KAZAKHSTAN: ZHAKIYANOV'S LATEST LEGAL BATTLE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ALMATY 001762 SIPDIS SIPDIS SENSITIVE DEPT FOR SCA/CEN (J.MUDGE),DRL/PHD (C. KUCHTA-HELBLING) E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV KZ SUBJECT: KAZAKHSTAN: ZHAKIYANOV'S LATEST LEGAL BATTLE REF: A. ALMATY 1561, B. ALMATY 1661, C. ALMATY 1725 ALMATY 00001762 001.2 OF 002 ¶1. (SBU) Summary: The Kazakhstani Ministry of Internal Affairs, working with the Pavlodar Oblast Court, has succeeded in modifying the terms of Galymzhan Zhakiyanov's parole in order to retroactively justify the April 24 decision not to allow him to travel to Europe. Under the revised conditions, the MVD also prevented Zhakiyanov from meeting with Vice President Cheney on May 6 in Astana. Zhakiyanov believes that Kazakhstani authorities are selectively applying the law in order to limit his freedom of movement and association, and plans to appeal the supplemental ruling, which changed the terms of his parole. Post has not been able to determine how many parolees are subject to the administrative surveillance requirements that Zhakiyanov now faces. End summary. -------------- Barred from Traveling to Europe -------------- ¶2. (U) As reported Ref A, noted Kazakhstani opposition activist Galymzhan Zhakiyanov was prevented by the Border Guard Service from leaving Kazakhstan on April 24 in order to address the European Parliament. The Border Guards at Almaty Airport informed Zhakiyanov that due to the terms of his parole he had to obtain permission from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (MVD) before leaving Almaty. Zhakiyanov argued to no avail that the January 14 ruling of the Pavlodar Oblast Court freeing him on parole required only that he inform the MVD before traveling, which he had done in writing on April 23. ¶3. (SBU) Zhakiyanov has since shared several documents with post illustrating the legal maneuverings that took place in April to change the terms of his parole status. The first document is a letter dated April 20 to Zhakiyanov from S. Sisemaliyev, head of the Medeu district MVD post in Almaty, in which Sisemaliyev claimed that the January 14 court ruling forbade Zhakiyanov from changing his permanent place of residence or traveling outside of Almaty "without informing specialized agencies and obtaining permission from them." In the letter, Sisemaliyev said that Zhakiyanov had regularly informed the MVD of his travel plans but "never received written permission, which is a violation of part 1, article 45 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan." Zhakiyanov told POEC chief that he met with the MVD to show them the January 14 ruling, which does not specify that permission is required. -------------- Original Parole Terms Revised -------------- ¶4. (SBU) According to Zhakiyanov, the MVD then sent an official inquiry to the Pavlodar Oblast Court asking for "clarification" of the January 14 ruling. Although Zhakiyanov says that he was never notified that another hearing would be held, and therefore did not participate, on May 2 Sisemaliyev sent him a second letter forwarding a copy of a "Supplemental Ruling" of the Pavlodar Oblast Court dated April 28. The supplemental ruling, issued four days after Zhakiyanov was prevented from traveling to Europe, said that an "open hearing" had been held on April 28 at which the court modified the original ruling to specify that Zhakiyanov had to obtain permission from specialized agencies in order to leave Almaty. In his cover letter, Sisemaliyev instructed Zhakiyanov to submit a written request to the Medeu district MVD post specifying the destination, dates, and purpose of any travel; a written response would be issued within ten days. -------------- -------------- Permission Denied to Travel to Astana for Cheney Meeting -------------- -------------- ¶5. (SBU) Post invited Zhakiyanov on April 28 to participate in a May 6 roundtable discussion with Vice President Cheney in Astana. On May 2, Zhakiyanov called the Ambassador to let him know that he had just received the revised court ruling and that he had immediately applied for permission to travel to Astana. Despite high-level post engagement with the GOK to encourage a positive decision, including by A/S Boucher and the Ambassador (Refs B and C),on May 3 Sisemaliyev informed Zhakiyanov in writing that his requests to travel to Astana on May 5 and to Moscow on May 26 had been refused. No explanation was given in the letter. Minister of Interior Mukhamedzhanov told A/S Boucher on May 5 that Zhakiyanov's frequent travels exceeded the MVD's capability to "monitor" him as required. -------------- Selective Application of the Law? ALMATY 00001762 002.2 OF 002 -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Zhakiyanov alleges that the Pavlodar Oblast Court's decision to issue a revised ruling in his case without even notifying him of the hearing represents a serious procedural violation. He also claims that the authorities are selectively applying the law to him for political reasons, in order to limit his freedom of movement and association. Zhakiyanov has said that he plans to appeal the April 28 supplemental ruling. ¶7. (SBU) Post has attempted to obtain statistics on how many individuals released on parole in Kazakhstan are subject to the type of administrative surveillance requirements that Zhakiyanov now faces. Official statistics are unavailable. Leading human rights advocate Yevgeniy Zhovtis believes, based on anecdotal evidence, that few parolees are placed under such limitations. Zhemis Turmagambetova of the newly-created "Charter for Human Rights" claimed to POEC chief that "many" parolees face the same conditions. She was unable to provide statistics, however, only citing Sergey Duvanov as one example. (Note: As reported Ref A, Duvanov confirmed to post that he did not have to receive official permission to travel during the period of his parole. Turmagambetova has become markedly less critical of GOK policies since leaving the Kazakhstani Bureau for Human Rights and founding her own organization. End note.) ¶8. (SBU) Comment: In the absence of any clear evidence that this type of administrative surveillance is commonly used in the Kazakhstani judicial system, post shares Zhakiyanov's assessment that the decision to stiffen the terms of his parole was politically motivated. We are not optimistic that the MVD will be lenient in its enforcement of the new regime, given that its first decision was to deny Zhakiyanov permission to travel to Astana, where the Kazakhstani government presumably has adequate resources to "monitor" a parolee. It seems unlikely that he will be allowed to travel to Moscow in the near future, where he has been receiving treatment for medical conditions arising from his imprisonment. Post fully realizes that the GOK has the right to apply travel and other restrictions as conditions for parole. Nevertheless, we will continue to underscore with the GOK the negative impact of Zhakiyanov's situation on Kazakhstan's international reputation. End comment. ORDWAY