KAZAKHSTAN: REGIONAL OPPOSITION ACTIVIST SENTENCED TO

UNCLAS ALMATY 001759 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE DEPT FOR SCA/CEN (J.MUDGE),DRL/PHD (C. KUCHTA-HELBLING) E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV KDEM KZ SUBJECT: KAZAKHSTAN: REGIONAL OPPOSITION ACTIVIST SENTENCED TO FIVE YEARS IN PRISON REF: 05 Almaty 4281 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: An activist from the "For a Just Kazakhstan" (FJK) movement has been sentenced to five years in jail for allegedly ordering others to burn Nazarbayev campaign billboards. FJK leaders claim the charges were trumped up in order to justify statements by law enforcement authorities during the presidential election campaign regarding the possibility of unrest. The OSCE monitored portions of the trial and came away with the impression that the prosecution's case was relatively weak. The defendant dismissed his defense team midway through the trial in an apparent effort to obtain leniency. End summary. ¶2. (U) On May 15, "For a Just Kazakhstan" activist Alibek Zhumabayev was sentenced to five years in jail by the Taraz City Court on charges of organizing mass disorder. When arrested on November 28, Zhumabayev initially faced charged of hooliganism and insulting the honor and dignity of the president. The charges were based on allegations by Taraz resident Rakhmetov that Zhumabayev had ordered him to burn Nazarbayev campaign billboards. In January, the procuracy filed the additional charge of organizing mass disorder based on allegations that Zhumabayev had spoken of "stirring up a revolution." The latter charge carries a maximum sentence of ten years. ¶3. (SBU) FJK activist Marzhan Aspandiyarova told POEC chief that the opposition believed that the additional charges had been filed in order to prevent Zhumabayev from benefiting from the general amnesty that came into force on January 9. Aspandiyarova, who participated in Zhumabayev's defense team, said that the defendant had told her he was the victim of a provocation. Rakhmetov, who she claimed was a long-time collaborator with the Taraz KNB, had come to Zhumabayev and said "publishing campaign literature will have no effect. We need to be ready to seize the akimat if Tuyakbay loses. Say the word and I will mobilize the people." According to Aspandiyarova, Zhumabayev vehemently rejected any actions that would violate the law. She emphasized that Zhumabayev was an honest local businessman who only became involved in politics recently out of frustration with the level of corruption in Kazakhstan. ¶4. (U) A May 16 FJK press release alleged that Zhumabayev was set up and prosecuted in order to justify the November statements by then KNB chief Dutbayev and Minister of Internal Affairs Mukhamedzhanov regarding the possibility of unrest (reftel). FJK claimed that there was no physical evidence that any illegal acts were committed. They also claimed that local authorities offered to drop the charges against Zhumabayev if he would implicate FJK leaders Zharmakhan Tuyakbay and Tolen Tokhtasynov in efforts to organize mass disorder. ¶5. (SBU) The OSCE monitored portions of the trial, which began March 22. Although no report was issued, one OSCE observer told POEC chief that the prosecution's case appeared quite weak. The procuracy initially said that the akimat was the victim of Zhumabayev's actions, as it had paid for the Nazarbayev campaign billboards. When the defense team pointed out that this was a violation of the electoral law, the procuracy then said that the victim was the owner of the billboards. According to the OSCE observer, in that scenario it was not clear why Zhumabayev was charged with a crime rather than civil charges for material damages. Many of Zhumabayev's relatives and supporters expressed concern to the OSCE regarding what they described as trumped up charges, as well as the judge's refusal to release Zhumabayev on bail before the trial. ¶6. (SBU) On April 14, Zhumabayev dismissed his defense team and declined to participate any further in the hearings. Galymzhan Zhakiyanov told POEC chief on April 19 that Zhumabayev was likely hoping for more lenient treatment in return for lowering the political profile of the case. ¶7. (SBU) Comment: Five years is a surprisingly harsh sentence in a case where the charges were based primarily on witness testimony rather than evidence of illegal actions. Post will continue to follow the case closely as the appeal proceeds. End comment. ORDWAY