r\nconcern over the detentions.
\r\nOn February 12, Radio Azattyk reporter Sania\r\nToyken was taken to the police station in Astana. The journalist came to Astana\r\nto interview several mothers who put forward demands to the government. The\r\nwomen reported that they were under pressure. After talking to one of them,\r\nSania went to the house of the other. Policemen were on duty there. They asked\r\nwhy the journalist came to that private house, and said that she had to go to\r\nthe Police Department. The head of the criminal investigation department\r\nDaniyar Adilov talked to Sania Toyken for half an hour in the Saryarka district\r\npolice department in Astana. Then the reporter was released. Answering the\r\njournalist\'s question about the reason of police was on duty in front of the\r\nhouse of a mother with many children, D. Adilov said that it was done to\r\nprotect the leaders of the women\'s movement from possible undesirable\r\nsituations.
\r\nOn February 27, police special forces officers\r\ndetained Radio Azattyk reporter Sania\r\nToiken and video operator Sanat Nurbek in Zhanaozen where they were covering\r\nmeeting of Zhanaozen inhabitants demanding to solve employment issues. Sania\r\nreported to the editor that they were detained with the use of force because of\r\na claim received by the police. The journalists were taken to the police\r\ndepartment of the Mangystau region in Aktau (one and a half hours drive from\r\nZhanaozen). There Toyken was shown a claim by a man whose surname was\r\nShaudirov, who expressed fears that journalists\' conversations with the\r\nresidences of the city might “incite\r\ndiscord”. The investigator Nazarbay Zhanbayev told Sania that she was “a\r\nwitness with the right to defense”. Another investigator was talking to Sanat\r\nNurbek. After almost six hours, the journalists were released. According to\r\nAzattyk, Sania Toiken and Sanat Nurbek were sent by the editors of Azattyk to\r\nZhanaozen to cover the continuous rallies of the unemployed people. They\r\narrived in Zhanaozen on the evening of February 26 with the editorial assignment\r\nin their hands.
\r\nOn February 27, a well-known blogger in\r\nUralsk, Askar Shiygumarov, and his friend left the house, and went to a store\r\nfor lunch. The police detained them at the exit from the house at 1.30 pm\r\nAlmaty time, snatched the smartphone with force, and then took them to the\r\nlocal police station. Activists related the detention of Askar to the Nur-Otan\r\npresidential party congress held in Astana. The authorities feared that he and\r\nhis associates might organize protest actions on that day. On that day A.\r\nShaigumarov was supposed to pass exams. The blogger was interrogated for all\r\nday about the “Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan” (DCK), then drove to the place\r\nof examinations and was escorted to the house at 8 PM.
\r\nOn February 27 in Almaty, at the office of the\r\nNur Otan party, police detained a blogger Askhat Bersalimov. He was making a\r\nlive broadcast from the place of the alleged rally. According to the blogger,\r\nhe was taken for a alcohol and drug test for three times. Since the results\r\nwere clear, Bersalimov was charged for “disobedience” to police. Dmitry Tikhonov, an employee of the\r\nBureau of Human Rights, was among the detainees. At the police station, Dmitry\r\nwas questioned about conncetions to the DCK movement.
\r\nOSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, Arlem Dezir, expressed\r\nconcern over the detention of journalists and bloggers.
\r\n“I am concerned about the practice of short-term detention of\r\njournalists and bloggers, that prevents them from performing their professional\r\nduties. Informing the public about social protests and issues of public\r\ninterest is an important role for journalists - they should not be punished for\r\ndoing their work, ”the statement said.
\r\n- FC “Kairat” categorically forbade journalists\r\nto process, retell, simplify, change the original texts of the club. Use texts\r\nfrom the FC Kairat media resource in whole or in part, as well use of photos, is permitted only by the written\r\nconsent of the press service of the football club. FC Kairat explains such\r\nmeasures by protecting its intellectual property.
\r\nThe official information for the media on building relationships\r\nbetween players, the coaching staff and the football club in general with media\r\nrepresentatives on a new basis is published on the website of the Kairat\r\nfootball club. Beside such things as non-acceptance of any commercial offers to\r\nthe Kairat club, there are some stunning prescriptions. From now on,\r\njournalists are strictly forbidden:
\r\n- to rewrite club publications posted on the media resources of FC\r\nKairat (retell the original texts in other words while preserving the meaning\r\nof the text);
\r\n- The use of synonyms;
\r\n- Translation of direct speech into indirect;
\r\n- Moving paragraphs;
\r\n- Replacing phrases with the\r\nones having similar meanings;
\r\n- Simplify the text;
\r\n- Delete or move words and phrases;
\r\n- Make any other changes in the grammatical structure of sentences.
\r\nIn addition, it is specified that any use in whole or in part of texts,\r\nphotographs, video materials from the club’s media resources is possible only\r\nwith the written consent of the press service, since they are objects of the\r\n“intellectual property of FC Kairat”.
\r\n4 judicial acts\r\nwere issued against media and citizens in connection with the exercise of the\r\nright to freedom of expression , the receipt and dissemination of information\r\non cases of protection of honor, dignity and business reputation in February.\r\nTwo of them were in favor of the media, journalists and citizens.
The following actions chrges were\r\nfiled in February in connection with the exercise of the right to freedom of\r\nexpression:
\r\n- 3 criminal charges, including 3 in\r\ncourt.
\r\n- 6claims\r\nand suits in civil procedure. Among them, 6 claims and lawsuits for protection\r\nof honor, dignity and business reputation.
\r\n- Claims\r\nfor compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounted to 1 million tenge in February.\r\nThe courts collected 300 thousand tenge.
\r\nThe following actions chrges were\r\nfiled since the beginning of the year:
\r\n- 8 criminal charges.
\r\n- 14\r\nclaims and suits in civil procedure. Among them, 12 claims and lawsuits for protection\r\nof honor, dignity and business reputation.
\r\n- Claims\r\nfor compensation for non-pecuniary damage amounted to 52 million tenge. The courts\r\ncollected 1 million 550 thousand tenge.
\r\nThe monitoring was done\r\naccording to reports of the Adil Soz Foundation\'s correspondents and\r\ninformation from open sources.
\r\n Head of monitoring\r\nservice of Adil Soz Foundation Elena Tsoi
\r\ne-mail: lena@adilsoz.kz
For all questions\r\nregarding the monitoring, you may also contact
\r\ninfo@adilsoz.kz
