18. August 2023

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Haftbedingungen

Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Strafvollzug

Beschwerdemechanismus

Faires Verfahren

Medizinische Versorgung in Gefängnissen, Bereitstellung erforderlicher Medikamente 

Quellen

Anhang: Quellenbeschreibungen und Informationen aus ausgewählten Quellen

Kurzbeschreibungen zu den in dieser Anfragebeantwortung verwendeten Quellen sowie Ausschnitte mit Informationen aus diesen Quellen finden Sie im Anhang.

 

Haftbedingungen

Der Ausschuss der Vereinten Nationen gegen Folter (UNO-Antifolterausschuss, Committee against Torture, CAT) stellt in den abschließenden Bemerkungen zum vierten periodischen Bericht Kasachstans im Juni 2023 fest, dass man über die Überbelegung und schlechten Bedingungen in einigen Gefängnissen und Untersuchungshaftanstalten besorgt sei. Viele Strafvollzugsanstalten seien baufällig, befänden sich in beklagenswerten und unhygienischen Zuständen und hätten unzureichende Sanitäranlagen. Besorgniserregend seien auch der Mangel an angemessen Unterkünften für Personen mit körperlichen Behinderungen sowie unzureichende Rehabilitations- und Wiedereingliederungsprogramme und sinnvolle Tätigkeiten an allen Orten des Freiheitsentzugs (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 7; für konkrete Beispiele siehe IPHR et al., 21. März 2023, S. 18-20).

Das US-Außenministerium (US State Department, USDOS) stellt in seinem Jahresbricht zur Menschenrechtslage für 2022 unter Berufung auf Menschenrechtsbeoachter·innen fest, dass die Haftbedingungen im Allgemeinen schwierig und gelegentlich lebensbedrohlich seien (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1c). Auch Freedom House schreibt von harschen Bedingungen in Gefängnissen und Untersuchungshaftanstalten (Freedom House, 2023, F3). Laut USDOS würden die Anlagen nicht den internationalen Gesundheitsstandards entsprechen. Gesundheitliche Probleme von Inhaftierten würden in vielen Fällen nicht behandelt werden oder durch die Haftbedingungen verschärft werden (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1c).

USDOS informiert weiters, dass es Fälle von Misshandlungen in Polizeigewahrsam, in Untersuchungshaftanstalten und in Gefängnissen gebe. Laut Menschenrechtsbeobachter·innen seien sie in Untersuchungshaftanstalten besonders häufig, auch während Verhören. In einigen Fällen würden die Behörden die Untersuchungshaft nutzen, um inhaftierte Personen durch Misshandlungen und Schläge zu einem Geständnis zu zwingen. Untersuchungshäftlinge hätten nur eingeschränkte Möglichkeiten, mit ihren Anwält·innen zu kommunizieren, Justizwachepersonal würde Gespräche heimlich aufzeichnen und oft während der Treffen zwischen Angeklagten und deren Anwält·innen anwesend sein. Menschenrechtsbeobachter·innen hätten berichtet, dass Behörden festgenommene Personen davon abbringen würden, einen Anwalt zu konsultieren, dass sie durch vorläufige Befragungen vor Eintreffen des Anwalts/der Anwältin Beweise sammeln würden bzw. in einigen Fällen den Anwalt/die Anwältin zum Sammeln von Beweisen nutzen würden (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1d). Die Menschenrechtsorganisation Amnesty International (AI) berichtet, dass unfaire Gerichtsverfahren, Folter und Misshandlungen weit verbreitet, und der Zugang zu Rechtsbeistand eingeschränkt seien (AI, 12. Jänner 2022). Laut Freedom House würde die Polizei häufig Folter einsetzen, um ein Geständnis zu erzwingen. Jedes Jahr würden dazu zahlreiche Vorwürfe körperlicher Misshandlung und anderer Formen von Misshandlung dokumentiert (Freedom House, 2023, F3).

Nach Anti-Regierungsprotesten im Jänner 2022 wurde landesweit der Ausnahmezustand ausgerufen. Die Menschenrechtsorganisationen Coalition against Torture in Kazakhstan, International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) und World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT) weisen in einem gemeinsamen Bericht darauf hin, dass im Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen im Jänner 2022 beinahe 10.000 Personen festgenommen worden seien. Eine große Mehrheit von ihnen habe während der ersten Tage keinen Zugang zu Anwält·innen und keine Möglichkeit gehabt, Verwandte zu kontaktieren. Viele seien an Orten festgehalten worden, die nicht als Haftanstalten vorgesehen seien. Zahlreiche Beschwerden wegen Folter und Misshandlungen seien folgenlos geblieben (IPHR et al., 21. März 2023, S. 7). Das Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR) informiert im November 2022, dass allein bei der Coalition against Torture in Kazakhstan (in der die KIBHR Mitglied ist) 190 Beschwerden wegen Folter und Misshandlung von inhaftierten Protest-Teilnehmer·innen eingegangen seien (KIBHR, 24. November 2022).

Menschenrechtsverletzungen im Strafvollzug

Der UNO-Antifolterausschuss erklärt in seinen abschließenden Bemerkungen vom Juli 2023, dass man über Vorwürfe von Gewalt aufgrund sexueller Orientierung oder Genderidentität gegen inhaftierte Personen sowie von Schikanen und sexueller Gewalt gegen inhaftierte Frauen durch männliches Wachpersonal im Austausch für Gefälligkeiten tief besorgt sei. Auch Berichte über anhaltende Gewalt unter den Insass·innen sowie eine hohe Selbstmord- und Selbstverletzungsrate würden Sorge bereiten. In diesem Zusammenhang erwähnte der Ausschuss die Installation von 24-Stunden-Überwachungskameras aus Sicherheitsgründen in Orten des Freiheitsentzugs und äußerte sich besorgt über die Unterbringung von Personen in ihren Zellen unter ständiger Videoüberwachung. Zudem fehle es an Schutz für vulnerable Insass·innen, einschließlich Personen mit intellektuellen oder psychosozialen Behinderungen. Der Ausschuss sei tief besorgt darüber, dass Isolationshaft von bis zu vier Monaten als Disziplinar-Strafmaßnahme gesetzlich erlaubt sei und dass davon in der Praxis häufig Gebrauch gemacht werde (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 8).

Das US-Außenministerium (USDOS) stellt in seinem Jahresbricht zur Menschenrechtslage für 2022 fest, dass es laut Berichten von Aktivist·innen in Gefängnissen häufig zu Misshandlungen, vor allem durch sogenannte freiwillige Assistent·innen (Gefangene, die besondere Privilegien erhalten würden, wenn sie die Anordnungen des Gefängnispersonals ausführen würden) käme, die in einigen Fällen auch zum Tod oder zu Selbstmord geführt hätten (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1a).

Beschwerdemechanismus

Der UNO-Antifolterausschuss merkt in seiner Stellungnahme an, dass die Behörden in allen 79 Haftanstalten elektronische Terminals installiert hätten, über die Insass·innen Beschwerden einreichen könnten. Deren Nähe zu den Büroräumlichkeiten der Gefängnisverwaltung sowie die ständige Videoüberwachung seien aber Gründe, warum Insass·innen Schwierigkeiten hätten oder überhaupt davor zurückschrecken würden, über diese Terminals Beschwerden wegen Folter oder Misshandlung einzureichen (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 9). Laut IPHR und Co-Autoren seien die elektronischen Terminals nicht leicht zu bedienen und Insass·innen, die den Umgang mit Computern und dem Internet nicht gewohnt seien, hätten Schwierigkeiten, sie allein zu nutzen. Zudem würden Insass·innen oft berichten, dass ihre Beschwerden weder registriert noch an die Adressat·innen weitergeleitet würden (IPHR et al., 21. März 2023, S. 20-21). Inasass·innen würden aus Angst vor Repressalien auch davor zurückschrecken, Beschwerden während ihrer Besuche an Aufsichtsbehörden zu übergeben (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 9).

Menschenrechtsbeobachter·innen hätten festgestellt, dass die Behörden von Inhaftierten erhobene Vorwürfe wegen Folter in vielen Fällen nicht untersuchen, auf Beschwerden nicht reagieren und Gefängnisverwaltung oder -personal nicht zur Rechenschaft ziehen würden. In manchen Fällen würden örtliche Büros der Staatsanwaltschaft, die für die Untersuchung von Beschwerden wegen Misshandlung und Folter zuständig seien, rechtliche Schlupflöcher nutzen, um keine Untersuchungen durchführen zu müssen. Fälle, in denen sich Strafvollzugsbeamt·innen wegen Missbrauchs vor Gericht verantworten müssten, seien selten, und Beamt·innen würden oft nur leicht bestraft (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1c).

Faires Verfahren

Der UNO-Antifolterausschuss äußert in den abschließenden Bemerkungen zum vierten periodischen Bericht Kasachstans anhaltende Sorge über Berichte, wonach grundlegende rechtliche Garantien in der Praxis nicht routinemäßig vom Moment des Freiheitsentzugs an gewährleistet worden seien, einschließlich während des im Zusammenhang mit den Ereignissen vom Jänner 2022 verhängten Ausnahmezustands. Das beträfe unter anderem Verzögerungen beim Zugang zu einem Anwalt/einer Anwältin bzw. bei der Verständigung eines Verwandten oder einer Vertrauensperson, Ungenauigkeiten hinsichtlich des Zeitpunkts der Festnahme bzw. Festhalten in Polizeieinrichtungen weit über die zulässigen Zeitgrenzen hinaus, gelöschte Videoaufzeichnungen von Verhören oder das Unterlassen von unabhängigen medizinischen Untersuchungen bei Einweisung in eine Untersuchungshaftanstalt (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 3; siehe auch Abschnitt zu Haftbedingungen der vorliegenden Anfragebeantwortung).

Das US-Außenministerium (US Department of State, USDOS) verweist in seinem Jahresbericht zur Religionsfreiheit für das Jahr 2022 unter Bezugnahme auf Berichte von Strafverteidiger·innen und zivilgesellschaftlichen Beobachter·innen auf die oft fragwürdige Qualität von „Expert·innen-Meinungen“, die dazu genutzt würden, um Personen, die weder zu Gewalt aufgerufen noch diese angewandt hätten, zu verurteilen. Zudem hätten Richter·innen nicht immer erlaubt, dass derartige Expert·innen während der Gerichtsverfahren zu ihren Analysen befragt würden (USDOS, 15. Mai 2023, Section II, Government Practices).

In seinem Jahresbericht zur Menschenrechtspraxis für das Jahr 2022 erklärt das USDOS mit Verweis auf Menschenrechtsbeobachter·innen, dass das Auswahlverwahren von Geschworenen inkonsistent sei. Richter·innen würden Druck auf diese ausüben und hätten leicht die Möglichkeit, ein Geschworenengremium aufgrund vermeintlichen Ungehorsams aufzulösen. Es gebe keine gesetzliche Sanktionsmöglichkeit für ein derartiges Vorgehen seitens der Richter·innen. Aktivist·innen würden kritisieren, dass Geschworene wegen des Drucks, den Richter·innen auf Geschworene, Expert·innen und Zeug·innen ausüben würden, zugunsten der Anklage voreingenommen sein. Nationale und internationale Menschenrechtsorganisationen hätten von zahlreichen Problemen im Justizbereich berichtet, darunter fehlender Zugang zu Gerichtsverhandlungen und zu von der Regierung aufbewahrten Beweismitteln, häufige Verfahrensverletzungen, unfaires Abweisen von Vorbringen der Verteidigung und Fehlverhalten von Richter·innen, die Vorwürfen, ein Geständnis sei durch Folter oder Zwang erpresst worden, nicht weiter nachgehen würden (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1e).

Die UNO-Arbeitsgruppe für willkürliche Inhaftierung des UNO-Menschenrechtsrats (Human Rights Council, HRC) veröffentlicht im Oktober 2022 eine Stellungnahme zum Fall von Karim Massimow, dem ehemaligen Leiter des Nationalen Sicherheitskomitees, der im Zusammenhang mit den Protesten vom Jänner 2022 in Haft genommen wurde und dem Hochverrat vorgeworfen wird. In ihrer Stellungnahme erklärt die Arbeitsgruppe, dass sie die Inhaftierung als willkürlich[1] einstufe, da die Umstände und Gründe für die Inhaftierung unklar blieben - auch der Familie selbst, da es der Verteidigerin verboten sei, Informationen über den Fall weiterzugeben, und da das Recht auf Rechtsbeistand verletzt worden sei. Ein vom Angeklagten selbst gewählter Rechtsbeistand sei von den Behörden nicht akzeptiert worden und die Pflichtverteidigerin sei durch die auferlegte Geheimhaltungspflicht in ihren Möglichkeiten, die Verteidigung effektiv zu gestalten, stark eingeschränkt (HRC, 25. Oktober 2022, S. 13-16).

In einem Bericht vom November 2022 über das Verfahren gegen Askhat Scheksabaew, einen politischen Aktivisten, wiesen die Initiative Trial Watch und Stephanie Farrior, eine Professorin für internationales Recht und Menschenrechte, auf mehrere Verfahrensverletzungen hin. So sei seinen Anwälten Zugang zu Informationen verweigert worden, die als Grundlage der Anklage dienten. Sie hätten keine Möglichkeit erhalten, Zeug·innen der Anklage, deren Aussagen nur schriftlich vorlagen, vorzuladen und zu befragen und die Vorgangsweise des Gerichts, inklusive dessen Geschwindigkeit bei der Beweisprüfung, deute auf eine Voreingenommenheit zu Ungunsten des Angeklagten hin (Trial Watch/Farrior, November 2022, S. 4-5).

Medizinische Versorgung in Gefängnissen, Bereitstellung erforderlicher Medikamente

Laut des UNO-Antifolterausschusses gebe es Berichte über einen Mangel an gut ausgebildetem medizinischem Personal und unzureichende medizinische Versorgung in Haftanstalten. Auch die Versorgung mit den nötigen Medikamenten sei mangelhaft. Das betreffe auch Personen, die eine besondere Behandlung benötigen würden, wie HIV-infizierte Personen und Personen mit Behinderungen. Es gebe auch Informationen in Bezug auf fehlende psychiatrische Betreuung für inhaftierte Personen, der Ausschuss nehme in diesem Zusammenhang jedoch auch die gegenteilige Stellungnahme der kasachischen Behörden zur Kenntnis, wonach dafür mehr als 500 Psychiater·innen zur Verfügung stünden. Der Ausschuss merkt weiters an, dass es für medizinisches Personal, das mit Personen im Freiheitsentzug arbeite, an fortlaufenden und angemessenen Weiterbildungen zur Erkennung von Folter und Misshandlungen fehle. Das könne mit ein Grund dafür sein, dass Verletzungen – vor allem in den Untersuchungshaftanstalten – nur oberflächlich erfasst und untersucht würden und es auch keine etablierte Praxis gebe, derartige Verletzungen den Justizbehörden zu melden. Der Ausschuss begrüße die Schritte, die die Behörden unternommen hätten, um die Gesundheitsversorgung in Untersuchungshaftanstalten und Gefängnissen vom Innen- zum Gesundheitsministerium zu übertragen (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 9).

IPHR und Co-Autoren merken an, dass der Transfer der Gesundheitsversorgung vom Innen- zum Gesundheitsministerium keine Verbesserung in der Gesundheitsversorgung für Untersuchungshäftlinge und Strafgefangene gebracht habe, da das Personal dasselbe geblieben sei. Das medizinische Personal sei unwillig, gemäß der neuen Stellenbeschreibung zu arbeiten, was durch ein Missverhältnis zwischen der Verwaltung der Einrichtungen und den medizinischen Diensten verschärft sei (IPHR et al., 21. März 2023, S. 20).

Das US-Außenministerium (USDOS) zitiert in seinem Jahresbricht zur Menschenrechtslage für 2022 den Nationalen Präventivmechanismus gegen Folter (The National Preventive Mechanism against Torture, NPM)[2], der über schlechte Gesundheits- und Hygienebedingungen sowie über fehlende medizinische Versorgung, einschließlich für HIV-infizierte oder an AIDS oder Diabetes erkrankte Häftlinge, berichtet habe. Es sei auch zu Diskriminierung von Häftlingen gekommen, die vulnerablen Gruppen, wie Personen mit Behinderung, HIV-infizierte oder an AIDS erkrankte Häftlinge, angehören würden (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1c).

 

Quellen: (Zugriff auf alle Quellen am 18. August 2023)

·      AI – Amnesty International: Behörden müssen willkürlich Inhaftierte sofort freilassen, 12. Jänner 2022
https://www.amnesty.ch/de/laender/europa-zentralasien/kasachstan/dok/2022/kasachstan-behoerden-muessen-willkuerlich-inhaftierte-sofort-freilassen

·      CAT - Committee against Torture: Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Kazakhstan CAT/C/KAZ/CO/4, 8. Juni 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/2093853/G2310421.pdf

·      Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2023 – Kazakhstan, 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2088519.html

·      HRC – Human Rights Council: Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its ninety-fourth session, 29 August–2 September 2022: Opinion No. 57/2022 concerning Karim Massimov (Kazakhstan) A/HRC/WGAD/2022/57, 25. Oktober 2022
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/detention-wg/opinions/session94/2022-10-28/A-HRC-WGAD-2022-57-Kazakhstan-Advance-Edited-Version.pdf

·      IPHR - International Partnership for Human Rights et al.: Joint NGO Submission to the 76th Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture on Kazakhstan, 21. März 2023
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/DownloadDraft.aspx?key=af6flM/DbBqPE2/waqXlpKMnLq3dkOHhozw1n9+Ih0T7ldNwPicKzO+rVmMTTBiQh9wxS6g0LrI2Y+cSVgSgdg==

·      KIBHR – Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law: Statement on the arrest and trial of NSC officers on January events, 24. November 2022
https://bureau.kz/en/news/kibhr_statements/statement-on-nsc-officer/

·      Trial Watch & Farrior, Stephanie: Kazakhstan v. Askhat Zheksebaev et al., Clooney Foundation for Justice (Hg.), November 2022
https://cfj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EN-Zheksebaev-Fairness-Report_November-2022.pdf

·      USDOS – US Department of State: 2022 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Kazakhstan, 20. März 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2089240.html

·      USDOS – US Department of State: 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Kazakhstan, 15. Mai 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2091947.html

 

Anhang: Quellenbeschreibungen und Informationen aus ausgewählten Quellen

Amnesty International (AI) ist eine internationale Menschenrechtsorganisation.

·      AI – Amnesty International: Behörden müssen willkürlich Inhaftierte sofort freilassen, 12. Jänner 2022
https://www.amnesty.ch/de/laender/europa-zentralasien/kasachstan/dok/2022/kasachstan-behoerden-muessen-willkuerlich-inhaftierte-sofort-freilassen

„‚Leider sind unfaire Gerichtsverfahren in Kasachstan nach wie vor weit verbreitet, ebenso wie Folter und andere Misshandlungen. Rechtsbeiständen wird oft der Zugang zu ihren MandanIinnen verwehrt und sie werden durch Geheimhaltungsverfügungen mundtot gemacht‘, sagte Marie Struthers. ‚Wir sind äusserst besorgt über die Haftbedingungen und die Gründe für die Festnahme von Tausenden von Menschen.‘“(AI, 12. Jänner 2022)

CAT – Committee against Torture ist der Ausschuss der Vereinten Nationen gegen Folter.

·      CAT - Committee against Torture: Concluding observations on the fourth periodic report of Kazakhstan CAT/C/KAZ/CO/4, 8. Juni 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/en/file/local/2093853/G2310421.pdf

„However, the Committee remains concerned about the reports indicating that the fundamental legal safeguards have not been routinely afforded in practice from the very outset of deprivation of liberty during the reporting period, including during the state of emergency declared in the context of the events of January 2022. In that respect, the information before the Committee indicates the following shortcomings: (a) delays in guaranteeing detainees’ right of access to a lawyer, alleged interference or hindrance in providing legal assistance, and delays in notifying a relative or another person of the detainee’s choice; (b) inaccurate recording of the time of the arrest, and detention in temporary facilities of the police for periods well beyond the statutory time limits; (c) initial detention in unauthorized places, such as police sports halls or military facilities, notably in the cities of Atyrau, Ust-Kamenogorsk and Taraz; (d) the deletion of video recordings of interrogations in several documented cases; (e) failure to carry out independent medical examinations routinely upon admission to pretrial detention facilities, and instances where such medical check-ups were carried out in the presence of a police officer; (f) the absence of investigations into detainees’ complaints about injuries that they have suffered; and (g) disproportionate and unjustified use of administrative detention. The Committee also regrets the lack of available information on disciplinary measures taken during the period under review against law enforcement personnel who did not immediately allow persons deprived of their liberty to benefit from fundamental legal guarantees, including during and in the aftermath of the events of January 2022 (art. 2).“ (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 3)

„Conditions of detention

21. While appreciating the measures taken by the State party to replace ageing prisons with a new penitentiary infrastructure, and the efforts made to improve conditions of detention, the Committee is concerned about overcrowding and poor conditions in some prisons and remand centres. It further notes with concern that many penitentiary establishments are dilapidated, with deplorable and unhygienic conditions and inadequate sanitary facilities. The Committee is also concerned about the lack of reasonable accommodation provided for the specific needs of persons with physical disabilities in prisons. Insufficient rehabilitation and reintegration programmes and meaningful activities in all places of deprivation of liberty is also a matter of concern. Lastly, the Committee is concerned about the special restriction regime imposed on persons sentenced to life imprisonment and their alleged poor state of health, extremely limited contact with the outside world, and scarce access to adequate reintegration programmes, although it notes with interest the plans in motion aimed at improving their situation, as explained by the delegation (arts. 2, 11 and 16).“ (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 7)

„Violence and deaths in custody

23. The Committee is seriously concerned about the allegations of violence on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity inflicted on persons deprived of their liberty, and harassment and sexual violence inflicted on female detainees by male guards in exchange for favours. The Committee is also concerned about reports of persisting inter-prisoner violence and high rates of suicide and incidents of self-harm among prisoners. While taking note of the statistical information provided during the dialogue by the State party on deaths in custody, including suicide and incidents of self-harm, the Committee regrets that it did not receive complete information on the results of investigations into those cases and the lack of comprehensive strategies in place to prevent them. In this connection, the Committee notes the installation of 24-hour video monitoring in places of deprivation of liberty for security reasons. The placement of persons under constant video surveillance in their cells is a matter of concern. Lastly, the Committee is concerned about the lack of protection offered to detainees in vulnerable circumstances, including persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with psychosocial disabilities (arts. 2, 11 and 16). [….]

Solitary confinement

25. The Committee is deeply concerned that under articles 130 and 131 of the Penal Enforcement Code, solitary confinement may be imposed for up to four months as a disciplinary sanction for repeated violations of the established rules and procedure for serving a sentence, and that solitary confinement is frequently used in practice.” (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 8)

„Health care in places of deprivation of liberty

27. While appreciating the steps taken by the State party to transfer the provision of health-care services in pretrial and penitentiary facilities from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Health during the period under review, the Committee remains concerned about reports indicating that there is a lack of properly trained medical personnel and inadequate provision of medical care and the necessary medication, including for persons in need of specialized treatment, such as HIV-infected persons and persons with disabilities. It is also concerned about information indicating a lack of psychiatric care provided to persons deprived of their liberty, while noting the State party’s statement to the contrary in which it argued that such care was provided by more than 500 psychiatrists. Lastly, the Committee notes the lack of continuous and adequate training provided to all medical personnel in contact with persons deprived of their liberty in the detection of torture and ill-treatment, which might contribute to merely cursory recording and analysis of injuries, in particular in pretrial detention facilities, and to the absence of a systemized practice of reporting such injuries to judicial authorities (arts. 2, 11 and 16).” (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 9)

„Complaints mechanisms in places of deprivation of liberty

29. While noting the steps taken by the State party to facilitate access to the complaints procedure in places of deprivation of liberty, such as, among other measures, the installation of electronic terminals in all 79 prisons, 22 the Committee remains concerned about information received that many persons deprived of their liberty experience difficulties or are reluctant to lodge complaints about torture or ill-treatment via these terminals owing to their proximity to the administration’s offices or constant video surveillance. It is also worried about the reported lack of trust to lodge complaints electronically or hand them over to other supervising bodies during their visits for fear of reprisals from personnel (arts. 2, 12, 13 and 16).“ (CAT, 8. Juni 2023, S. 9)

Freedom House ist eine Nichtregierungsorganisation mit Hauptsitz in Washington, D.C., die sich mit der Untersuchung und Förderung von Demokratie, politischer Freiheit und Menschenrechten weltweit beschäftigt.

·      Freedom House: Freedom in the World 2023 – Kazakhstan, 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2088519.html

„Conditions in pretrial detention facilities and prisons are harsh. According to reports by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), the number of suicides among prisoners has increased in recent years; at least one inmate died by suicide in 2021, and several others deliberately injured themselves in protest of prison conditions.

Police regularly use excessive force during arrests, and torture is widely employed to obtain confessions, with numerous allegations of physical abuse and other mistreatment documented each year.” (Freedom House, 2023, F3)

Human Rights Council (HRC) ist der Menschenrechtsrat der Vereinten Nationen.

·      HRC – Human Rights Council: Opinions adopted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention at its ninety-fourth session, 29 August–2 September 2022: Opinion No. 57/2022 concerning Karim Massimov (Kazakhstan) A/HRC/WGAD/2022/57, 25. Oktober 2022
https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/issues/detention-wg/opinions/session94/2022-10-28/A-HRC-WGAD-2022-57-Kazakhstan-Advance-Edited-Version.pdf

„101. From the outset, the Working Group wishes to note its discomfort with the scarcity of the information provided to it. While it is clear that Mr. Massimov was arrested, the exact date and circumstances of that arrest and the reasons for it remain unclear. Equally, while both the source and the Government have submitted that Mr. Massimov has been charged with high treason, the Working Group is particularly concerned at the failure of the Government to provide any explanation regarding what actions by Mr. Massimov may have warranted this very serious charge. Furthermore, while the Government has argued that pretrial detention was imposed due to Mr. Massimov having held high-ranking positions, thereby indicating that the charge of high treason is linked to his previous professional activity, it has provided no rebuttal to the source’s claims about the reasons for Mr. Massimov’s dismissal and has simply denied that his arrest is politically motivated.

102. Furthermore, the Working Group notes that in addition to the charges of high treason, on 18 and 25 February Mr. Massimov was charged with money laundering and bribery, as submitted by the Government. The Government has provided no information about the factual basis for these charges.

103. The Working Group notes that it is not contested that Mr. Massimov was assigned a State lawyer with whom he was able to meet on 7 January 2022, however the source has submitted that the lawyer is prevented from disclosing any information concerning Mr. Massimov’s detention, including the charges, to anyone, including to his family and possibly also to Mr. Massimov himself. The Government has submitted that Mr. Massimov has been able to communicate with this lawyer freely and confidentially but has offered no explanation as to why the lawyer has been prevented from disclosing the reasons for Mr. Massimov’s arrest, including to his family.“ (HRC, 25. Oktober 2022, S. 13-14)

„108. Consequently, noting all of the above, the Working Group concludes that the arrest and pretrial detention of Mr. Massimov is arbitrary, as it lacks a legal basis and falls under category I.” (HRC, 25. Oktober 2022, S. 15)

„112. However, the Working Group is seriously concerned about the way in which Mr. Massimov’s right to legal assistance has been respected in the present case. While Mr. Massimov has been appointed a State lawyer and the Government is arguing that this lawyer has been present at all interrogations and been able to take part fully in all proceedings, the Government has not addressed the source’s submission that this lawyer is severely restricted in the exercise of her professional duties due to the secrecy of the whole proceedings and the associated very strict confidentiality protocols. For example, it is entirely unclear what reasons could justify the absolute prohibition imposed upon the lawyer to discuss the charges against Mr. Massimov, especially noting that two of these charges are money laundering and bribery. The Government has provided no explanation for this.

113. Moreover, the Government does not deny that Mr. Massimov attempted to appoint a lawyer of his own choosing, but this lawyer was required to undergo vetting in order to be allowed access to State secrets, which the lawyer did not pass. The Government has once again provided no reason as to why that was the case, but has merely stated that Mr. Massimov can appoint another lawyer who would be able to pass the vetting process. Given that it is unclear what requirements any lawyer needs to satisfy in order to be allowed access to State secrets, the Working Group cannot accept the Government’s argument that Mr. Massimov could have chosen another lawyer.

114. The Working Group recalls that the right to legal assistance is an essential guarantee of equality of arms and fairness of proceedings. All persons deprived of their liberty have the right to legal assistance by counsel of their choice at any time during their detention, including immediately after their apprehension, and such access is to be provided without delay. Mr. Massimov is not only prevented from having legal assistance of his own choosing, for reasons that the Government has failed to explain in a satisfactory manner, but his State-appointed lawyer is also unable to engage effectively in his defence due to the confidentiality protocols in place.

115. In this regard, the Working Group recalls that ‘lawyers should be able to advise and to represent persons charged with a criminal offence in accordance with generally recognized professional ethics without restrictions, influence, pressure or undue interference from any quarter’. In the view of the Working Group, this has not been satisfied in the case of Mr. Massimov, and it therefore finds a breach of article 14 (3) (d) of the Covenant. Given the seriousness of this violation, the Working Group finds that the detention of Mr. Massimov is arbitrary and falls under category III. The Working Group wishes to emphasize that just because Mr. Massimov was allowed to appoint two lawyers of his own choosing some five months later, the Working Group’s views on this issue are not altered in any way. The Working Group refers the case to the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, for appropriate action.

116. The Working Group is seriously concerned about the veil of secrecy surrounding the proceedings against Mr. Massimov, as all pretrial hearings thus far appear to have been conducted behind closed doors; his family are not informed about the progress of the case and are unable to visit him; and there is serious interference with his ability to exercise his right to defence effectively, as recognized above. The Working Group recalls that it is essential that all court proceedings be conducted independently and impartially and wishes to remind the Government that in order for a trial to satisfy the requirements of article 14 (1) of the Covenant, a trial ‘must also appear to a reasonable observer to be impartial’.“ (HRC, 25. Oktober 2022, S. 15-16)

International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) ist eine in Brüssel ansässige NGO, die mit zivilgesellschaftlichen Gruppen verschiedener Länder zusammenarbeitet, um Menschenrechtsfragen auf internationaler Ebene zur Sprache zu bringen und Respekt für die Rechte vulnerabler Gruppen zu fördern.

·      IPHR - International Partnership for Human Rights et al.: Joint NGO Submission to the 76th Session of the United Nations Committee Against Torture on Kazakhstan, 21. März 2023
https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/DownloadDraft.aspx?key=af6flM/DbBqPE2/waqXlpKMnLq3dkOHhozw1n9+Ih0T7ldNwPicKzO+rVmMTTBiQh9wxS6g0LrI2Y+cSVgSgdg==

„The most flagrant violations of legal safeguards against torture took place during the state of emergency declared across the country after the January 2022 protests. The Coalition's joint report with International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) and World Organisation against Torture (OMCT): ‘We Don't Even Cry Anymore’, on torture following the January protests and its investigation, describes the situation of people detained following the protests:

‘According to official information, nearly 10,000 people were detained in connection with the January events. The vast majority of detainees were not provided with lawyers and/or were deprived of the opportunity to contact their relatives during the first days of detention, which, in many cases, was not officially registered for several days. Many were initially held in places not intended for temporary detention, as was the case in Atyrau and Ust-Kamenogorsk, where detainees were taken to the Dynamo police sports hall, or in Taraz, where detainees were held in military units. In other cities, detainees spent days in police temporary detention centres despite the fact that the national legislation stipulates that adults can only be held there for 48 hours and minors for 24 hours. Some were placed in pre-trial detention centres or in National Security Committee detention facilities, where access to prison inspectors and even pre-trial detention centre staff was not permitted. In the days that followed the initial protests, police and special forces rounded up those that they believed were connected with the protests.’

According to a survey conducted by the Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR) on violations of the rights of detainees during investigation of the January events, in most cases ‘medical examinations of detainees after arrest and on admission to pre-trial detention facilities were not carried out. The study also found that 71 per cent of detainees interviewed had suffered injuries and that none of them achieved results in response to their complaints about torture and other ill-treatment’.” (IPHR et al., 21. März 2023, S. 7)

„The transfer of medical services from the Ministry of Internal Affairs to the Ministry of Healthcare has not alleviated the situation of medical care for prisoners or detainees – the same staff provide the medical care as before the transfer to the Ministry of Healthcare. Medical personnel are not aware of the law; unwilling to work according to their new job descriptions, which is exacerbated by a disconnect between the management of institutions and medical services.” (IPHR et al., 21. März 2023, S. 20)

„Prisoners have difficulty in lodging complaints from places of detention. The computers for electronic complaints in penitentiary institutions are not easy to use, and inmates who are inexperienced with computers and the Internet find it difficult to use them on their own; they are also located in administrative buildings, which prisoners cannot easily access. Prisoners often report that their complaints are not registered and not sent to the addressees.” (IPHR et al., 21. März 2023, S. 20-21)

Das Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR) ist eine kasachische Menschenrechtsorganisation.

·      KIBHR – Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law: Statement on the arrest and trial of NSC officers on January events, 24. November 2022
https://bureau.kz/en/news/kibhr_statements/statement-on-nsc-officer/

„According to official records, following the tragic events of January 2022, some ten thousand people were detained. Many of the detentions fell into the category of arbitrary detention. Moreover, hundreds of detainees alleged torture. The NGO Coalition against Torture in Kazakhstan alone received 190 complaints of torture and ill-treatment against protesters.

To date persons whose guilt of unlawful acts during the January events has not been proven are still being released from pre-trial detention facilities. Many of those released have alleged torture or ill-treatment, but their reports have been ignored.“ (KIBHR, 24. November 2022)

Trial Watch ist eine Initiative der Clooney Foundation for Justice, mit dem Ziel, Gerichtsverfahren zu beoachten. Die Clooney Foundation for Justice ist eine in 40 Ländern tätige Menschenrechtsorganisation. Stephanie Farrior ist Professorin für internationales Recht und Menschenrechte.

·      Trial Watch & Farrior, Stephanie: Kazakhstan v. Askhat Zheksebaev et al., Clooney Foundation for Justice (Hg.), November 2022
https://cfj.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/EN-Zheksebaev-Fairness-Report_November-2022.pdf

„First, regarding the right to adequate facilities: the Yesil court decision banning the Koshe Party lay at the core of the charges against Mr. Zheksebaev. On the basis of this decision, the prosecution argued that Koshe was merely a continuation of the already banned DCK and that it thus did not matter that Mr. Zheksebaev’s alleged acts preceded the banning of Koshe.2 Nonetheless, the court repeatedly refused defense requests to obtain access to the ruling and offered no justification for withholding it. Pursuant to the right to adequate facilities, the defense must be allowed to put all relevant arguments before the trial court. Denying Mr. Zheksebaev access to the court decision that lay at the core of the charges against him impeded the defense’s ability to prepare and argue its case, thereby violating the right to adequate facilities.

Second, regarding the right to call and examine witnesses, the court refused defense requests to question the government ‘expert’ witnesses whose conclusions formed a key part of the prosecution’s case. According to the court, the availability of their written opinions sufficed. To the contrary, written work does not displace the right to examine witnesses at one’s trial. The defense must have the opportunity to challenge the reliability of the evidence itself as well as the credibility and probity of witnesses. It was thereby essential that the defense be allowed to question the ‘experts’ about their methodology, experience, and findings. That their opinions were available in written form did not obviate the need for cross-examination.

Third, the proceedings violated Mr. Zheksebaev’s right to be tried by an independent and impartial court. The court’s unwarranted refusals to provide the decision banning the Koshe Party and to call prosecution witnesses for questioning were among many examples of its bias against the defense. In addition, the court reviewed 78 volumes of written evidence – with approximately 170 pages per volume – in just a few hours. This haste would objectively appear to be indicative of a predetermined outcome.” (Trial Watch/Farrior, November 2022, S. 4-5)

Das US Department of State (USDOS) ist das US-amerikanische Außenministerium.

·      USDOS – US Department of State: 2022 Country Report on Human Rights Practices: Kazakhstan, 20. März 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2089240.html

„There were several reports that the government or its agents committed arbitrary or unlawful killings or beatings that led to deaths. Activists noted that abuse in prisons, particularly abuse carried out by so-called voluntary assistants – prisoners who received special privileges in exchange for carrying out orders of prison staff – remained frequent and occasionally led to death from abuse or suicide.” (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1a)

„Cases of prison officers being brought to justice for abuse were rare, and officers often received light punishment. Human rights observers commented that only in rare incidents, such as when information regarding the abuse was publicized and caused a strong public reaction, were perpetrators held accountable. Abuse occurred in police cells, pretrial detention facilities, and prisons. Human rights observers stated that abuse was particularly prominent in pretrial facilities, including interrogation rooms, and that authorities sometimes used pretrial detention to beat and abuse detainees to extract confessions. [….]

Observers reported that prison conditions generally remained harsh and occasionally life threatening and that facilities did not meet international health standards. Health problems among prisoners went untreated in many cases, or prison conditions exacerbated them.

Abusive Physical Conditions: The NPM reported poor health and sanitary conditions and poor medical services, including for prisoners suffering from HIV, AIDS, and diabetes. Treatment of tuberculosis patients improved but remained problematic in some facilities. The NPM also reported discrimination against prisoners in vulnerable groups, including prisoners with disabilities and prisoners with HIV or AIDS. […]

Administration: Authorities typically did not conduct proper investigations into allegations of mistreatment. Human rights observers noted that in many cases authorities did not investigate prisoners’ allegations of torture, did not respond to complaints of abuse, or did not hold prison administrators or staff accountable. Despite installation of electronic complaint terminals in some locations, PMC members reported many prisoners did not have access to a secure channel for submission of complaints. In addition, human rights experts reported local prosecutor general’s offices responsible for investigating abuse and torture complaints sometimes exploited bureaucratic loopholes to avoid investigating them. PMC members emphasized problems with prisoners who were selected as voluntary assistants for duties including control over other prisoners, which they often accomplished through means of abusive treatment.” (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1c)

„Human rights observers stated that prisoners were constrained in their ability to communicate with their attorneys, that penitentiary staff secretly recorded conversations, and that staff often remained present during the meetings between defendants and attorneys.

Human rights defenders reported that authorities dissuaded detainees from seeing an attorney, gathered evidence through preliminary questioning before a detainee’s attorney arrived, and in some cases used defense attorneys to gather evidence.” (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1d)

„Observers noted the juror selection process was inconsistent. Judges exerted pressure on jurors and could easily dissolve a panel of jurors for perceived disobedience. The law has no mechanism for holding judges liable for such actions. Activists criticized juries for a bias towards the prosecution because of the pressure that judges applied on jurors, experts, and witnesses. […]

Domestic and international human rights organizations reported numerous problems in the judicial system, including lack of access to court proceedings, lack of access to government-held evidence, frequent procedural violations, unfair denial of defense counsel motions, and failure of judges to investigate allegations that authorities extracted confessions through torture or duress.” (USDOS, 20. März 2023, Section 1e)

·      USDOS – US Department of State: 2022 Report on International Religious Freedom: Kazakhstan, 15. Mai 2023
https://www.ecoi.net/de/dokument/2091947.html

„Civil society observers and defense lawyers reported that “expert” opinions used to convict individuals who had not committed or advocated violence were often of questionable quality and that judges did not consistently allow these “experts” to be questioned about their analyses during trials.” (USDOS, 15. Mai 2023, Section II, Government Practices)

---