On June 15, the trial of the former head of Kyrgyzstan’s State Committee for National Security, Kamchybek Tashiev, and several other defendants – allegedly associated with the “Letter of 75” – was declassified at the request of the defendants. Now open, the trial takes place in the press as well as in the courtroom, notably the leak of apparent interrogation videos.
The “Letter of the 75” case concerns a signed appeal by 75 public figures who urged Kyrgyz President Sadyr Japarov to call an early presidential election. Some Kyrgyz media outlets have taken to referring to the letter as the “letter of the 75 aksakals” – literally “white beards,” a term for elderly men. The letter began circulating two days before Tashiev’s arrival. dramatic dismissal in February and is at the heart of state allegations that Tashiev and a number of other individuals were planning a coup.
In late April, Tashiev and the other defendants were charged under Article 326 (“Violent seizure or retention of power, as well as attempted violent change of the constitutional order”) and Article 337 (“Abuse of power”) of the Kyrgyz Criminal Code. Among the accused are former Prosecutor General Kurmankul Zulushev and former Jogorku Chairman Kenesh Nurlanbek Turgunbek uulu. Tourgunbek ouulu resigned a week after Tashiev’s dismissal in February. Another defendant is Emilbek Uzakbaev, who held various positions in the Kyrgyz government, with his last major post being ambassador to Uzbekistan in 2012-2016.
The trial began in May and was initially conducted classified as a secret. Although a first request from the defense to declassify the procedure was refused in Maythe defendants continued to demand a public trial and on June 15, the court granted this request.
The first public hearings considered, among other things, a request from Uzakbaev’s defense insisting on a medical evaluation of the 70-year-old and requesting that his pre-trial detention be modified. Even though some defendants, like Uzakbaev, are in pre-trial detention, Tashiev is not. Courtroom photos also show several defendants in the usual glass cagebut Tashiev sitting at one painting.
The trial process with witnesses largely concerned about the receipt of the so-called Letter of the 75 in February by parliamentarians and featuring a verbal clash between Tashiev and a witness.
The state called MP Elvira Surabaldieva to testify regarding the circulation of the Letter of 75. Surabaldieva shared her opinion that she considered the letter to be a coup attemptrepeating a statement she had made in a April interview with a Kazakh journalist.
Amid Surabaldieva’s testimony and questioning from both sides’ lawyers, Tashiev intervened to argue with the witness, reminding him that he had been one of the first to arrive at the scene of his father’s murder.
Zhyrgalbek Surabaldiev, a businessman and MP, was shot dead in broad daylight in Bishkek in November 2005. Referred media for him as a supporter of Askar Akayev, the first independent president of Kyrgyzstan and the first president to be deposed by the revolution in March 2005.
In courtSurabaldieva responded to Tashiev’s barbs with her own retort: ”What does my father have to do with this? My sister was there first, not you. You are pressuring me by bringing up her murder. Are you threatening me? You wanted to put me in prison so many times back then, and now this?”
Tashiev denied ever wanting to imprison him. Surabaldieva responded by saying: “Someone here has a habit of silencing everyone and threatening people. I think the judge is also afraid of someone, that’s why he doesn’t reprimand him and only reacts to my statements.”
The judge finally intervened to reprimand Tashiev.
The next day, June 16, videos started circulating apparently showing Tashiev being questioned. The videos are not dated and it is not clear where they came from. In a comment posted by 24.kgSultan Makilov, head of the press service of the Kyrgyz Interior Ministry, did not directly confirm that the videos were authentic, but he also did not take the opportunity to claim that they were not.
Makilov rejected the idea that the release of the videos could be considered a deliberately orchestrated smear campaign, stressing that the defendants themselves had demanded “maximum transparency”.
“Regarding the dissemination of video recordings of investigative actions on social networks, we do not consider this to be a deliberately organized action or an action pursuing political goals. We believe that this issue should not be given a political connotation,” he said.
Makilov denied any knowledge of how the videos became publicly available.
In the leaked videoa man who resembles Tashiev appears to comment on the lack of public protests regarding his case and boast about his supporters.
“We will settle everything in court. Otherwise, I will say everything openly, I will speak officially. Today’s silence is deceptive. Thousands of people will rally around me,” the man says in the leaked video.
“I will also start acting. I have not worked for the Ministry of Agriculture either.”
The leaked videos, whether authentic or not, lack context. It is not known when they were filmed or if they were manipulated. Tashiev’s video includes jumps and angle changes, pieces of a longer tape that have been clipped together – presumably to influence the viewer and direct their conclusions.
The trial is ongoing, and as it remains open, it will certainly be closely monitored.