Recently (May 13, 2025), one of the portals published a curious article entitled: “Human rights activists reported on the real situation with torture in Kazakhstan”.
It states that the Coalition of NGOs of Kazakhstan Against Torture has prepared a certain report on the real situation of torture in the country. It is also separately emphasized that Kazakhstani human rights activists are implementing this project with the financial support of the European Union.
As far as it could be understood from the text of the article, the “report” itself says that in our country, despite some positives, “the vicious and so-called ‘systemic’ practice of torture and evasion of responsibility continues”.
Usually, we do not react to such escapades, preferring to focus on real problems that should be constructively addressed in cooperation with civil society and the state. But since the so-called “report” claims to be an objective assessment of the situation within the country, I have to give my commentary.
The main achievements in the field of combating torture.
In almost every statement we make, we state that in 2022, the State and the Ombudsman Institute have done painstaking and really important work to effectively combat torture.
By the start of 2023, a number of crucial willful reforms had already been enacted:
1) Prison medicine was transferred from the Interior Ministry to a civilian agency (the Ministry of Health).
From that moment on, convicts became patients for medical staff, not supervisory contingents. Now, the medical personnel treating convicts are under the Hippocratic Oath rather than the officer's oath.
Thus, it is a matter of changing the institutional philosophy of how to treat people who require medical care;
2) Domestic clinical protocol is harmonized with the Istanbul protocol, which obliges medics to record torture immediately and prosecution services to investigate;
3) Continuous video surveillance in prisons, with a simultaneous obligation for staff to wear video badges.
To date, over 45,000 video cameras have been installed in every institution in the country. The cameras both prevent torture and provide evidence of facts that have already occurred. The prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs at all levels have access to recordings in “online” and “archive” modes.
Through this indicator, Kazakhstan is a leader in this field among the countries of the world;
(4) Installation of 612 electronic terminals for filing complaints in places and premises that exclude censorship by the prison administration. Prisoners can directly address courts and supervisory bodies;
5) Increased liability for torture (up to 12 years' imprisonment), prohibitions on reconciliation, conditional release, amnesties and no statute of limitations on torture cases. Separate criminal liability for ill-treatment;
6) Investigation of cases of torture is placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office, which is the highest supervisory body under the Constitution. This in both theory and practice excludes departmental interest.
What this has resulted in practice.
In 2023 alone, 47 members of law enforcement agencies were convicted of torture.
This exceeds the cumulative figures for the previous 3 years (2020-2022) combined (2020 - 13, 2021 - 15, 2022 - 8, total 36 persons).
In 2024, 30 individuals were convicted, with another 12 still pending in court (continues into 2025).
A total of 160 officials have been prosecuted and convicted in the last 5 years.
Of them, 144 or 87% were sentenced to imprisonment, and 10 to restriction of freedom.
All this clearly shows that the principle of inevitability of punishment is working effectively in Kazakhstan.
At the same time, the increase in the number of those convicted of torture is directly proportional to the decrease in the registration of torture.
For example, if in the period from 2019 to 2022, 600-900 cases were registered annually (2019 - 850; 2020 - 766; 2021 - 685; 2022 - 920), then in 2023 there was a decrease by 50% (from 920 to 462), in 2024 - by another almost 60% (from 462 to 193).
In simple words - there are almost 5 times fewer complaints.
Conclusion.
All this is a direct result of the country's zero-tolerance policy on torture.
It is thanks to this response system and publicity-oriented approach that information in this area has become available to the public.
However, this very openness is presented in the so-called “report” as a disadvantage for the country's human rights system.
As seen above, it is impossible to agree with the conclusions of the authors of the report.
As we understand, they are trying hard to distort the current reality. I, myself, as an Ombudsman, criticize and make recommendations to the state, but I also see objective evidence of changes in the country. That is why I do not agree with tendentious conclusions of those so-called experts. Which is why I cannot afford to be complacent in watching the devaluation of the efforts of the Ombudsman Institute and the state as a whole.
Incidentally, the websites of the Coalition and KIBHR, who position themselves as the authors of this report, have a suspiciously similar report, but for the years of 2017-2019, which contain almost the same conclusions.
It is a pity that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture will receive this biased report, and our partner, the European Union, will also pay for all this.
We do not call for silence; on the contrary, we are always in favor of honest and open dialogue. Whoever wants to work in a constructive manner - we are open.
All NGOs in the country have access to a dialogue with both the government agencies and the Commissioner.
According to international practice, only documents prepared in partnership can have weight and recognition.
In this case, the report was prepared one-sidedly, without aiming to objectively assess the situation and build a partnership.
Such documents should not be given credibility.
And in conclusion.
Recently, to strengthen their arguments, many “analysts” have tried to speak under the auspices of Coalitions or Unions. In reality, only 2-3 structures or their individual representatives participate in grant projects.
This is a well-known manipulative action where they try to present their narrow opinion on behalf of a large number of supporters.
I call for the abandonment of this practice of manipulating public opinion.
Areas of operation
Combating torture
It states that the Coalition of NGOs of Kazakhstan Against Torture has prepared a certain report on the real situation of torture in the country. It is also separately emphasized that Kazakhstani human rights activists are implementing this project with the financial support of the European Union.
As far as it could be understood from the text of the article, the “report” itself says that in our country, despite some positives, “the vicious and so-called ‘systemic’ practice of torture and evasion of responsibility continues”.
Usually, we do not react to such escapades, preferring to focus on real problems that should be constructively addressed in cooperation with civil society and the state. But since the so-called “report” claims to be an objective assessment of the situation within the country, I have to give my commentary.
The main achievements in the field of combating torture.
In almost every statement we make, we state that in 2022, the State and the Ombudsman Institute have done painstaking and really important work to effectively combat torture.
By the start of 2023, a number of crucial willful reforms had already been enacted:
1) Prison medicine was transferred from the Interior Ministry to a civilian agency (the Ministry of Health).
From that moment on, convicts became patients for medical staff, not supervisory contingents. Now, the medical personnel treating convicts are under the Hippocratic Oath rather than the officer's oath.
Thus, it is a matter of changing the institutional philosophy of how to treat people who require medical care;
2) Domestic clinical protocol is harmonized with the Istanbul protocol, which obliges medics to record torture immediately and prosecution services to investigate;
3) Continuous video surveillance in prisons, with a simultaneous obligation for staff to wear video badges.
To date, over 45,000 video cameras have been installed in every institution in the country. The cameras both prevent torture and provide evidence of facts that have already occurred. The prosecutor's office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs at all levels have access to recordings in “online” and “archive” modes.
Through this indicator, Kazakhstan is a leader in this field among the countries of the world;
(4) Installation of 612 electronic terminals for filing complaints in places and premises that exclude censorship by the prison administration. Prisoners can directly address courts and supervisory bodies;
5) Increased liability for torture (up to 12 years' imprisonment), prohibitions on reconciliation, conditional release, amnesties and no statute of limitations on torture cases. Separate criminal liability for ill-treatment;
6) Investigation of cases of torture is placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office, which is the highest supervisory body under the Constitution. This in both theory and practice excludes departmental interest.
What this has resulted in practice.
In 2023 alone, 47 members of law enforcement agencies were convicted of torture.
This exceeds the cumulative figures for the previous 3 years (2020-2022) combined (2020 - 13, 2021 - 15, 2022 - 8, total 36 persons).
In 2024, 30 individuals were convicted, with another 12 still pending in court (continues into 2025).
A total of 160 officials have been prosecuted and convicted in the last 5 years.
Of them, 144 or 87% were sentenced to imprisonment, and 10 to restriction of freedom.
All this clearly shows that the principle of inevitability of punishment is working effectively in Kazakhstan.
At the same time, the increase in the number of those convicted of torture is directly proportional to the decrease in the registration of torture.
For example, if in the period from 2019 to 2022, 600-900 cases were registered annually (2019 - 850; 2020 - 766; 2021 - 685; 2022 - 920), then in 2023 there was a decrease by 50% (from 920 to 462), in 2024 - by another almost 60% (from 462 to 193).
In simple words - there are almost 5 times fewer complaints.
Conclusion.
All this is a direct result of the country's zero-tolerance policy on torture.
It is thanks to this response system and publicity-oriented approach that information in this area has become available to the public.
However, this very openness is presented in the so-called “report” as a disadvantage for the country's human rights system.
As seen above, it is impossible to agree with the conclusions of the authors of the report.
As we understand, they are trying hard to distort the current reality. I, myself, as an Ombudsman, criticize and make recommendations to the state, but I also see objective evidence of changes in the country. That is why I do not agree with tendentious conclusions of those so-called experts. Which is why I cannot afford to be complacent in watching the devaluation of the efforts of the Ombudsman Institute and the state as a whole.
Incidentally, the websites of the Coalition and KIBHR, who position themselves as the authors of this report, have a suspiciously similar report, but for the years of 2017-2019, which contain almost the same conclusions.
It is a pity that the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture will receive this biased report, and our partner, the European Union, will also pay for all this.
We do not call for silence; on the contrary, we are always in favor of honest and open dialogue. Whoever wants to work in a constructive manner - we are open.
All NGOs in the country have access to a dialogue with both the government agencies and the Commissioner.
According to international practice, only documents prepared in partnership can have weight and recognition.
In this case, the report was prepared one-sidedly, without aiming to objectively assess the situation and build a partnership.
Such documents should not be given credibility.
And in conclusion.
Recently, to strengthen their arguments, many “analysts” have tried to speak under the auspices of Coalitions or Unions. In reality, only 2-3 structures or their individual representatives participate in grant projects.
This is a well-known manipulative action where they try to present their narrow opinion on behalf of a large number of supporters.
I call for the abandonment of this practice of manipulating public opinion.
Areas of operation
Combating torture