Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch

Freedom of Assembly and Press Freedom in Kyrgyzstan
Roundtable, March 26, 2008
Hyatt, Bishkek

Introduction

Dear Mr. Nurlan Sadykov, Mr. Kahn, ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to thank you for coming today to take part in this very important discussion of Freedom of Expression in Kyrgyzstan.  

As in any country striving for democracy, there are central freedoms that must be upheld for true democratic development to take place.   The Kyrgyz Constitution recognizes this and provides every Kyrgyz with wide-ranging rights and freedoms which are – and I am quoting –  “fundamental” and “belong to them from birth.”  It goes on to say that “they determine the meaning and content of the activity of the legislature, the executive, and local self-government bodies.”   In other words, the institutions of government are here to serve the people and protect their individual rights – not the other way around.

The Constitution goes on to say that these rights “are not exhaustive and shall not be interpreted as negating or diminishing other universally-recognized human rights and freedoms.”   In this passage, the Kyrgyz Constitution is truly farsighted, seeking to expand rights rather than curtail them and again locating rights and freedoms – appropriately with the individual – not with the State. Today I would like to talk about two specific freedoms that are important to Kyrgyzstan’s continued democratic development –  Freedom of Assembly and Freedom of Expression.

Regarding Public Assemblies

The Kyrgyz Constitution addresses Freedom of Assembly in various places.  Article 21 says that “Citizens of the Kyrgyz Republic have the right to freedom of association.”  Article 25 says that, “Citizens of the Kyrgyz republic shall have the right to assemble peacefully, without weapons and conduct political meetings, rallies, marches, demonstrations and pickets on the condition of prior notification of state authorities or local self-government bodies.  The procedures and conditions for conducting them shall be established by law.”  

In other words, citizens have the right to assemble freely, but state authorities will define the conditions.  This is reasonable and the way it is in most countries, including the United States.  Individual freedoms often need to be balanced with other concerns.  In this case, public safety concerns.  But as article 18 of the Kyrgyz Constitution declares, “Where such measures are taken, constitutional rights and freedoms shall not be affected in their essence.” 

In November, shortly before the parliamentary elections, the Bishkek Kenesh adopted a regulation, which had the effect of limiting public assembly, requiring more advance notification and placing restrictions on the location of public assemblies.

Contrary to accepted international practice, these restrictions do not take into account the size of the proposed gathering.  Taken together, the requirement of ten days advance notice, the limited locations available for public assembly, and the requirement to have permission from the authorities, appear to be unnecessarily restrictive. In Washington, D.C., for example, 48 hours advance notice is required for any proposed demonstration, including on the White House sidewalk. 

The European Court of Human Rights has stated that, and here I am quoting, “Freedom of assembly and the right to express one’s views through it are among the paramount values of a democratic society...Sweeping measures of a preventive nature to suppress freedom of assembly and expression other than in cases of incitement to violence...– however shocking and unacceptable certain views or words used may appear to the authorities, and however illegitimate the demands made may be – do a disservice to democracy and often even endanger it.”   To put it in the simplest terms, free speech is meaningless if you can only shout at empty hectares.

International standards on public assemblies are embodied in UN, European Commission, and OSCE documents. Kyrgyzstan, as a UN and OSCE member-state, should strive to meet these standards.

А number of peaceful gatherings have been held, in most cases without incident and pose no threat and should be distinguished from non-peaceful demonstrations. The Kyrgyz government should be commended for its professional handling of many of these demonstrations.  

But the more recent arrest and conviction of peaceful protestors, including small groups of young people who did nothing more than walk on the sidewalk, suggest that the desire for public control is trumping freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. We urge a thorough review of the Bishkek and Karakol City Keneshs’ regulations and adoption of a national law on peaceful assembly that conforms fully to the Kyrgyz Constitution and international practices.  I know that this is the subject of some debate and I know that you will be discussing this later in much more detail. 

Regarding Freedom of Speech

You will also be discussing Freedom of Speech in Kyrgyzstan.  Here, too, the Kyrgyz Constitution provides a strong foundation: Article 14 says that, “Everyone shall have the right to...freely gather, store and use information and to disseminate it orally, in writing, or by other means.”  Dissenting viewpoints and public debate are part of the democratic process; countries that restrict these freedoms restrict some elements of democracy. 

When a country engages in criminal prosecutions for responsible reporting on salient issues, this is just another form of censorship. For example, there are respected journalists and human rights defenders at the roundtable today who are currently facing criminal libel charges for credibly reporting on torture.

Defamation statutes are relics of the past.  While some countries retain criminal libel laws on the books, in the 21st century, criminal proceedings are no longer an appropriate forum to redress damage to reputation.  A civil libel action is a more appropriate remedy than criminalizing speech.  Criminal libel laws can be easily abused, and are rooted in authoritarianism, intolerance of dissent, and distrust of public opinion.

Journalists in Kyrgyzstan have been harassed, assaulted, and detained. I hope Kyrgyzstan will take a strong stand against these injustices. De-criminalizing libel would demonstrate a commitment to Freedom of Expression and remove one of the barriers to a free and vibrant media.

Conclusion

For the people of Kyrgyzstan, we very much hope that discussions like the one we will have today help to strengthen the rights and freedoms that the Kyrgyz Constitution guarantees for each of its citizens.  

I think everyone in this room would acknowledge that first we have rights but we also have responsibilities, and secondly, there are limits to our freedoms.  But as the Kyrgyz Constitution makes clear, they can only be limited “For the purpose of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, public safety and order, territorial integrity and the constitutional order.”  These limitations can be interpreted in a sweeping, authoritarian way or they can be interpreted in a narrow way that preserves the public good while protecting individual rights. 

We believe that protecting individual rights and allowing full participation by all in the political life of the country, not only benefits the individual, but it benefits the state.  When individuals are included in the political process, they are invested in the political system and look for ways to win within that system.  When they are excluded from the political process, there is a risk they will look for other ways to express themselves.  It is our firmly held belief that long-term stability is only possible through the defense of liberty and the ability of all Kyrgyz citizens to express their constitutional rights, including of freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. 

Thank You.
_____________________ 
[1] Shop, Walk, Work and Protest, Lisa Keller, New York Times, August 29, 2004, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9400E4D8113EF93AA1575BC0A9629C8B63