Kazakhstan: The Constriction of Civic Space under the Pressures of Judicial Practice

An Analysis of Criminal and Administrative Proceedings (2024–2026) Giving Rise to Human Rights Concerns and Exhibiting Hallmarks of Political Motivation, as at October 2026

Introduction

Civic space encompasses the structural conditions enabling individuals to freely express opinions, exercise freedom of association, establish civil society organisations, disseminate information, conduct election observation, petition and submit representations to public authorities, and participate in peaceful assembly. The state of civic space is determined not merely by the formal terms of statutory law, but by the extent to which citizens can exercise their rights in practice free from interference. Our organisation conducts monthly monitoring of human rights violations and politically motivated judicial proceedings. Active engagement in legal practice provides vital insight into how statutory provisions are applied to specific individuals and public initiatives. In this context, critical consideration must be given not only to criminal convictions and administrative penalties, but also to the circumstances under which proceedings are instituted, the substance of charges brought, the transparency of judicial proceedings, access to legal representation, the right of appeal, and ancillary penalties that restrict an individual’s ongoing activities. This analysis encompasses judicial proceedings spanning the period from 2024 to October 2026. It focuses principally on cases involving civil society campaigners, media practitioners, bloggers, participants in peaceful assemblies, and representatives of independent initiatives and organisations. It further examines instances where the application of statutory provisions governing the dissemination of false information, incitement of discord, protection of personal data, extortion, or non-compliance with judicial orders raises significant concerns regarding the protection of freedom of expression and participation in public life. This analysis does not proceed on the assumption that every criminal or administrative proceeding instituted against a journalist or activist is ipso facto politically motivated. However, the cumulative weight of circumstances —including the nature of the individual’s public activities, the content of their publications, the reliance on broadly drafted legal provisions, the lack of transparency in judicial proceedings, and the imposition of ancillary restrictions on public engagement — reveals persistent human rights risks and evidences a marked contraction of civic space. An analysis of specific cases demonstrates an emerging pattern whereby administrative and criminal mechanisms are deployed not merely to address discrete offences, but to curtail scope for peaceful civic activity — a trend currently observable in Kazakhstan. Civic engagement has declined as individuals prioritise personal safety, given that the ramifications extend well beyond individual judicial proceedings. Such prosecutions impinge upon independent journalism, public scrutiny, freedom of assembly, the operation of civil society organisations, and the public’s willingness to engage in activism or express dissent. Furthermore, we highlight that international assessments conducted during the first half of 2026 similarly point to a deterioration in the environment for freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly, occurring against the backdrop of constitutional reform and heightened pressure on critics of the state. ^[1]

Criminal Prosecution: From Liability for Specific Acts to Restrictions on Public Activity

1. 2024 Cases: Activism, Publications, and Criticism of the Authorities

In 2024, criminal prosecutions targeted individuals whose activities related to the public expression of political views, online publications, and participation in civic life.

Kalima Dzhaparova

By a judgment of the Shymkent Inter-district Criminal Court of 24 May 2024, Ms Kalima Dzhaparova was sentenced to two years’ restriction of liberty pursuant to Article 174(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The case file indicates that she publicly expressed her political views, including in relation to Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, and painted the façade of her residential property in the colours of the Ukrainian national flag. She was held in pre-trial detention from October 2023 to May 2024. In April 2024, an expert council formally recognised her as a political prisoner. This case illustrates the severity of the sanctions imposed for public acts expressing political opinion. Upon reviewing the case, we noted that the prosecution failed to adduce evidence of specific incitement to violence or discrimination; human rights organisations accordingly consider that the proceedings were brought solely on the basis of the exercise of her right to freedom of expression.

Nurlybai Tatayev

Criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr Nurlybai Tatayev, a civil society campaigner based in Lenger, Turkistan Region, pursuant to Article 405(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The case file cited his participation in a Zoom video conference in 2021, Facebook posts, and messaging app correspondence. Topics discussed included socio-political activism and demands by low-income mothers with multiple dependents for social support provision. From a human rights assessment perspective, our scrutiny centred on the precise nature of the conduct in question, the specific actions undertaken by the activist, and the sufficiency of the prosecution’s evidentiary threshold. Our examination confirmed that the investigating authorities failed to distinguish between peaceful civic activism and the expression of opinion on the one hand, and participation in the activities of a designated ‘prohibited’ organisation on the other. The mere act of communication, posting online, or participating in a digital forum cannot substitute for the strict legal proof required to establish a specific criminal offence. In this case, as in comparable instances, the authorities have weaponised judicial rulings declaring opposition party initiatives — specifically the ‘Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan’ and the ‘Kōshe’ party — to be ‘extremist’, thereby using designated status as a pretext for the subsequent prosecution of individuals exercising dissent and engaging in opposition political activity.

Daniyar Adilbekov

Mr Daniyar Adilbekov, a journalist and administrator of the anonymous Telegram channel “Wild Horde”(“Дикая Орда”), was convicted by a court judgment dated 18 October 2024. According to the documentation submitted, he was sentenced under Articles 274 and 419 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, receiving a final custodial sentence of four and a half years’ imprisonment. The proceedings related to publications concerning individuals who subsequently lodged formal complaints as injured parties. This case underscores the acute risks arising at the intersection of journalistic activity, the reporting of matters concerning politically prominent figures, and criminal prosecution. In such cases, particular weight attaches to verifying the accuracy of the underlying material — a procedural step explicitly requested by the journalist during trial — as well as assessing the public interest served by the publications, the existence of requisite criminal intent (mens rea), and the proportionality of the penalty imposed.

2. 2025 Cases: Pressure on Investigations and Public Oversight

Tauekel Kuzembayev

By a judgment dated 2 April 2025, Mr Tauekel Kuzembayev was convicted under Article 194(2), paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. According to the case materials, Mr Kuzembayev filmed construction sites where Uzbek nationals were employed, examined documentation, and indicated an intention to publish information regarding alleged breaches of migration law. The prosecution linked his actions to extortion. This case requires a clear distinction to be drawn between two separate issues: whether a pecuniary offence has been proved, and the legitimacy of public scrutiny, including the recording of potential infractions. It is our view that a mere intention to publish information does not, of itself, establish extortion.

Oleg Gusev

On 29 December 2025, the court found Mr Oleg Gusev guilty under Article 147(5) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (unlawful dissemination of personal data) and sentenced him to four and a half years’ imprisonment, alongside a three-year disqualification from engaging in journalistic activity. Pursuant to the provisions of the Amnesty Act, the sentence was reduced to three years, with the court ordering that the term of imprisonment be suspended subject to probation supervision. The prohibition on undertaking journalistic activity was maintained. The proceedings related to publications concerning a dispute at the Kenzhekhan Market in Almaty, which included the disclosure of information regarding the injured party and citations of earlier material by the journalist Ms Alexandra Sentsova (Alekhova). While the protection of the right to privacy constitutes a legitimate aim, the application of criminal law to matters of public interest must strictly satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality. The supplementary ban on practicing journalism impacts not only the individual concerned, but also restricts the capacity for ongoing independent reporting on public disputes.

3. 2026 Proceedings: Penalisation of Dissent and Extension of Restrictions

In 2026, serious concern was raised by cases in which criminal or regulatory proceedings were brought in response to online publications, political commentary, election monitoring, and expressions of dissent against state decisions.

Amangeldy Dzhakhin

Mr Amangeldy Dzhakhin, Chair of the Organising Committee for the unregistered political party Alğa, Qazaqstan!, was convicted on 10 June 2026 under Article 405(2) and Article 258(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, receiving a custodial sentence of seven years’ imprisonment. The trial was conducted in camera (behind closed doors). According to available accounts, defence counsel were subjected to non-disclosure undertakings, and court materials were withheld from the official judicial portal. Mr Dzhakhin had been actively campaigning for the formal registration of the party, which, according to case records, had been refused by the Ministry of Justice on more than 25 occasions. As part of the proceedings, the court ordered the confiscation of his personal assets to the value of 20 million tenge. However, the prosecution failed to undertake a proper accounting of any actual loss incurred, nor was the quantum of the financial order adequately substantiated. The holding of proceedings in camera severely restricts public oversight of the judicial process and prevents any independent scrutiny of the evidence. Taken together with the severity of the custodial sentence and the political context of the case, these circumstances give rise to grave human rights concerns. The persistent refusal to register a political party and the subsequent prosecution of its figures in Kazakhstan must be evaluated directly against the state of genuine opportunities for citizens to participate in public affairs.

Yergali Kulbayev

By a judgment dated 12 February 2026, Mr Yergali Kulbayev was convicted under Article 194(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. Mr Kulbayev was a co-founder of the public charitable foundation Uly Kōsh, an organisation involved in election monitoring. According to the prosecution’s case, during rural mayoral (akim) elections in September 2025, Mr Kulbayev and his co-defendant, Ms Aklima Yertaykyzy, allegedly demanded money from the chairperson of an election commission under threat of publishing video footage. These assertions represent the prosecution’s account of events.

Dinara Dastenova

On 6 April 2026, the Kazaly District Court sentenced Ms Dinara Dastenova to four years and three months’ imprisonment under Article 194(2) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Ms Dastenova, a nurse by profession at the ‘Shipager’ polyclinic, maintained a blog wherein she published material addressing local socio-political issues. The evidence in the case file featured a video depicting the living conditions of a woman engaged in public works, alongside questions regarding her employment status. The prosecution linked subsequent contact with a local authority representative to allegations of extortion. The cases of Mr Kulbaev and Ms Dastenova are of particular significance within the context of public oversight of elections and local government bodies. Regrettably, as we were denied access to the criminal case files, we are unable to reach definitive findings as to the guilt or innocence of the convicted individuals. Nevertheless, we emphasise the fundamental distinction between criminal extortion and the publication of information concerning alleged improprieties. This boundary must be determined on the basis of objective evidence and in full conformity with the law, rather than being deployed as an instrument to prosecute bloggers and civil society campaigners for their public interest activities.

Mirshat Sarsenbayev

The blogger Mr Mirshat Sarsenbayev was sentenced to seven and a half years’ imprisonment under Article 194(4), paragraphs 2, of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. He published videos on YouTube concerning alleged sanitary violations at the «Poultry Agro» LLP poultry farm, including the transport of semi-live chicks. Following official inspections, the enterprise was subjected to administrative liability and fined 688,000 tenge. The prosecution submitted that Mr Sarsenbayev demanded money in exchange for ceasing further publications; the defence contested the charge, citing insufficient evidence. Mr Sarsenbayev pleaded not guilty. In this case, a clear distinction must be drawn between the existence of a criminal charge and the legitimacy of public interest scrutiny over commercial operations. Reporting on sanitary breaches is capable of triggering regulatory inspections and serving the public interest. Consequently, in evaluating the safety of the conviction, the quality of the evidence, procedural guarantees, and judicial independence are of paramount importance. We consider that the mere publication of critical material does not, of itself, establish blackmail or extortion, just as the public interest value of a publication does not inherently negate the possibility that an offence has been committed.

Azamat Omarov

In September 2026, Mr Azamat Omarov, author of the YouTube channel “Current Situation” (“Ахуал Сегодня”), was sentenced to three and a half years’ restriction of liberty pursuant to Article 174(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In addition, a five-year disqualification order was imposed, barring him from engaging in public affairs, civic life, or economic activity, as well as journalistic activity or public commentary. The proceedings arose from satiric statements directed at the President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and the incumbent administration. Mr Omarov was remanded in custody from the time of his initial arrest through to the passing of sentence. The imposition of a restriction of liberty order, combined with a prolonged prohibition on public-interest commentary and civic activity, effectively precludes the continuation of his professional work. Human Rights Watch has characterised the prosecution as an instance of the criminalisation of political satire, drawing attention to the overbroad application of the offence of inciting discord. ^[2]

Urazaly Yerzhanov

According to the case materials, Mr Urazaly Yerzhanov posted calls for a boycott of the referendum held on 15 March 2026, advocating that citizens express their opposition to the draft Constitution and abstain from voting. The court sentenced him to four years’ restriction of liberty, accompanied by a supplementary five-year disqualification from participating in public affairs, civic life, and journalistic activities. Advising or urging the public to boycott a vote constitutes a form of political expression and must be assessed through the prism of the rights to freedom of expression and public participation. It is a fundamental principle that measures under criminal law must be applied strictly where a specific statutory offence has been established, rather than deployed to suppress or restrict peaceful dissent against state policy.

Ermek Narymbai

In August 2026, Mr Ermek Narymbai was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment under Article 430 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan for non-compliance with judicial acts. He had previously been subject to court-imposed prohibitions barring him from engaging in public affairs and civic life activities and posting on social media platforms. The submitted materials demonstrate that the initiation of these new criminal proceedings was preceded by the systematic imposition of administrative penalties. This mechanism warrants particular scrutinisation — restrictions imposed under an earlier conviction may be leveraged as the legal predicate for further criminal prosecution in respect of subsequent public statements. Consequently, the original sentence operates to constrain an individual’s civil and political participation long after the primary sanction has been served.

Sanzhar Bokayev

On 18 March 2026, authorities detained Mr Sanzhar Bokayev, a Kazakhstani civic activist who had published material concerning alleged legislative breaches, the misappropriation of public funds, the recycling levy scheme, and municipal construction projects in Almaty. He has remained in pre-trial detention since his arrest. In 2022, Mr Bokayev attempted to establish the political party Namys; however, the party was denied official registration. On 16 October 2026, criminal proceedings against Mr Bokayev commenced before the Almaly District Court of Almaty. He faces charges under Articles 188, 190, 218, 274, and 340 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The specific counts include allegations stemming from his published reports on purported irregularities in municipal infrastructure redevelopment, the removal of granite slab paving, and unlawful tree felling. During the preliminary hearing, defense counsel submitted that they had been deprived of adequate facilities to inspect the video evidence submitted by the prosecution and petitioned the Court to remit the case to the Prosecutor’s Office. The Court dismissed the defence application. The Bokayev case is of significant interest when examining the situation of public figures who raise concerns regarding the expenditure of public funds and alleged improprieties by state authorities. A portion of the charges brought against him relates to events dating back to 2018. The prosecution of historical events does not, in and of itself, establish that criminal proceedings are politically motivated. However, the prosecution of a public figure prominent for his public criticism raises serious questions regarding the potential chilling effect of such proceedings. For other activists, journalists, and civic initiatives, the risk of criminal prosecution may operate as a warning sign, curtailing their willingness to publicly interrogate matters affecting the interests of state bodies and affiliated entities. Consequently, the significance of this case for the assessment of civic space extends beyond the immediate position of Mr Bokayev himself; it lies in the concern that the practice of criminal prosecution may construct barriers to public criticism, civic oversight, and political participation in Kazakhstan.

Administrative Proceedings: Sanctions for Incitement, Online Sharing, and Assembly

Administrative prosecution operates as an independent mechanism for the curtailment of civic space. Even where penalties fall short of custodial sentences of prolonged duration, administrative detention, fines, and repeated prosecutions exert a significant restrictive effect on an individual’s capacity to participate in public affairs and political life. The magnitude of the monetary penalties imposed warrants particular scrutiny — the financial burden incurred can exercise a distinct chilling effect on civic engagement, deterring further participation in public affairs and eroding public willingness to assert fundamental rights and freedoms. In 2024, our monitoring recorded 201 instances of administrative detention and fines imposed under Articles 488, 489, 456-2, 667, 669, 434, 73-3, 73-1, and 120 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In 2025, our monitoring recorded 290 instances of administrative detention and fines imposed under Articles 488, 489, 456-2, 653, 667, 669, 434, and 73-3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. In 2026, a sharp decline in civic activity was observed. As of the drafting of this analysis in October 2026, approximately 77 instances of administrative detention and fines have been recorded under Articles 102, 120, 488, 489, 440-1, 456-2, 613, 667, 669, 434, and 73-3 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan. These figures relate to the aggregate set of statutory provisions deployed to prosecute civil society actors, online commentators, media practitioners, and individuals targeted for expressing dissent against government decisions. Naturally, pending further verification, these data cannot be construed as representing exclusively politically motivated proceedings. Nevertheless, the individual case studies set out in this submission illustrate the specific nature of the conduct penalised by the authorities.

2024: Public Assemblies and Social Media Expressive Conduct

Throughout 2024, administrative sanctions were routinely imposed in respect of involvement in peaceful public assemblies, single-person demonstrations, social media posts soliciting assembly, and public support for an unregistered political party.

Mr Bauyrzhan Atinbaev was sentenced to 20 days’ administrative detention under Article 488(11) of the Code of Administrative Offences following an expression of support for Mr Duman Mukhammedkarim outside court proceedings.
Mr Amangeldy Dzhakhin was remanded to 20 days’ administrative detention in May following a demonstration outside the Ministry of Justice concerning repeated efforts to secure formal registration for the Alğa, Qazaqstan! party. In December, he received a further 12-day term of administrative detention following his participation in a solidarity gathering for another activist.
Ms Zhanel Akhmetova was sentenced to 15 days’ administrative detention arising from a public gathering at the Independence Monument, where attendees commemorated those killed during the violent suppressions of 1986, 2011, and 2022.
Mr Seitzhan Dzhomartov was subjected to an administrative fine of 70 Monthly Calculation Indices in relation to a video recording published online detailing prospective assemblies scheduled for 21–22 March.
Ms Gulnara Nartayeva was fined for holding a single-person picket outside the Shymkent City Administration (Akimat).
Ms Aizhan Dzholdasova incurred a financial penalty for participating in a demonstration calling for the official registration of the Alğa, Qazaqstan! party.
Ms Almagul Abdullayeva was fined following the publication of a video on TikTok advocating attendance at a public rally.
These cases demonstrate that the restrictions imposed impinged upon diverse forms of public expression and engagement, ranging from physical participation in public demonstrations to online publication. Where the drafting or sharing of posts, or public calls to assembly, attract liability amounting to administrative detention, the exposure to penal sanction extends beyond designated organisers to encompass individuals disseminating information concerning events or expressing solidarity with participants.

2025: Liability for Digital Communication and Notifications of Public Assembly

Throughout 2025, documented cases recorded instances of administrative detention imposed for single-person vigils, as well as for the publication and online re-sharing of material concerning political events.

Mr Ruslan Kazymbetov (Biketov) was sentenced to 15 days’ administrative detention for holding a sole protest in support of the detained satirical blogger, Mr Temirlan Yensebek.
Ms Marua Yeskendirova was remanded in custody for 10 days following a rally in Oral, at which she called for the release of political prisoners and measures to address the rising cost of living.
Mr Baurzhan Shambulov, a correspondent for the Region EurAsia newspaper, received 10 days’ administrative detention for re-posting video appeals that called for nationwide peaceful demonstrations.
Mr Yevgeniy Khabarov was subjected to an administrative fine for publishing a post examining the grounds on which authorisation for a peaceful assembly had been refused. In his post, Mr Khabarov contested the authorities’ assertion that a prior event had already been scheduled for the requested time and venue.
Mr Okan Muqazhan was fined for sharing information regarding a planned rally within a WhatsApp group messaging channel; on appeal, the court of second instance mitigated the financial penalty.
Mr Meirzhan Doskarayev, acting as legal counsel, was made subject to administrative proceedings after publishing a video detailing the detention conditions of his client. The proceedings were subsequently discontinued by the court on the ground that no administrative offence had been established (absentia delicti). The final case examined underscores the critical necessity of rigorous judicial oversight, demonstrating that administrative charges do not invariably culminate in a formal penalty or sanction. Concurrently, the mere instigation of disciplinary or administrative proceedings against a legal practitioner — specifically for publicly disclosing the detention conditions of a client — operates as a potent deterrent, exerting a broader chilling effect across the legal profession and the human rights community.

2026: Referendums, Political Publications, and Calls to Public Assembly

In 2026, a significant proportion of administrative proceedings were initiated in connection with public discourse surrounding the draft Constitution, scheduled referendum, and related political assemblies.

Mr Ruslan Toleu was sentenced to 25 days’ administrative detention following a social media post advocating for the Kazakh language, which included a call to assemble.
Ms Gulnaz Serikbayeva was remanded in custody for 10 days after posting a message urging relatives and supporters of Mr Marat Zhylanbaev to seek access to him during his hunger strike. She pleaded not guilty, maintaining that the publication was a legitimate exercise of her right to freedom of expression.
Ms Shynar Abeuova was handed a 15-day administrative custodial sentence for sharing a public appeal calling on citizens to join demonstrations.
Mr Zhanat Zhamaliev received 20 days’ administrative detention in connection with a post containing a call to protest.
Mr Serik Baibekov was sentenced to 5 days’ detention for publishing a video on TikTok encouraging members of the public to assemble outside the regional administration headquarters (akimat).
Ms Marua Yeskendirova was sentenced in July to 25 days’ administrative detention after conducting a sole protest outside the Oral City Administration building, which she live-streamed on Facebook.
Ms Makpal Kozhakanova, a journalist, was summarily fined for conducting a social media poll regarding the upcoming referendum. Court proceedings in her case were and sealed from publication.
Ms Nazira Mamyrova was fined following the publication of a TikTok video concerning the National Assembly (Kurultai).
The cases cited are instructive not only in terms of the specific provisions of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, but also in relation to the substantive nature of the expression restricted. Engaging in public debate surrounding a referendum, publishing opinion polls, circulating details of a public gathering, or calling for a peaceful assembly constitute quintessential forms of civic and political discourse. Restricting such activities in Kazakhstan substantially curtails the space for transparent, unfettered scrutiny of governmental decisions.

Restrictions on Freedom of Expression and Independent Journalism

Cases involving journalists and online commentators highlight a multifaceted exposure to legal risk. Proceedings typically stem from several distinct activities: the publication of critical commentary, the dissemination of personal data, reporting on alleged official wrongdoing, the production of political satire, and the critical examination of state action.

1. Lukpan Akhmedyarov

The journalist and founder of the investigative project “Simply Journalism” (“Просто журналистика”) was placed under criminal investigation pursuant to Article 274 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, which penalises the dissemination of knowingly false information. The proceedings were instituted following his publication of a list — compiled by the Ukrainian initiative I Want to Live — purporting to identify Kazakhstani nationals fighting alongside Russian armed forces. One individual named in the document maintained that he was employed in Russia on a rotational shift basis and had not participated in active combat. Mr Akhmedyarov stated that the material had been shared solely to draw the attention of the Kazakhstani authorities to the matter. In June 2026, Mr Akhmedyarov was detained in Astana. Reports simultaneously indicated that he had lost access to his Facebook and WhatsApp accounts. A travel ban prohibiting him from leaving Kazakhstan has since been imposed. Where journalistic coverage relies on third-party sources, duty of care, professional due diligence, and the public interest remain paramount. However, criminal proceedings arising from the dissemination of third-party material must strictly require proof of the requisite legal elements (actu reus and mens rea) of the offense, and must not serve as a substitute for standard editorial fact-checking.

2. Dinara Yegubayeva

In August 2026, the journalist Ms Dinara Yegubayeva reported that criminal proceedings had been instituted against her under Article 345(1) of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, following a road traffic collision involving a cyclist in Almaty. According to Ms Yegubayeva, summary administrative proceedings were reclassified as a criminal investigation, and a travel ban was subsequently imposed, restricting her from leaving the country. She has maintained that her prosecution may be politically motivated. The criminal prosecution of a prominent journalist, coupled with the imposition of procedural restrictions, threatens to exert a chilling effect not only on the individual concerned, but on independent media personnel and civil society activists more broadly. In this instance, the lack of procedural transparency surrounding the legal measures adopted gives rise to serious concerns regarding the potential for selective law enforcement, thereby encouraging self-censorship among journalists covering matters of public interest and political sensitivity.

3. Vadim Boreiko

The construction company Etude-Ybyrai LLP initiated civil proceedings against Mr Vadim Boreiko, creator of the YouTube channel “Giperborei”, in connection with a series of reports on the construction of the Premier residential complex in Almaty. The original quantum of damages claimed exceeded 71 million tenge. Pre-trial freezing orders were granted against the journalist’s personal bank accounts, savings, and pension assets. According to media reports, the claim was subsequently revised downwards to 43 million tenge. Disproportionately high financial claims, coupled with the interim freezing of personal assets, serve to severely impede ongoing journalistic activities prior to any final judicial determination. Such practices exert a demonstrable chilling effect, inducing self-censorship among journalists and independent commentators who must weigh the risk of substantial pecuniary loss alongside the prospect of litigation when reporting on commercial interests. Consequently, matters of public interest are increasingly deterred from independent investigative scrutiny and open public debate.

4. Aidos Sadykov

Co-founder of the YouTube channel Base, Mr Aidos Sadykov was mortally wounded in Kyiv on 18 June 2024 and subsequently succumbed to his injuries on 2 July. Ukrainian law enforcement agencies identified two Kazakhstani nationals as suspects in the attack. One suspect subsequently returned to Kazakhstan, while the second remains at large; the Kazakhstani authorities declined to extradite its nationals to Ukraine. In May 2025, the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Kazakhstan further refused a request for mutual legal assistance from the Ukrainian authorities to interview the suspects. The significance of this case for assessing the state of civic space extends beyond the gravity of an offence committed against a journalist critical of the Kazakhstani authorities. It directly challenges the State’s willingness to ensure an effective investigation into violent crimes targeted at journalists in exile. Furthermore, the opacity of the Kazakhstani investigative bodies and the enduring absence of legal accountability severely erode public confidence in mechanisms intended to protect journalists, thereby fostering a climate of vulnerability. Each individual episode warrants a distinct legal appraisal. It would be improper to deem all such proceedings politically motivated as a matter of course. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of numerous administrative proceedings, a substantial fine, penalties imposed for participation in a public demonstration, and subsequent criminal prosecution places a severe burden upon the journalists, unduly curtailing their capacity to exercise their profession and engage in public affairs.

5. Satire and Criticism of State Authorities

The case of Mr Azamat Omarov illustrates the particular risks faced by satirical and commentary formats. Even where a non-custodial sentence is handed down, a prolonged disqualification from political, public, and journalistic activities may effectively dismantle an author’s presence in the public sphere. Satire, caustic criticism, and adverse appraisals of state authorities fall squarely within the scope of the right to freedom of expression. We maintain that any restrictions must be prescribed by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and satisfy the requirements of necessity and proportionality. Conversely, the broad bans on future public activity as applied in Kazakhstan operate as a blanket restraint, impacting the entirety of an individual’s prospective speech.

Peaceful Assembly: Administrative Restrictions and the Chilling Effect

The practical enjoyment of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly turns not merely on formal regulatory approval. Crucial factors include the transparency of the notification regime, the predictability of local authority decision-making, the availability of effective judicial review against refusals, and immunity from sanction for peaceful participation or publicising an assembly.

The case law reviewed reveals a pattern of recurring administrative practices:

1. The imposition of administrative liability for participating in solo demonstrations, as well as protests conducted near public authorities and judicial facilities.
2. The penalisation of online posts and shares containing information regarding proposed public assemblies.
3. The cumulative application of administrative penalties, including instances where individuals persist in expressing political views.
4. Deficits in the transparency of municipal decisions withholding consent for proposed assemblies.
5. The reliance on digital surveillance of online communications as a catalyst for initiating administrative enforcement proceedings.

A case in point is the legal dispute between the Legal Media Centre Public Foundation and the Astana City Administration (Akimat), following the latter’s refusal to grant access to information regarding public assemblies held between March and August 2025. The Department of Internal Policy withheld the requested disclosures on the grounds of data protection legislation. According to Ms Diana Okremova, Director of the Legal Media Centre, the requested particulars — comprising the date, time, location, proposed subject matter, anticipated attendance, and details of the organisers — were requisite both for planning independent peaceful assemblies and ensuring procedural transparency. This litigation highlighted a systemic defect — where information essential for planning public events is rendered inaccessible, citizens are impeded in exercising their right to freedom of peaceful assembly. We submit that reliance on data protection exemptions must be specifically justified and must not be deployed by local authorities as a blanket basis for refusing requests for information of public interest. Furthermore, the imposition of penalties for publishing information concerning assemblies exerts a chilling effect on public discourse. Where individuals face the risk of administrative fines or custodial detention for sharing social media posts, messaging via WhatsApp group chats, or issuing calls to attend an event, public willingness to disseminate information is markedly undermined, even where such activity constitutes peaceful expression.

In-Camera Proceedings and Ancillary Restrictions: Consequences Beyond the Sentence

The contraction of civic space is not driven solely by the fact of criminal conviction itself. Disabling restrictions and ancillary penalties — which may remain in force following an individual’s release or upon the completion of their primary custodial sentence — exert a profound impact.

In-Camera Judicial Proceedings

The trial of Mr Amangeldy Dzhakhin was conducted in camera (behind closed doors). We have likewise observed restrictions on access to case materials, alongside non-disclosure undertakings imposed on defence counsel that preclude public discussion of the underlying circumstances of the case. The holding of proceedings in camera does not, in and of itself, establish that a conviction is unlawful; the law may provide for narrow exceptions to the principle of open justice. However, in cases touching upon political activity, the public interest in Kazakhstan is exceptionally high, and we observe a growing pattern whereby trials in camera are deployed almost routinely. Any derogation from open justice must be strictly justified, and any resulting restrictions must be strictly necessary and proportionate. The attendant lack of accessible information severely impairs the ability of human rights monitors to assess compliance with the right to a fair trial.

Atajurt: Conviction of 19 Activists Following Demonstration Against Human Rights Violations in Xinjiang

On 13 November 2025, 19 activists were detained in the Almaty Region following a protest near the Kazakh-Chinese border against human rights violations in Xinjiang and demanding the release of Mr Alymnur Turganbai, an ethnic Kazakh detained in China. Initial administrative sanctions were subsequently escalated to criminal charges under Article 174 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (‘incitement of social, national, tribal, racial, class or religious discord’). On 13 April 2026, the Taldykorgan Court found all 19 defendants guilty. Nine were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; sentences for two women with young children were deferred; and the remaining eight received suspended custodial sentences. In addition, all those convicted were subjected to a three-year ban on engaging in public or political activity. The proceedings were conducted in camera. The Atajurt case demonstrates how participation in public demonstrations can result not only in detention, but also in prolonged custodial sentences and restrictions on civil and political activity. Coupled with administrative penalties for participating in public assemblies and the prosecution of social media posts, these measures risk exerting a chilling effect on other activists and organisations documenting human rights abuses.

Disqualifications from Public and Professional Activity

In the cases examined, supplementary restrictions were imposed on journalists, online commentators, and civil society activists. Mr Oleg Gusev and Ms Alexandra Sentsova were subjected to bans on practicing journalism. Mr Azamat Omarov was prohibited from engaging in public affairs, political, social, economic commentary or journalistic activities. Mr Urazaly Yerzhanov was barred from public affairs and journalistic activities, whilst Mr Yermek Narymbai was banned from civic participation and commenting on social media networks. In Kazakhstan, such ancillary measures carry ramifications that extend far beyond the penalty for the specific predicate offence. In practice, affected individuals are deprived of the capacity to work in their profession, participate in public discourse, lead independent initiatives, or publicly scrutinise governmental action. Regrettably, these disqualifications are frequently framed in broad terms, creating a constant risk that any subsequent expression will be construed as a breach of a court order, triggering further prosecution. Consequently, supplementary sentencing in Kazakhstan has effectively evolved into an autonomous instrument for curbing civic participation, lingering for years after the original conviction has been handed down.

Access to Legal Counsel and the Conditions of Detention of Marat Zhylanbayev

Since January 2026, severe impediments have been documented regarding legal counsel’s access to Mr Marat Zhylanbayev, who is currently held at the detention facility in Stepnogorsk. Obstructions to legal visits have persisted despite repeated submissions by his defence team and explicit guidance from the Prosecutor confirming both the lawful entitlement to visit Mr Zhylanbayev and the existence of his formal request for legal assistance. Furthermore, it is noted that Mr Zhylanbayev has engaged in periodic hunger strikes. However, official requests regarding the status of his health have been met with demands for a formal power of attorney authorising legal representation. Ms Bakhytzhan Toregozhina has been systematically prevented from obtaining this power of attorney for over three years. Subsequent court challenges regarding these refusals were dismissed on the grounds that the execution of a power of attorney constitutes a right vested solely in Mr Zhylanbayev, rather than an entitlement of Ms Toregozhina. Applications to summon Mr Zhylanbayev to attend court to determine his position directly were likewise denied. We emphasise that equivalent applications for powers of attorney to represent individuals before state authorities and judicial bodies have been granted routinely and without impediment in other detention facilities. These circumstances place an urgent duty on the State to conduct a prompt investigation into the Akmola Regional Custodial Authority, specifically regarding compliance with the right to legal advice and representation, the protection of health, and standards of detention. Indeed, in April 2025, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention called for the immediate release of Mr Zhylanbayev, citing Kazakhstan’s failure to uphold its international obligations. ^[3] The restriction of access to legal counsel and assistance is not an isolated concern affecting Mr Zhylanbayev alone. It fundamental impairs defence safeguards and undermines independent oversight of the human rights of individuals held in custody.

Restrictions on Civil Society Organisations and Independent Initiatives

Criminal prosecutions and administrative proceedings represent only part of the broader landscape. The civic space is also contracting through structural impediments — organisations face acute financial hardship, severe restrictions on access to information, administrative barriers to public assembly and event organisation, and mounting personal risks for staff and supporters alike.

«NeMolchi.kz»: The Impact of Financial Impairment

In 2026, the human rights movement “NeMolchi.kz” (“НеМолчи.kz”, Break the Silence) announced the suspension of its helpline operations, which had provided free legal and advisory support to women and children affected by violence for a decade. According to statement issued by the organisation, its bank accounts and payment cards were frozen, its capacity to receive domestic donations was severely curtailed, and its operational staff was reduced to just four members. Ms Dina Smailova (Tansari) stated that while the foundation is not ceasing operations entirely, it is temporarily unable to sustain its previous capacity for free consultations; it nevertheless intends to continue providing legal representation and case management in the most severe criminal matters via social media and messaging platforms. While this account reflects the official position of the «NeMolchi.kz» Foundation — with Ms Smailova having repeatedly raised concerns on social media regarding the freezing of the foundation’s accounts and the doubtful legal basis thereof — the ramifications for beneficiaries remain acute. Where an independent non-governmental organisation is deprived of the means to remunerate its staff and maintain a functional hotline, access to support for victims of violence is inevitably curtailed. This serves to demonstrate how financial and administrative restrictions can effectively impair the realisation of fundamental rights, even in the absence of a formal prohibition on an organisation’s activities.

Registration of Political Parties and Capacity for Self-Organisation

Documentation concerning the Alğa, Qazaqstan! political party indicates that its applications for formal registration have been repeatedly refused (on more than 26 occasions). The absence of any meaningful opportunity to register an independent political party creates systemic obstacles to transitioning from ad hoc civic activism to sustained organisational activity. When coupled with administrative sanctions imposed for participating in demonstrations supporting the party, as well as the criminal prosecution of its leadership and key activists, this creates an environment that severely curtails both institutional political participation and the public expression of dissent outside state-sanctioned political structures. We observe that as of 2026, Alğa, Qazaqstan! continues to face arbitrary refusals of registration. We accordingly confirm that genuine opposition forces remain systematically deprived of registered political parties capable of contesting elections. Reference may also be made to the grassroots civic campaigns “Turn Back Time!” and “Save Kok-Zhailau”. These initiatives demonstrate that civic engagement in Kazakhstan extends beyond institutional opposition and conventional human-rights advocacy. Citizens are equally capable of mobilising around localised, issue-specific matters directly impacting their daily lives and local environment. The key issue is not merely the occurrence of public protest per se, but rather the extent to which the authorities demonstrate a willingness to account for public opinion, safeguard the right to collective expression, and engage in substantive dialogue with civil society.

The “Turn Back Time!” Civic Campaign

Following Kazakhstan’s transition to a single time zone (UTC+5) on 1 March 2024, a public campaign was launched demanding the restoration of the previous time zone configuration. Having successfully attained the statutory threshold of 50,000 signatures, the corresponding official petition was formally accepted for review by public authorities. Nevertheless, the petitioners’ demands were ultimately rejected, and a subsequent legal challenge seeking judicial review of the administrative decision proved unsuccessful. Although campaigners continued their public advocacy through further petitioning and official representations, campaign organisers were subjected to intimidation, and public roundtable discussions convened to address the issue were systematically prohibited. This episode highlighted profound institutional deficiencies in existing public participation mechanisms, demonstrating that even widespread public support fails to guarantee the reconsideration or revision of executive decisions.

The “Save Kok-Zhailau” Civic Initiative

The campaign opposing the development of a mountain ski resort in the Kok-Zhailau tract, adjacent to Almaty, mobilised a coalition of environmental human rights defenders, subject-matter experts, and civic activists. Participants employed a range of lawful actions, including public petitions, demonstrations, public consultations, and formal representations to public authorities. Notably, members of the initiative group reported repeated, unsuccessful attempts to secure formal legal incorporation for a non-governmental organisation. In 2019, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev directed that the project be suspended, resulting in the halting of resort construction — an outcome widely regarded as a notable success for civic advocacy. However, by 2026, proposals for the development of the mountain cluster were restored to the executive agenda, accompanied by a reversal of the President’s former position. This prompted renewed public opposition to the development of Kok-Zhailau. Consequently, civil society members experienced profound disillusionment with President Tokayev and faced severe threats alongside the systematic disregard of their representations. This case illustrates that civic mobilisation can exercise a meaningful influence on executive decision-making; nevertheless, such administrative concessions are not necessarily immutable. Furthermore, the persistent operational impediments to formal registration highlight the systemic barriers encountered by civic initiatives seeking to transition from informal campaigns to sustained, institutionalised civil society entities.

The ‘11 Million’ Civic Initiative

In July 2026, the formation of ‘11M’, a non-party socio-political movement, was announced in Kazakhstan. The originators of the initiative include Messrs Alnur Ilyashev, Rustem Amangeldy, and former members of the Majilis, Mr Vladimir Dvoretsky and Ms Gaukhar Tanasheva. The movement declared its intention to mobilise citizens unrepresented by existing political parties and to campaign for greater electoral transparency. This initiative arose in the wake of reforms to the composition of Parliament — following the entry into force of the new Constitution, self-nomination of candidates in parliamentary elections was abolished in favour of a fully proportional party-list system. In the autumn of 2026, several participants in the movement were subjected to premises searches, arrests, and the institution of criminal proceedings. While these developments illustrate the avenues available for independent political self-organisation in Kazakhstan, they also highlight the severe impediments to exercising such rights in practice. Although the initiation of criminal proceedings does not, in itself, establish political motivation, the prosecution of members of a movement established to unite non-party citizens and advocate for electoral integrity is of significant concern within the context of the shrinking civic space, directly impinging upon the rights to freedom of association and participation in public affairs.

Access to Information of Public Interest

The litigation brought by the Legal Media Centre against the Astana City Administration (Akimat) underscores that access to information is essential not only for media practitioners but also for organisers of peaceful assemblies. In the absence of publicly available details concerning public events, citizens are severely hampered in planning assemblies, challenging official refusals, and scrutinising the lawfulness and proportionality of state action. Such systemic barriers compound administrative restrictions — while the right of assembly may exist in formal legal terms, its practical exercise is rendered precarious by a lack of transparency and procedural clarity.

The Chilling Effect and Self-Censorship

The cumulative impact of criminal prosecutions, administrative penalties, closed judicial proceedings, ancillary restrictions, and systemic operational impediments is conducive to a pervasive climate of self-censorship. It is not requisite that every individual citizen be personally subjected to direct state sanction; rather, it suffices that public engagement is widely perceived as a material hazard to personal liberty, professional standing, financial security, or the safety of family members. Under such conditions, individuals routinely elect to refrain from publication, desist from disseminating information regarding public assemblies, avoid contact with independent civil society organisations, discontinue public monitoring activities, or transition their operations into less visible formats. Independent civil society initiatives are consequently exposed to a severe risk of attrition in membership and the erosion of their operational viability. The totality of the cases examined substantiates a grave and present risk of a chilling effect upon civil society.

Overview of Trends (2024–2026)

The cases examined enable the identification of several overarching trends:

Criminal Prosecution of Activists, Journalists, and Online Commentators: Proceedings have frequently been instituted under statutory provisions concerning the incitement of hatred, the dissemination of false information, the unlawful processing of personal data, extortion, and non-compliance with judicial orders. In each instance, the repeated application of these provisions against individuals engaged in public criticism or civic oversight gives rise to serious human rights concerns.
Administrative Sanctions for Peaceful Public Activity: Penalties have routinely been imposed for participation in single-person demonstrations and peaceful protests, as well as for publishing details regarding public assemblies, re-sharing material, or posting comments on social media platforms. The risk of incurring liability extends both to event organisers and to individuals who disseminate information regarding such gatherings or express solidarity with attendees.

Restrictions Beyond the Principal Sentence

Measures exceeding the scope of the primary penalty — specifically, prohibitions on engaging in journalism, publicistic writing, and broader civic and political activities — can effectively bar convicted persons from pursuing their professional vocation and participating in public debate for a period of several years. Evidence before us indicates that, in isolated instances, an alleged breach of such a restriction has served as the threshold for instigating fresh criminal proceedings.

Insufficient Transparency in Judicial Proceedings and Decision-Making

The prevalence of in camera hearings and restricted access to case materials significantly impedes effective public scrutiny. The routine adoption of closed-door proceedings in the absence of compelling, publicly comprehensible statutory justifications has fostered a widespread public perception that such measures are deployed to curtail public oversight of the administration of justice and to conceal matters of significant socio-political import. Furthermore, the systematic refusal to disclose information concerning peaceful assemblies severely obstructs the exercise of fundamental rights that are contingent upon the timely receipt of official data.

Pressure on Civil Society Infrastructure

The restrictions placed upon civil society affect not merely individuals, but extend to the capacity of non-governmental organisations to deliver frontline support, raise funds, retain qualified personnel, and convene public assemblies. Where an organisation’s financial viability and operational stability are compromised, the impact is borne directly by the vulnerable populations reliant upon its services. These restrictive measures operate cumulatively. Administrative sanctions serve to curtail specific acts of public assembly; criminal prosecutions effectively exclude human rights defenders from public life for prolonged periods; post-conviction disqualifications impede their eventual re-engagement with civic affairs; and financial and informational impediments undermine the operational capacity of organisations tasked with documenting abuses or providing legal redress. Taken together, these measures create a coercive environment in which independent participation in public affairs carries prohibitive personal risk and financial cost.

Conclusions

The judicial practice examined demonstrates that the contraction of civic space in Kazakhstan is being driven not through any single, isolated prohibition, but rather through the cumulative application of legislative, administrative, and operational mechanisms. Criminal prosecutions brought against activists, journalists, and online commentators operate in tandem with administrative sanctions imposed for peaceful assembly and online speech, post-conviction restrictions on further civic activity, a lack of transparency in certain judicial proceedings, and systemic obstacles placed in the path of independent organisations. Of the grave concern is not merely the severity of individual sanctions, but their compound effect. Restrictions barring individuals from engaging in journalistic or editorial activities risk depriving them of their very livelihood and capacity to practice their profession. Administrative detention imposed for disseminating notices of public assemblies creates a distinct chilling effect, deterring citizens from reporting on or publicising peaceful events. Impairments to access to information severely impede the organisation of peaceful assemblies, while the financial precarity forced upon independent civil society organisations significantly reduces the availability of legal assistance and social support to the public. In every instance, our human rights assessment is grounded in empirical case material — namely, the particulars of the charge, the probative evidence, the arguments submitted by the defence, the judicial reasoning set out in the judgment, and the availability of appellate remedies. We frequently observe that the mere institution of criminal proceedings does not, in and of itself, substantiate political motivation; rather, such motivation becomes evident upon consideration of the conviction and any ancillary penalties imposed. We maintain that the prosecution of activists does not absolve the State of its obligations to guarantee a fair trial and to adhere to international human rights standards. Nevertheless, the totality of the cases examined demonstrates a systemic issue — individuals who seek to scrutinise the actions of public authorities, disseminate critical information, exercise their freedom of peaceful assembly, or form independent political and civic associations face substantial legal and operational risks.
Accordingly, the available evidence points to a continued narrowing of the space for independent civil society activity in Kazakhstan. Addressing this trajectory requires, above all, political will on the part of the state leadership — a willingness to tolerate dissent and political opposition; the creation of conditions conducive to genuine political competition; the transparent and proportionate enforcement of legislation; the safeguarding of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly; the guarantee of fair trial rights; an end to unwarranted restrictions on public life; and the establishment of an operating environment in which independent organisations can function sustainably and assist the public.
Methodological Note: This analysis reviews documented material covering 2024, 2025, and the period from January to October 2026. It does not purport to constitute an exhaustive statistical census of all politically motivated administrative and criminal proceedings in Kazakhstan. A clear distinction is maintained throughout the text between established facts, prosecution allegations, defence pleadings, and reporting by non-governmental organisations; contested matters are not presented as factual findings unless corroborated by the available documentary record.

Appendix: Chronological Table of Judicial Proceedings
Prepared by “Ar.Rukh.Khak» (“Ар.Рух.Хак”) Public Foundation

Almaty, Kazakhstan, October 2026

^[1] International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) и Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR), Kazakhstan: Constitutional Reform Accompanied by Escalating Crackdown on Critics, Media and Online Expression, 24 июля 2026 года. Материал опубликован также на CIVICUS Monitor: https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/constitutional-reform-accompanied-by-escalating-crackdown-on-critics-media-and-online-expression/
² Human Rights Watch, Satire Can Be a Crime in Kazakhstan, 17 сентября 2026 года: https://www.hrw.org/news/2026/09/17/satire-can-be-a-crime-in-kazakhstan
^[3] Human Rights Watch, Всемирный доклад 2026: Казахстан, раздел о политических оппонентах, Марате Жыланбаеве и свободе выражения мнения: https://www.hrw.org/ru/world-report/2026/country-chapters/kazakhstan