Приговор Оразалы Ержанову – приговор Гражданскому обществу Казахстана

Orazaly Yerzhanov's sentence – a sentence for Kazakhstan's civil society? Mr. Yerzhanov didn't ask the court for justice. This is foolish in our time of "Fair Kazakhstan" and a "listening state"! He asked, not demanded! Citizens of Kazakhstan no longer have such a right. He asked for the case to be transferred to purely criminal law and examined in strict accordance with the criminal and criminal procedural laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan. He claimed to be the author of publications, that he opposed the referendum, that he called for its boycott. He didn't prevaricate! The main question is whether calling for a referendum boycott constitutes obstruction of citizens' right to participate in the referendum. Let's read the Law: Article 150 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan does not provide for liability for boycott. Not for disagreement. Not for criticism. Not for expressing a political position. Article 150 provides for liability for obstruction. What did Mr. O. Erzhanov obstruct and how? The main element of the crime—obstruction—has not been proven. The courts have not established this. As before, so have the investigation and the prosecutor's office! The court based its guilty verdict on the forensic examination. Experts concluded that the publications promote political non-participation, that is, boycott behavior. Expert Kapalbekova pointed out that the incitement in the publications under investigation is accomplished through calls for non-violent, lawful forms of behavior. A logical question: if behavior is lawful and non-violent, how does it simultaneously become a criminal offense? The legislature established liability for obstructing the exercise of the right to participate in a referendum. Not for boycotting a referendum or calling for a boycott! Therefore, the crux of this case for Kazakhstan was whether the court has the right, through interpretation, to extend a criminal prohibition to an act not expressly specified in the law. How did the trial and appellate courts handle this? A minus! I speak as a law professor, a candidate of legal sciences, and a PhD. The court extended the scope of criminal law to include a public call to boycott the referendum, even though the legislature did not classify boycott or agitation for non-participation as actions constituting the objective aspect of the crime charged against Yerzhanov. The case established instances of calls to boycott the referendum, but not instances of obstruction of the right to participate in the referendum. Therefore, the court's finding of the existence of a crime is not a legal one, but a political one! Such an interpretation goes beyond the permissible judicial interpretation of criminal law and contradicts the principle of legality. It's simple: for the Kazakh authorities, the principle "it looks like a crime, so we'll treat it as a crime" worked! I would like to specifically address the actions of the investigation, the prosecution, and the courts that supported them – a falsification of the facts! We're talking about the intent imputed to O. Yerzhanov regarding the publication of a proposal to hold a Kurultai in the city of Turkestan, which was published on February 8, 2026, i.e., before the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan announced the referendum. What are the prosecution and the court doing to push this case through?! In the reasoning section of the verdict, the specific date disappears and is replaced by the phrase "February 2026." But how could there be an intent to obstruct the referendum before the referendum itself was scheduled? Don't you, dear viewers, believe that those who incriminated the accused with fabricated facts, which are advantageous to the prosecution and the court, should be held accountable?! Even if everything the prosecution relied on is proven, these circumstances only amount to a call for a referendum boycott as a form of political non-participation. But they do not imply obstruction of citizens' right to participate in the referendum! Yes, E.M. Remarque is right: "In dark times, bright people are clearly visible." People like Orazaly Yerzhanov. These are the realities of Kazakhstan in 2026. But we believe that this will not last forever! @AZAMATTV