CCPR/C/139/D/3252/2018
unfairly target the media and cited instances of violence against protesters, torture and other
human rights violations. The article both paraphrased and directly quoted Ms. D.’s speech,
referring to the “flagrant and systematic violations of human rights in the country”, the need
to stop an individual with “manic tendencies” and an assertion that “the mass media [had
become] hostage to a person who has a desire to take revenge”. The article did not contain
the opinions of or editorial remarks by journalists.
2.2
On 20 April 2017, the Prosecutor General, relying on the provisions of article 4 of the
Act on the Guarantees of Activities of the President of Kyrgyzstan and article 18 of the Civil
Code, which guarantees protection of a person’s honour, dignity and professional reputation,
filed a civil suit for the protection of the honour and dignity of the President. The suit was
filed against Ms. D., ProMedia and its founders, Mr. I. and the author. In his submission, the
Prosecutor General relied on the findings of a linguistics expert to the effect that Ms. D.’s
statements were offensive, portrayed the President in a negative light and contained
defamatory content that “violated his honour and dignity”. The expert did not examine the
actual article published on the Zanoza website but based the analysis solely on a transcript
and video recording of Ms. D.’s speech. The Prosecutor further alleged that Ms. D. had
accused the President of breaking the law and committing a crime of abuse of authority by
stating that he facilitated persecution of journalists and the media, and had alleged that the
President “forced” the new Constitution on the citizens, even though it had been adopted
through a lawful procedure. As for the article, the prosecutor claimed that Zanoza knowingly
spread unverified information to countless Internet users, aiming to defame the President.
2.3
On 26 April 2017, the Oktyabrsky District Court issued an injunction ordering
ProMedia to remove the article from the Zanoza website and prohibiting the author from
leaving the country. On 18 May 2017, the author appealed against the order, but on an
unspecified date her appeal was rejected.1
2.4
On 30 June 2017, the Oktyabrsky District Court granted the Prosecutor General’s
request, based on the findings of the linguistics expert, and found that the title and content of
the Zanoza article were untrue and discredited the honour, dignity and professional reputation
of the President. The District Court further noted that the act on the mass media obliges
journalists to ensure the accuracy of the information that is disseminated. If there are
violations of the act, the responsibility extends to the founder of the media outlet, the editor
and person sharing information. The District Court did not further elaborate on how the
Zanoza article violated the above-mentioned provisions. The court ordered ProMedia to
remove the article from the Zanoza website and the author and other defendants to pay
non-pecuniary damages in the amount of 3 million soms each (approximately 38,000 euros
on the day of the judgment).
2.5
On 17 August 2017, the Bishkek City Court upheld the decision of the district court
on appeal. The City Court concluded that the expert’s findings were sufficient to establish
the defamatory nature of Ms. D.’s statements. The court also noted that the article distorted
some parts of Ms. D.’s speech, in particular the title of the article and one phrase: “A person
with manic tendencies cannot terrorize six million people like this. He is dragging us into a
civil war. Maniacs should be warned that he is one and we are many”. In addition, the
defendants could not prove that the statements in question were true, while it was their duty
to verify the credibility of the information. Since the author of the article was unknown, the
founders of ProMedia should be held liable for its publication on the Zanoza website. On
30 November 2017, the Supreme Court of Kyrgyzstan rejected the author’s cassation appeal.
Complaint
3.1
The author claims that the proceedings in the domestic courts were unfair and that
their decisions constituted a restriction of her right to freedom of expression, guaranteed by
article 19 of the Covenant. She further claims that the restriction was not provided by law
and was neither necessary in a democratic society, nor proportionate to the aim pursued.
3.2
First, the author argues that any prosecution of a journalist for facilitating the
dissemination of statements made by another person would seriously reduce the contribution
1
2
The author did not provide the text of the appeal or the date of the court decision.
GE.23-25064