KAZAKHSTAN: FIVE-YEAR SENTENCE UPHELD FOR REGIONAL

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ALMATY 002302 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/CEN (J. MUDGE),DRL/PHD (C. KUCHTA-HELBLING) SENSITIVE SIPDIS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PHUM PGOV KZ SUBJECT: KAZAKHSTAN: FIVE-YEAR SENTENCE UPHELD FOR REGIONAL POLITICAL ACTIVIST REF: ALMATY 1759 ALMATY 00002302 001.2 OF 002 ¶1. (U) Summary: On June 22, opposition activist Alibek Zhumabayev's appeal was rejected by the Taraz Regional Court. Zhumabayev had earlier been sentenced to five years in jail for hooliganism, insulting President Nazarbayev's dignity and honor, and organizing mass disorder. Zhumabayev's defense team had asked the court to drop the charge of organizing mass disorder and grant him amnesty regarding the other two charges. However, a panel of three judges rejected these requests as groundless. The hearing was held in an orderly, open fashion, leaving the defense little chance to protest it on procedural grounds. About 50 people attended the hearing, most (if not all) of whom had come in support of Zhumabayev. End summary. ¶2. (U) The June 22 proceedings began at about 10:30 in the morning, 30 minutes later than originally scheduled. They were held in a large courtroom with a seating capacity of over 100. Just before the hearing began, one of the three judges walked to the front of the room, surveyed the scene, and loudly announced that his staff should admit anyone into the courtroom who so desired. At this point about 20 people were in attendance, including U.S. Embassy staff, an OSCE observer, Zhumabayev friends and relatives, and opposition activists. When Zhumabayev was escorted into the room, most of the audience stood and cheered. Neither the court staff nor the panel of judges made any attempt to quiet the crowd. ¶3. (U) Zhumabayev's defense team was made up of four people. The first, Zhamshit Kapparov, was a professional lawyer who had been appointed by the regional court after Zhumabayev dismissed his previous defense team during a city court hearing in April (reftel). Also speaking in Zhumabayev's defense were two opposition activists, Petr Svoik and Marzhan Aspandiyarova, and Zhumabayev's wife Aynur. The defense was well organized and each speaker approached the case from a different angle. Kapparov focused on legal and technical matters. Svoik argued that the case was politically motivated. Aspandiyarova spoke of international opinion and Kazakhstan's image in the world. And Ms. Zhumabayeva made a personal appeal for the sake of her young children. -------------- The Legal Angle -------------- ¶4. (U) Kapparov argued that two of the three charges against Zhumabayev (hooliganism and insulting the honor and dignity of the President) were subject to amnesty according to a law signed on January 9, 2006. He pointed out that these charges had been filed, and the crimes allegedly committed, before the decision to grant amnesty had been made. The third charge of organizing mass disorder was added on January 19, 2006. While he admitted that the amnesty law did not apply to this more serious offense, Kapparov asked the court to dismiss the charge due to insufficient evidence. Given the January 9 law, without the third charge Zhumabayev should be set free immediately, he said. -------------- The Political Angle -------------- ¶5. (U) Svoik began by saying, "It is no coincidence that OSCE and U.S. Embassy representatives are here. This is a political case." He then proceeded to highlight inconsistencies in the case, some of which he said proved illegal action on the government's part. Svoik also cited the investigation report as evidence that the case against Zhumabayev was part of a plan designed by the National Security Committee (KNB) to discredit the opposition. ¶6. (U) The heart of Svoik's statement concerned the students who had testified against Zhumabayev. They told investigators that he had urged them to "do in Astana what happened in Kyrgyzstan." During the city court proceedings, however, Zhumabayev's defense team had asked the students a series of questions: Do you know what rioting means?; Did Alibek ask you to gather supporters?; Did he ask you to commit arson?; Did he ask you to destroy property?; Did you see any firearms?; Were leaflets prepared?; Was there an action plan? The students said "no" in each case. -------------- The International Angle -------------- ALMATY 00002302 002.2 OF 002 ¶7. (U) Aspandiyarova made a more emotional appeal, switching from Russian to Kazakh for rhetorical effect. She built off of Svoik's statement in an apparent attempt to impart a sense of shame in the proceedings to date. Along those lines, she noted that Zhumabayev was arrested the same day that Kazakhstan ratified the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights. Throughout, she implied that the international community would judge Kazakhstan harshly should the appeal be rejected. Specifically, she wondered aloud how the case would affect Kazakhstan's aspirations to chair the OSCE and to become one of the world's top 50 competitive nations. -------------- Zhumabayev Unrepentant -------------- ¶8. (U) When Zhumabayev was asked to speak, he expressed little remorse and addressed the court somewhat combatively. As his remarks became increasingly antagonistic, Zhumabayev's friends and defense team signaled and called out for him to be silent. However, he continued: "Tomorrow these students will replace you. They were scared and forced to testify against me. I did not call for rioting. I wanted to stop Rakhmetov [the man who admitted destroying campaign billboards, allegedly at Zhumabayev's request]. I never looked for him. He came to me." He then criticized what he characterized as the inability in Kazakhstan to speak freely - to speak negatively of the President, or to say that the situation was better in Kyrgyzstan, as he said he believed. ¶9. (U) The court recessed for an hour while the judges deliberated. When proceedings resumed, the judges rejected the appeal as groundless in a short statement that echoed the remarks of the procurator. A member of the audience shouted, "Shame on you," but the judges did not react and left the room. By this point in the day, about 50 people had come to watch the proceedings. Most appeared shocked by the ruling. ¶10. (SBU) As Zhumabayev has already been in detention for seven months, roughly four and a half years remain on his sentence. He will be eligible for parole in just over a year. While Zhumabayev has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, his defense team did not immediately agree on what to do next. Aspandiyarova was strongly in favor of filing a complaint, but Svoik was more cautious, saying, "We have to discuss this." Aspandiyarova approached POLOFF and requested U.S. support in this matter, be it through diplomatic channels or in the form of a roundtable or seminar on political freedom in Kazakhstan. ¶11. (SBU) Communist Party member Tolen Tokhtasynov also approached POLOFF to share his views on the case. According to him, the KNB planned to trap Zhumabayev and make him testify against opposition presidential candidate Zharmakhan Tuyakbay, and against Tokhtasynov himself, who was Tuyakbay's campaign manager. He said Zhumabayev had refused to cooperate with the KNB. ¶12. (SBU) Comment: Court officials were clearly interested in making the proceedings appear fair. The hearing was held in a large room, and the presiding judge called three times for court officials to admit anyone waiting outside. The proceedings took almost three hours, several times the length of a normal appeal hearing, and Zhumabayev's defense was allowed to speak for nearly half of that time. Finally, the judges were exceptionally tolerant of Zhumabayev's harsh criticism, his defense team's pointed and somewhat accusatory remarks, and the audience's repeated outbursts. ¶13. (SBU) Comment, cont.: While the sentence seems excessive given the facts of the case and the lack of physical evidence, it will be difficult for the defense to file a complaint on procedural grounds. The opposition also strongly suspects that the decision was dictated by Astana for political reasons; if that is the case, further legal action would probably not lead to a more favorable result for Zhumabayev. At this point, barring a high-level political decision to release him, perhaps in an effort to bolster Kazakhstan's international image, Zhumabayev's prospects appear bleak. End comment. ORDWAY