Court has adjudged editor-in-chief of newspaper “Stepnoy Mayak” Sergei Kibasov in incitement of national enmity

August 15, 2011

On August 04, 2011 Specialized Administrative Court of Kokshetau has adjudged editor-in-chief of the newspaper “Stepnoy Mayak” (Kokshetau) Sergei Kibasov in incitement of national enmity (Article 343 Release of Media Materials Related to Incitement of National Enmity of Code of Administrative Violations of the Republic of Kazakhstan). He has been punished by a fine in an amount up to one thousand monthly assessment indices (one monthly assessment index = KZT1512).

On May 26, 2011 editorial staff of the newspaper “Stepnoy Mayak” has published a crossword with the question “What is the house of Kazakh homeless person?” on May 26, 2011. There was a reply:- “yurta”. After publication of this issue general prosecutor's office has carried out the administrative proceeding with regard to editor-in-chief of the edition.

Editor-in-chief of newspaper “Stepnoy Mayak” (Kokshetau) Sergei Kibasov took upon himself responsibility that the editorial staff has reprinted the crossword from Russian issue of the magazine “Liza” of 2008 without proper control. Sergei Kibasov has said that there was no any intention to incitement of national enmity.

Commentary of legal service of the foundation “Adil Soz”:

Applicable legislation does not contain the definition “national enmity”. It is necessary to expose the signs of national enmity (an emphasis of supremacy of one nation over other one, or intolerance to other ethnic group, culture and religion) in his actions; to determine the guilt of violator, proceeding from proper articles of Criminal Code of Code of Administrative Violations of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

There are two forms of the guilt - intention and imprudence.

Administrative violation is accepted intentional, if a person, who committed it, understood about illegal nature of its action (omission), divined its detrimental consequences and wished such consequences, or committed them voluntarily, or treated them with indifference.

Administrative violation is accepted precipitate, if a person, who committed it, understood about illegal nature of its action (omission), but without concrete motives; it reckoned on the prevention of such consequences conceitedly, or it did not provide for every eventuality of such consequences, but it should foresee them.

Determination of reckless guilt signs excludes the proceeding by case of administrative violation.

There was no any intention to incite national enmity. General Prosecutor's Office whether proved his guilt in court. And, of course the actual matter: what kind of nationality did excite the national enmity?