Response of Kazakhstani civil society representatives to the declaration of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
Representatives of non-governmental organizations of Kazakhstan, including Marlen Imangaliyev from the Public Association “Veterans of military operations who took part in the settlement of the interethnic conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh in the West Kazakhstan region”, Suleimen Usen and Marat Sarsembayev from the Public Foundation “National Endowment for Prosperity”, Dmitry Poltarenko - head of the ULE “Association “Civil Alliance of the Karaganda Region”, Marina Schiller - president of the NGO “Omir syila”, Salamat Kabidayev from the private institution “Eurasian Peace and Accord”, Togzhan Dauyl from the Public Foundation “Alash Ulandary”, Yesen Abdikhalyk from the Private Institution “Human Resources Kazakhstan”, Orynbek Moldakhan from the Public Foundation “Asyl Kazyna” and Rauan Baygabyl from the NGO “El erteni" declare:
We express our deep concern over the apparent “weaponization” of the democratic agenda by certain representatives within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in relation to Kazakhstan.
Unfortunately, PACE’s recent activities have undermined its credibility as a defender and builder of democracy. For us, this once-respected institution now appears to lack genuine commitment to its political principles.
We have every reason to believe that your platform is being manipulated by individuals with questionable motives, including well-known figures, such as Mr. Mukhtar Ablyazov and his associates, who fit the profile of an organized criminal network. According to court records from the United Kingdom, the United States, and other nations, Mr. Ablyazov embezzled billions of dollars from a bank in Kazakhstan and laundered the stollen funds internationally, including in Europe and the U.S.
We are equally troubled by the paradox of PACE criticizing Kazakhstan’s governance while turning a blind eye to serious shortcomings within European systems, such as the delayed and insufficient action on systemic corruption revealed during the "Qatargate" scandal. It is worth questioning whether certain links exist between suspects in the "Qatargate" case, their associated political entities, and activities related to Kazakhstan. The patterns we observe are concerning and warrant thourough investigation. Against this backdrop, our concerns about officials misusing their positions for personal gain are not without merit.
The discussions with PACE demonstrate a troubling bias. Your hearings and reports often lack balance and are influenced by forces antagonistic to Kazakhstan. Of particular concern is the absence of clear definitions for critical concepts such as “whistleblower” and “informant”, which undermines the objectivity of your processes.
The opaque and subjective nature of PACE’s reporting, coupled with its apparent alignment with individuals and organizations with questionable motives, is inconsistent of transparency and fairness.
Furthermore, we note with concerned PACE’s advocacy for a certain NGO that lobbies on behalf of known criminals and has financial ties to entities sanctioned by the European Union.
It is our responsibility, as Kazakhstan’s civil society, to address these issues.
Kazakhstan has been making tangible progress in advancing democratic reforms. Mechanisms to protect human rights have been established, courts are becoming increasingly independent, and administrative justice is now fully operational. Given these developments, we find it challenging to understand PACE’s persistent use of the term "political prisoners" in relation to Kazakhstan.
You have applied this term to individuals who have been convicted of ordinary criminal. By framing these cases as political, PACE inadvertently enables such individuals to evade accountability and shifts focus away from legitimate discussion on human rights. This practice not only distorts the reality of the situation but also suggests and alarming trend of politicizing criminal matters to serve broader agendas.
Participating in political activities does not automatically absolve individuals of previous crimes. In fact, all of the individuals you listed are common criminals. For example:
Ashirbekov, who is trying to be presented as a political prisoner, raped a woman in the cabin of his car.
Yelshibayev, motivated by jealousy of his wife, stabbed the victim in the chest, from which he died. The victim was survived by his wife, two children and parents. Therefore, Yelshibayev was allowed not to serve his sentence in full and replaced it with a fine. However, Yelshibayev did not appreciate the humanism shown. Having returned to freedom, he again committed two thefts (23.04.17 and 25.12.18) and a car theft (27.06.18). These criminal cases were terminated for reconciliation of the parties. He did not stop there either and continued his lawless activities. Thus, during a joint drinking session, he struck a shard of a bottle in the eye of his drinking companion, from which the latter became blind and disabled of the 2nd group. These bodily injuries are classified as grave. For this he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Where is the politics in this?
Utepov by means of fraud took possession of money of one woman in the amount of 1 million 150 thousand tenge and a man in the amount of 2 million tenge. He incited the woman to bribe officials.
Abzhan extorted 50 million tenge from the victim for not disseminating information dishonoring him.
Altayev received monthly bribes of US$5,000 each, totaling US$136,000 (50,123,400 tenge).
Amirov promoted the ideologies of the banned religious organization Muslim Brotherhood Association.
Mendygaziyev evaded tax payment as part of an organized criminal group.
Zhylanbayev, Danebayev, and Mukhammedkarim had been convicted for participation in the court-banned organization on the territory of the RK (DVK), with the purpose of violent change of the constitutional order of the country and seizing power.
Mamai, Tleuzhan had been convicted for organizing and participating in mass riots.
Where is the politics in this? All those convicted have undergone fair trials. However, it is worth noting that Mukhtar Ablyazov continues to finance them. And what is this objective?
We acknowledge that democracy and the pursuit of human rights are continuous endeavors, demanding ongoing effort and improvement as we advance as a maturing state. PACE could play a valuable and constructive role in guiding and supporting this process. However, the content and structure of the declaration raise serious concerns about the true intentions of the PACE deputies who endorsed it.
PACE’s declaration does little to demonstrate a commitment to fostering a more human rights-oriented Kazakhstan, Instead, it sends a troubling signal to the people of Kazakhstan - that kleptocrats and money launderers can evade justice by fleeing to Europe, where they exploit their ill-gotten wealth to wield political influence over Kazakhstan.
These intentions remain to us and deserve closer examination. Perhaps in time, European law enforcement agencies will address this matter and provide Kazakhstan’s civil society with a clear and definitive answer. I believe that the PACE must undertake significant reforms, both in its regulatory procedures and substantive functions. Without these changes, PACE risks losing its role as a vital platform for meaningful pan-European dialogue and inter-regional cooperation.
For your convenience, we provided a list of individuals who signed this defamation document:
1. Mr. Gerardo GIOVAGNOLI, San Marino, SOC
2. Ms. Petra BAYR, Austria, SOC
3. Mr. Denis BEGIC, Sweden SOC
4. Mr. Jone BLIKRA, Norway, SOC
5. Mr. Theo BOVENS, Netherlands, EPP/CD
6. Ms. Laura CASTEL, Spain, UE
7. Ms. Sevilay CELENK OZEN, Turkiye, UE
8. Mr. Christophe CHAILLOU, France, SOC
9. Mr. Yves CHRUCHTEN, Luxembourg, SOC
10. Mr. Emmanuel FERNANDES, France, UEL
11. Mr. Paul GAVAN, Ireland, UEL
12. Mr. Mattias JONSSON, Sweden, SOC
13. Mr. Claude KERN, France, ALDE
14. Mr. Ettore Antonio LICHERI, Italy, UEL
15. Mr. George PAPNDREOU, Greece, SOC
16. Ms. Agnes Sirkka PRAMMER, Austria, SOC
17. Mr. Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria, SOC
18. Ms. Alexandra SCHOOS, Luxembourg, ECPA
19. Mr. Frank SCHWABE, Germany, SOC
20. Ms. Annika STRANDHALL, Sweden, SOC
Representatives of non-governmental organizations of Kazakhstan, including Marlen Imangaliyev from the Public Association “Veterans of military operations who took part in the settlement of the interethnic conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh in the West Kazakhstan region”, Suleimen Usen and Marat Sarsembayev from the Public Foundation “National Endowment for Prosperity”, Dmitry Poltarenko - head of the ULE “Association “Civil Alliance of the Karaganda Region”, Marina Schiller - president of the NGO “Omir syila”, Salamat Kabidayev from the private institution “Eurasian Peace and Accord”, Togzhan Dauyl from the Public Foundation “Alash Ulandary”, Yesen Abdikhalyk from the Private Institution “Human Resources Kazakhstan”, Orynbek Moldakhan from the Public Foundation “Asyl Kazyna” and Rauan Baygabyl from the NGO “El erteni" declare:
We express our deep concern over the apparent “weaponization” of the democratic agenda by certain representatives within the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) in relation to Kazakhstan.
Unfortunately, PACE’s recent activities have undermined its credibility as a defender and builder of democracy. For us, this once-respected institution now appears to lack genuine commitment to its political principles.
We have every reason to believe that your platform is being manipulated by individuals with questionable motives, including well-known figures, such as Mr. Mukhtar Ablyazov and his associates, who fit the profile of an organized criminal network. According to court records from the United Kingdom, the United States, and other nations, Mr. Ablyazov embezzled billions of dollars from a bank in Kazakhstan and laundered the stollen funds internationally, including in Europe and the U.S.
We are equally troubled by the paradox of PACE criticizing Kazakhstan’s governance while turning a blind eye to serious shortcomings within European systems, such as the delayed and insufficient action on systemic corruption revealed during the "Qatargate" scandal. It is worth questioning whether certain links exist between suspects in the "Qatargate" case, their associated political entities, and activities related to Kazakhstan. The patterns we observe are concerning and warrant thourough investigation. Against this backdrop, our concerns about officials misusing their positions for personal gain are not without merit.
The discussions with PACE demonstrate a troubling bias. Your hearings and reports often lack balance and are influenced by forces antagonistic to Kazakhstan. Of particular concern is the absence of clear definitions for critical concepts such as “whistleblower” and “informant”, which undermines the objectivity of your processes.
The opaque and subjective nature of PACE’s reporting, coupled with its apparent alignment with individuals and organizations with questionable motives, is inconsistent of transparency and fairness.
Furthermore, we note with concerned PACE’s advocacy for a certain NGO that lobbies on behalf of known criminals and has financial ties to entities sanctioned by the European Union.
It is our responsibility, as Kazakhstan’s civil society, to address these issues.
Kazakhstan has been making tangible progress in advancing democratic reforms. Mechanisms to protect human rights have been established, courts are becoming increasingly independent, and administrative justice is now fully operational. Given these developments, we find it challenging to understand PACE’s persistent use of the term "political prisoners" in relation to Kazakhstan.
You have applied this term to individuals who have been convicted of ordinary criminal. By framing these cases as political, PACE inadvertently enables such individuals to evade accountability and shifts focus away from legitimate discussion on human rights. This practice not only distorts the reality of the situation but also suggests and alarming trend of politicizing criminal matters to serve broader agendas.
Participating in political activities does not automatically absolve individuals of previous crimes. In fact, all of the individuals you listed are common criminals. For example:
Ashirbekov, who is trying to be presented as a political prisoner, raped a woman in the cabin of his car.
Yelshibayev, motivated by jealousy of his wife, stabbed the victim in the chest, from which he died. The victim was survived by his wife, two children and parents. Therefore, Yelshibayev was allowed not to serve his sentence in full and replaced it with a fine. However, Yelshibayev did not appreciate the humanism shown. Having returned to freedom, he again committed two thefts (23.04.17 and 25.12.18) and a car theft (27.06.18). These criminal cases were terminated for reconciliation of the parties. He did not stop there either and continued his lawless activities. Thus, during a joint drinking session, he struck a shard of a bottle in the eye of his drinking companion, from which the latter became blind and disabled of the 2nd group. These bodily injuries are classified as grave. For this he was sentenced to 5 years in prison. Where is the politics in this?
Utepov by means of fraud took possession of money of one woman in the amount of 1 million 150 thousand tenge and a man in the amount of 2 million tenge. He incited the woman to bribe officials.
Abzhan extorted 50 million tenge from the victim for not disseminating information dishonoring him.
Altayev received monthly bribes of US$5,000 each, totaling US$136,000 (50,123,400 tenge).
Amirov promoted the ideologies of the banned religious organization Muslim Brotherhood Association.
Mendygaziyev evaded tax payment as part of an organized criminal group.
Zhylanbayev, Danebayev, and Mukhammedkarim had been convicted for participation in the court-banned organization on the territory of the RK (DVK), with the purpose of violent change of the constitutional order of the country and seizing power.
Mamai, Tleuzhan had been convicted for organizing and participating in mass riots.
Where is the politics in this? All those convicted have undergone fair trials. However, it is worth noting that Mukhtar Ablyazov continues to finance them. And what is this objective?
We acknowledge that democracy and the pursuit of human rights are continuous endeavors, demanding ongoing effort and improvement as we advance as a maturing state. PACE could play a valuable and constructive role in guiding and supporting this process. However, the content and structure of the declaration raise serious concerns about the true intentions of the PACE deputies who endorsed it.
PACE’s declaration does little to demonstrate a commitment to fostering a more human rights-oriented Kazakhstan, Instead, it sends a troubling signal to the people of Kazakhstan - that kleptocrats and money launderers can evade justice by fleeing to Europe, where they exploit their ill-gotten wealth to wield political influence over Kazakhstan.
These intentions remain to us and deserve closer examination. Perhaps in time, European law enforcement agencies will address this matter and provide Kazakhstan’s civil society with a clear and definitive answer. I believe that the PACE must undertake significant reforms, both in its regulatory procedures and substantive functions. Without these changes, PACE risks losing its role as a vital platform for meaningful pan-European dialogue and inter-regional cooperation.
For your convenience, we provided a list of individuals who signed this defamation document:
1. Mr. Gerardo GIOVAGNOLI, San Marino, SOC
2. Ms. Petra BAYR, Austria, SOC
3. Mr. Denis BEGIC, Sweden SOC
4. Mr. Jone BLIKRA, Norway, SOC
5. Mr. Theo BOVENS, Netherlands, EPP/CD
6. Ms. Laura CASTEL, Spain, UE
7. Ms. Sevilay CELENK OZEN, Turkiye, UE
8. Mr. Christophe CHAILLOU, France, SOC
9. Mr. Yves CHRUCHTEN, Luxembourg, SOC
10. Mr. Emmanuel FERNANDES, France, UEL
11. Mr. Paul GAVAN, Ireland, UEL
12. Mr. Mattias JONSSON, Sweden, SOC
13. Mr. Claude KERN, France, ALDE
14. Mr. Ettore Antonio LICHERI, Italy, UEL
15. Mr. George PAPNDREOU, Greece, SOC
16. Ms. Agnes Sirkka PRAMMER, Austria, SOC
17. Mr. Stefan SCHENNACH, Austria, SOC
18. Ms. Alexandra SCHOOS, Luxembourg, ECPA
19. Mr. Frank SCHWABE, Germany, SOC
20. Ms. Annika STRANDHALL, Sweden, SOC