Kyrgyzstan: National Leader’s Reputation Must Not Override Right To Freedom Of Expression, UN Committee Finds

GENEVA (26 May 2025) - A national leader’s reputation must not outweigh the right to freedom of expression, the UN Human Rights Committee has ruled, finding that Kyrgyzstan violated the fundamental freedoms of a lawyer and a journalist who were prosecuted for criticising the then-president and barred from leaving the country.

In a recently adopted Decision, the Committee concluded that Kyrgyzstan has violated the rights of Cholpon Djakupova, a lawyer and civil society advocate, and Narynbek Idinov, a journalist. The two were sued by the General Prosecutor for discrediting then-President Atambaev’s honour and reputation. The case stemmed from Ms Djakupova’s critical remarks about the then-President during a roundtable discussion on freedom of assembly and speech, and from Mr Idinov publishing the speech along with his commentary on a news portal.

“A head of State is not above public scrutiny,” said Committee member Imeru Yigezu, adding that, “Using the courts to silence criticism undermines the very foundations of democracy.”

Before any judgment on the case was issued, a local court imposed an injunction barring the two from leaving the country and ordering the seizure of their personal assets, including Ms Djakupova’s house and bank account. These restrictions remained in place throughout the trial, even though they both had not missed a single court hearing.

The Committee raised particular concern about the restrictions imposed before a court ruling, describing these actions as a dangerous form of pressure against critical voices. “The use of travel bans and asset seizures before adjudication raises serious concerns about judicial overreach and creates a chilling effect,” said Yigezu

Both Ms Djakulpova and Mr Idinov were found liable for discrediting the then-president’s honour and reputation and were ordered to pay 3 million soms each, an amount that, in Mr Idinov’s case, equated to his income over 31 years.

After exhausting local legal remedies, they brought their case to the Human Rights Committee, claiming their rights to freedom of speech and freedom of movement under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) had been violated.

The Committee found that the imposed measures were disproportionate and of punitive nature. “Ms Djakupova’s speech and Mr Idinov’s reporting clearly concerned matters of public interest. In such cases, open debate must be protected, and the fact that speech may offend a public figure does not, on its own, justify penalties and a blanket travel ban,” added Yigezu.

“Restrictions on freedom of expression under the ICCPR must be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim such as protecting national security and public order, and be necessary and proportionate. The measures taken failed to meet all the necessary criteria,” he explained.

The Committee stressed that criticism of high-ranking officials, including heads of state, is a core element of democratic oversight and must not be stifled through judicial intimidation.

The Committee found that Kyrgyzstan had violated the complainants’ rights to freedom of expression and freedom of movement. It called on Kyrgyzstan to provide effective remedies, including full compensation for the two complainants and reimbursement of legal costs. It also urged the State party to revise its legislation to ensure that such violations do not recur.

© Scoop Media