Chief Editor of "S-Inform," Amangeldy Batyrbekov, has been arrested for 20 days

On July 3, by the decision of the Saryagash District Court of the Turkestan Region, the Chief Editor of "S-Inform," Amangeldy Batyrbekov, was arrested for 20 days on charges of defamation (Article 73-3 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan). 

The judicial process was initiated based on a statement by Bolatbek Nazhmetdinuly, a deputy of the Mazhilis Parliament, and the reason for the statement was a Facebook post by Batyrbekov on March 10, titled "СЫБАЙЛАСТЫҚ ПА НЕ БҰЛ?" ("Is this corruption or what?"). The parliamentarian believes that the journalist intentionally spread false information about him, stating that several years ago, Nazhmetdinuly was a suspect in a criminal case related to fraud. 

In court, Amangeldy Batyrbekov, while not admitting guilt for the alleged offense, stated that the mentioned information is not false and is supported by documents from the criminal case signed by an investigator from the Shymkent Police Department. According to these documents, Nazhmetdinuly is recognized as a suspect during the pre-trial investigation of the criminal case. The journalist was provided with the documents by N. Aynabekov, who in 2019 filed a police report regarding embezzlement during the construction of a polyclinic and received the documents as a victim in that case. 

N. Aynabekov confirmed Batyrbekov's statement, noting that he obtained copies of the criminal case documents related to Nazhmetdinuly in April 2020 from an investigator, after which the documents were bound together and marked with the inscription "True Copy." And when he realized that the applicant was a candidate for the Mazhilis Parliament, he approached A. Batyrbekov and handed over these documents.

During questioning in court, the interrogating officer stated that Bolatbek Nazhmetdinuly was involved in the case as a witness with the right to defense, and he only gave N. Aynabekov a resolution to terminate the case, without issuing any other documents. After examining the case documents and hearing the parties involved, the court concluded that the Chief Editor, without verifying the accuracy of the information, disseminated false information that defamed Nazhmetdinuly. Judge B. Kaipov found Batyrbekov guilty of committing an administrative offense under Article 73-3, Part 2, and imposed a penalty in the form of arrest. 

"The court considers that there are no grounds for applying a fine to Batyrbekov A., as this administrative measure is insufficient to achieve the objectives of imposing punishment for an administrative offense," the court ruling stated. 
Amangeldy Batyrbekov disagrees with the ruling. The deputy, in a comment to the correspondent of "Adil Soz," stated that he proposed to the journalist to resolve the issue through pre-trial settlement. "Immediately after the publication by Amangeldy Batyrbekov, my lawyer contacted him, offering to review the documents and not rush with loud accusations based on unclear grounds. However, the journalist did not engage, loudly stating that he should not be intimidated. And he added that if I and my defender believe he is wrong, then, supposedly, take him to court. Naturally, there was no other choice but to follow his 'recommendation.'"

It is pointless and futile to converse with someone who prefers to believe someone's word instead of, as a respectable journalist should, verifying facts and examining documents. Am I satisfied with the court's decision? I am a supporter of upholding the law. I know for sure that Batyrbekov deliberately refused the lawyer's proposal to resolve the situation through pre-trial means. And that is also his right," the deputy stated. 

"Adil Soz" comments:

The journalist was held administratively responsible for defamation (spreading knowingly false information). The word "knowingly" is crucial in this offense. It means that to hold someone accountable under this article, the journalist must be aware that they are spreading lies, but they deliberately disseminate them, pursuing certain motives. From the court ruling, it follows that the element of "knowingly" was not proven or established during the judicial proceedings. The journalist himself explained that he disseminated the information from the investigator's ruling, which he had in his possession. This was also confirmed by a witness who explained to the court that he personally handed the mentioned ruling to the journalist, which he received from the investigator. Therefore, at the time of publishing the material, the journalist believed that he was publishing the truth.

And only after the publication (as explained by the affected deputy), the journalist was informed about the inaccuracy of the information he published. From these circumstances, it is clear that the journalist did not have any knowledge of spreading false information. The journalist disseminated information that he believed to be accurate, as confirmed by the investigator's ruling in his possession. Therefore, the court did not establish any motive for the journalist to deliberately spread knowingly false information about the deputy. Furthermore, the forgery of the ruling in the journalist's possession was not officially established.

The words of the investigator, who disowned the signed document, do not hold much weight without proper examination or expertise. According to Article 10 of the Administrative Code, the presumption of innocence means that any doubts regarding guilt should be interpreted in favor of the person against whom an administrative offense case is initiated. However, this constitutional principle was ignored by the court. It follows that the court unlawfully held the journalist administratively responsible for defamation. Now, let's talk about the essence of the so-called false information.

The journalist wrote that the deputy was previously suspected of committing fraud (was a suspect in a criminal case). However, in court, the investigator clarified that the deputy was supposedly recognized only as a witness with the right to defense, not as a suspect. In the Criminal Procedure Code, a witness with the right to defense is someone who is not yet a suspect in the full sense of the word but is no longer just a witness. This status is assigned when there are already relevant suspicions, but there is insufficient evidence to officially designate the person as a suspect and classify their actions.

Therefore, a witness with the right to defense is much closer to being a suspect than a regular witness. Even a simple analysis of the term "witness with the right to defense" confirms this. With the right to defense against what? - Against the suspicion of committing a crime. In other words, a witness with the right to defense has the right to engage a lawyer to defend themselves against the suspicion that is already being investigated and that may be officially formalized as the status of a suspect in the future.

The content of the so-called "false information" also indicates that the journalist did not engage in deliberate lies, and therefore, there is no element of defamation in their actions. We hope that the prosecutor's office will appeal the unlawful court ruling, and the higher regional court will correct the mistake made by the lower court and vindicate the journalist. As for the deputy who supposedly turned to the police due to a hopeless situation, they should carefully review Article 143 of the Civil Code, which provides in paragraph 3 that a citizen against whom information that infringes their rights or legitimate interests has been published has the right to free publication of their response in the same media outlets, for which the response must be submitted to the media in writing. In the response, one can elaborate on their position and point out where the journalist was wrong.

As a rule, media outlets are willing to publish such responses from interested parties, and the conflict is resolved, with the honor and dignity of the person remaining unharmed. Readers (viewers, listeners) receive complete information, and society as a whole benefits. One should fight words with words, not with a prison cell, Mr. Deputy!