The International Foundation for the Protection of\r\nFreedom of Speech \"Adil Soz\" conducted a study of the situation with\r\nthe right to freedom of expression, receipt and dissemination of information in\r\nKazakhstan in March 2021.
\r\n\r\n
It reports:
\r\n\r\n
- Police officers in\r\nShymkent beat a TV reporter Bahrambek Talibzhanov when he was covering a fire\r\nin an auto parts warehouse.
\r\nOn March 2,\r\npolice beated Bahrambek Talibzhanov,\r\nAstana TV reporter for Shymkent. A\r\nhuge fire broke out at the auto parts\r\nwarehouse located at the Tamerlanovskoye Highway. The journalist came there to\r\ncover the event. Law enforcement officers banned video recording.
\r\nThree\r\npolice officers rounded up Bahrambek Talibzhanov, and another one hit the\r\nreporter in the face and then in the kidneys. At that moment, Bahrambek\'s\r\ncolleague, the correspondent of Channel 31, Bahrom Abdullaev, ran up to them\r\nand began making video recordingof what was happening on his phone. The\r\njournalists were taken to the Abay\r\npolice station.
\r\nAstana TV\r\nreporter filed a claim concerning the attack.
\r\nA few hours later,\r\nafter the incident became public, the Shymkent Police Department reported on\r\nthe beginning of an official inspection. As of the end of March, the police did\r\nnot report the results of the investigation.
\r\n\r\n
- Uralsk journalist was accused of\r\nviolating quarantine by organizing a villagers\r\nmeeting
\r\nOn March 29, national newspaper\r\n\"Vremya\" reporter for West\r\nKazakhstan region Zlata Udovichenko was called to the department of sanitary\r\nand epidemiological control of the Baiterek district. The grounds for that was\r\na claim filed against the journalist by one of the local residents. The woman\r\naccused Zlata Udovichenko of gathering people to a meeting at the time of\r\nquarantine.
\r\nAccording to Udovichenko, she learnt\r\nabout the meeting on renaming the village of Trekino from one of local\r\nnewspapers. She was added to one of the chats of the residents of that village\r\nin order to keep her informed. Shortly before the planned meeting a new\r\ninformation was published in the chat. It said that since the region got into\r\nCOVID-19 \"red zone\" the meeting would probably be held online. Since this message was not official,\r\nUdovichenko decided to clarify with the local deputy akim (mayor) about the\r\nformat of the meeting. He forwarded her to the local department of internal\r\npolicy that assured that the meeting would take place on the same day and hour\r\nand place as it had been announced\r\nearlier. But, since the epidemic\r\nsituation has changed, the meeting would be held not inside , but on the open\r\nair. Udovichenko told about it in the\r\nchat of the village residents, since many of the chat\r\nparticipants could not understand whether the meeting would take place or not.
\r\nThe next day, when villagers gathered\r\nnear the Cultural center of the village, some people accused Udovichenko \r\nof provocation. The local police took her to the police station and drew\r\nup an interrogation report. When the journalist asked to name the grounds for\r\ninterrogation, the policemen sadi that there was no investigation and they just\r\nwanted to clarify the situation.
\r\n\r\n
- The rules for accreditation of journalists\r\nhave been approved in a new edition. The rules contain provisions that restrict\r\nthe activities of a journalist.
\r\nOn March 11, the Minister of Information and Public Development of the\r\nRepublic of Kazakhstan Aida Balayeva approved the new edition of the\r\n\"Rules for Accreditation of Journalists\".
\r\nThe draft rules, published by the Ministry for discussion on February\r\n1, were criticized by human rights activists and journalists as seriously\r\nhindering the professional activities of a journalist.
\r\nHuman rights activists believe that the section on the deprivation of\r\naccreditation for the dissemination of false information should be supplemented\r\nwith a clarification – \"that is confirmed by a court decision having\r\nentered into legal force.\" It was also proposed to introduce the possibility to appeal to a higher\r\nauthorized body and (or) in court the decision to deprive accreditation.
\r\nThe human rights activists also proposed to exclude the term\r\n\"moderator\" from the Rules deinitions, since the Law \"On Mass\r\nMedia\" does not contain such a concept and the Rules is a bylaw and should\r\nnot introduce new concepts and broad interpretations. They also proposed to\r\ndelete the Note according to which the\r\neditor-in-chief and (or) an authorized representative of the editorial office\r\nmust ensure that an accredited journalist complies with public order, the\r\nsubject (content) of the event, and with the requirements of the moderator of\r\nthe event.
\r\nSome of the proposals of the media community were taken into account by\r\nthe developers, but the provisions restriting the activities of a journalist\r\nremained in the Rules.
\r\nSo, the concept of \"Moderator\" was replaced by\r\n\"Host\", but the Rules do not describe the procedure of appointing the\r\nhost. Paragraph 16 of the Rules assumes\r\nthat the host controls that the participants keeps the sunject of the event,\r\ntime frames, as well as public order. According to the president of \"Adil\r\nSoz\" T. Kaleyeva, moderator\'s authority relate to the regulation of the\r\nevent and have nothing to do with the actual accreditation of journalists.\r\nBesides, the state organizations that organize the events are likely to be\r\nresponsible for the appointment of host, and therefore this person will be a\r\n\"security guard, a censor\"
\r\n\r\n
\r\n
Three judicial acts was issued against media in connection with the\r\nexercise of the right to freedom of expression , the receipt and dissemination\r\nof information in March 2021. Two of them were \r\nin favor of defendants.
\r\n\r\n
The\r\nfollowing charges were filed in\r\nconnection with the exercise of the right to freedom of expression:
\r\n- 5\r\ncriminal charges (including 3 in court)
\r\n- 6 civil claims and lawsuits (5 of them for protection\r\nof honor, dignity and business reputation).
\r\n- 7 administrative charges (including 4 slander\r\ncharges)
\r\n\r\n
The\r\nfollowing charges were filed since the beginning of the year:
\r\n\r\n
- 6 criminal charge (3 in court).
\r\n- 16 claims and suits in civil procedure (14 of\r\nthem for protection of honor, dignity and business reputation). Claims for\r\ncompensation for non-pecuniary damage amounted to 16 million tenge. The courts collected 5 million\r\n50 thousand tenge.
\r\n- 13 administrative charges
\r\nThe monitoring is based on the reports of the Adil Soz\r\nFoundation\'s and publicly available information
\r\nHead of monitoring service of Adil Soz Foundation
\r\nElena Tsoi
\r\ne-mail: lena@adilsoz.kz
\r\n
For all monitoring questions, you\r\ncan also contact info@adilsoz.kz
\r\n
