Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Kazakhstan violated the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly of five individuals who were sanctioned for participating in a peaceful protest against the sudden devaluation of the national currency in 2014. The petitioners were arrested and fined under domestic law for joining a demonstration that, although unauthorized, was peaceful and non-disruptive. Their appeals before national courts were unsuccessful. The petitioners argued that the legal framework requiring prior authorization for assemblies violated their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Kazakhstan, for its part, argued that the sanctions were lawful under domestic law and necessary to maintain public order. The Committee emphasized that even if unauthorized, peaceful assemblies are protected under Article 21 of the Covenant. It reiterated that the right to peaceful assembly is a right—not a privilege—and any restriction must meet the strict tests of legality, necessity in a democratic society, and proportionality. Regarding Article 19, the Committee held that penalizing three of the petitioners for participating in a peaceful protest interfered with their right to express ideas and share information. It held that the State did not demonstrate that the sanctions were necessary or proportionate and concluded that articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant were violated. The Committee ordered Kazakhstan to provide adequate compensation to all the petitioners, including reimbursement of the fines and legal costs incurred, and to adopt measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

---

Facts

On February 15, 2014, Georgiy Arkhangelskiy, Bakhtiyar Albani, Ruslan Dzhumanbayev, Zhan Kenzhegulov, and Zhanar Sekerbayeva (hereinafter, the petitioners), participated in an unauthorized peaceful demonstration in Almaty, Kazakhstan, in protest against the devaluation of the national currency.

The demonstration was spontaneously organized by citizens through the social network Facebook after the government of Kazakhstan announced a 30% devaluation of the national currency, despite prior official statements denying such a measure. The peaceful gathering attracted numerous individuals to the city center. The initially planned area where the protest was to take place was cordoned off and monitored by the police, prompting the petitioners and other demonstrators to move toward Republic Square, where they were arrested.

Georgiy Arkhangelskiy and Bakhtiyar Albani

Arkhangelskiy and Albani went to downtown Almaty on February 15, 2014, to take part in the protest. Both were arrested at Republic Square and subsequently convicted by the Interdistrict Specialized Administrative Court of Almaty for violating Article 373.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses concerning peaceful assemblies. Arkhangelskiy was fined 1,852 tenge (approximately 8 euros), while Albani received a fine of 12,964 tenge (approximately 56 euros). Both appealed the decisions before the Almaty City Court, but their appeals were dismissed on March 6, 2014. They later submitted motions for review before the City Prosecutor’s Office and the Office of the Prosecutor General, which were also denied between April and June 2014.

Ruslan Dzhumanbayev and Zhan Kenzhegulov

Dzhumanbayev and Kenzhegulov did not initially plan to participate in the protest, but upon passing by and seeing the crowd, they decided to join spontaneously. Both were arrested and sanctioned by the same court. Dzhumanbayev was fined 5,556 tenge (approximately 24 euros) and Kenzhegulov was fined 9,260 tenge (approximately 40 euros). They filed appeals before the City Court and submitted motions for review before the local prosecutor’s office and the Office of the Prosecutor General, which were rejected between March and July 2014.

Zhanar Sekerbayeva

Sekerbayeva attended the demonstration as a journalist for the newspaper Business and Power. Despite carrying her press credentials, she was arrested at Republic Square alongside the demonstrators and sanctioned by the same court with a fine of 5,556 tenge (approximately 24 euros). Sekerbayeva also appealed the sanction and filed motions for review before the prosecutorial authorities, but all her claims were dismissed.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

On September 2, 2014, Arkhangelskiy, Albani, Dzhumanbayev, Kenzhegulov, and Sekerbayeva, submitted individual communications to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC or the Committee), claiming that the sanctions imposed by the State of Kazakhstan for their participation in a peaceful protest violated their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, as protected by articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), respectively. The petitioners argued that “the State party has failed to provide any justification as to why it was necessary to restrict their rights.” [para. 3.1]

They also requested the Committee to urge the State party to sanction those responsible for the violations, provide them with compensation—including legal costs—, reform the legislation that imposes undue restrictions on peaceful assembly, and ensure that peaceful protests do not give rise to arbitrary interferences or reprisals against organizers or participants.

For its part, on March 16, 2015, Kazakhstan argued that the communications were inadmissible because the petitioners had not sufficiently substantiated their allegations. The State party acknowledged that the petitioners participated in an unauthorized public demonstration on February 15, 2014, in Almaty, in which they chanted slogans and encouraged bystanders to join, thereby disturbing public order. It claimed that the police warned the demonstrators about the illegality of the protest and, upon their refusal to disperse, proceeded to detain them in accordance with Article 373.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

Moreover, the State asserted that the petitioners were not sanctioned for exercising their rights to freedom of expression and assembly, but for violating the legal requirements governing their exercise, which mandate prior authorization. It further argued that these restrictions are provided for under domestic legislation and consistent with articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

On March 10, 2023, the UNHRC decided to join the communications submitted “by [the] five different [petitioners] for a joint decision, in view of substantial factual and legal similarity.” [para. 1.2]

---

Decision Overview

On April 6, 2023, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. It had to decide whether the fines and detentions imposed by Kazakhstan on the petitioners, after participating in peaceful public events, violated their rights to freedom of expression and assembly, under articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR.

The petitioners argued that the State party violated their rights under articles 19 and 21 of the ICCPR by imposing fines for participating in a peaceful protest against the unexpected devaluation of Kazakhstan’s national currency. They emphasized that their conduct was non-violent and did not pose a threat to public order or safety. In their view, the legal framework requiring prior authorization for public assemblies—combined with its rigid application—resulted in an unjustified interference with their fundamental rights. Arkhangelskiy, Albani, and Sekerbayeva also claimed that the sanctions infringed on their right to freedom of expression—and in Sekerbayeva’s case, her right to disseminate information as a journalist. The petitioners maintained that the restrictions were neither necessary nor proportionate to any legitimate aim under the Covenant.

For its part, Kazakhstan argued that the imposed sanctions were lawful and based on domestic legislation regulating public assemblies, which requires prior approval from local authorities. The State asserted that the petitioners knowingly participated in an unauthorized gathering that disrupted public peace by chanting slogans and attempting to access restricted areas. Kazakhstan maintained that the restrictions were consistent with articles 19 and 21 of the Covenant, and necessary to preserve public order and the rights of others.

Citing its General Comment 37 (2020) on the right of peaceful assembly, the Committee recalled that “the right of peaceful assembly, as guaranteed under article 21 of the Covenant, is a fundamental human right that is essential for public expression of an individual’s views and opinions and is indispensable in a democratic society.” [para. 8.3]. Further, the UNHRC explained that “no restriction to this right is permissible, unless it (a) is imposed in conformity with the law; and (b) is necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security or public safety, public order (ordre public), protection of public health or morals or protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” [para. 8.3]

The Committee clarified that the right to peaceful assembly encompasses various forms of collective expression, including protests, vigils, marches, and pickets, whether stationary or moving. It emphasized that States have a duty to facilitate the exercise of this right rather than impose unnecessary or disproportionate obstacles and must therefore provide solid justification for any restriction they seek to impose.

Subsequently, citing the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights’ “Guidelines on Freedom of Association and Assembly in Africa,” the UNHRC explained that “that authorization regimes, where those wishing to assemble have to apply for permission (or a permit) from the authorities to do so, undercut the idea that peaceful assembly is a basic right.” [para. 8.4] The Committee noted that Kazakhstan justified the restrictions on the right to peaceful assembly based on domestic laws requiring prior authorization. On this point, the UNHRC recalled that this right was not a privilege and that even restrictions established by law must meet the requirements of necessity and proportionality under Article 21 of the ICCPR.

In addition, the Committee emphasized that protecting “the rights and freedoms of others” relates to “the protection of Covenant rights or other human rights of people not participating in the assembly.” [para. 8.5] The UNHRC further stated that assemblies are a legitimate use of public space and that the disruptions they may cause must be tolerated unless they become excessive—in which case the State must provide specific justifications for any restriction.

Regarding “public order,” the UNHRC defined it as “the sum of the rules that ensure the proper functioning of society, or the set of fundamental principles on which society is founded, which also entails respect for human rights, including the right of peaceful assembly.” [para. 8.5] To reach this definition, it relied on the Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, the Committee cautioned that States should not rely on vague notions of “public order” to impose overbroad restrictions and underlined that “public order” is not synonymous with “law and order.” Under this premise, the UNHRC considered that “the State party has not provided any specifics as to the nature of the disturbance occasioned by the assembly in question.” [para. 8.5]

Concerning the requirement that any restriction must be “necessary in a democratic society,” the Committee said that “restrictions must therefore be necessary and proportionate in the context of a society based on democracy, the rule of law, political pluralism and human rights, as opposed to being merely reasonable or expedient.” [para. 8.6] The UNHRC held that the measure must also respond to a “pressing social need,” pursue one of the legitimate aims set out in Article 21 of the Covenant, and be the least intrusive means available.  This proportionality assessment, the Committee emphasized, requires weighing the harm caused to the exercise of the right against the benefit gained in protecting the relevant interest: if the harm outweighs the benefit, the restriction is not permissible, the UNHRC concluded.

In this case, the Committee argued that Kazakhstan “has not demonstrated that the petitioners’ sanctioning with fines for participating in peaceful rallies was necessary in a democratic society to pursue a legitimate aim or was proportionate to such an aim in accordance with the strict requirements under the second sentence of article 21 of the Covenant.” [para. 8.6] Moreover, the UNHRC held that any restriction must be based on an individualized assessment of the participants’ conduct and the specific nature of the assembly and that blanket prohibitions on peaceful gatherings are presumptively disproportionate. For these reasons, the Committee concluded that Kazakhstan violated Article 21 of the Covenant.

Next, the UNHRC had to decide whether Kazakhstan violated the right to freedom of expression, under Article 19 of the ICCPR, of Arkhangelskiy, Albani, and Sekerbayeva. The Committee took note of Arkhangelskiy and Albani’s claims regarding a violation of their right to express opinions, as well as Sekerbayeva’s allegation that her right to impart information as a journalist had been infringed. Although the State party disputed that she was acting as a journalist during the protest, the UNHRC considered it unnecessary to resolve that factual question, as it found that the restrictions should be evaluated under the same criteria applied to the other petitioners. Accordingly, the Committee proceeded to examine whether the imposed measures complied with the requirements set forth in Article 19 of the ICCPR.

The UNHRC observed that penalizing the petitioners for expressing their views, by participating in public events, amounted to an interference with their right to impart ideas and information, as protected under Article 19 of the Covenant. It recalled that Article 19 only allows restrictions that are provided by law and strictly necessary to protect the rights of others, national security, public order, public health, or morals. Referring to its General Comment No. 34, the Committee emphasized that freedom of opinion and expression “are indispensable conditions for the full development of the person” and the “foundation stone for every free and democratic society.” [para. 8.8] It further stressed that any restriction must pass “strict tests of necessity and proportionality,” be directly related to the specific purpose for which it was prescribed and that the burden is on the State party to demonstrate that these conditions are met. [para. 8.8]

The UNHRC explained that imposing administrative fines on Arkhangelskiy, Albani, and Sekerbayeva, for participating in a peaceful, albeit unauthorized, protest “raise[d] serious doubts as to the necessity and proportionality of the restrictions” on their right to freedom of expression [para. 8.9]. It emphasized too that Kazakhstan failed to identify any specific grounds justifying the restrictions, nor did it demonstrate that the measures taken were the least intrusive or even appropriate to protect any legitimate aim.

Consequently, the Committee held that “in the circumstances of the case, the restrictions imposed on Georgiy Arkhangelskiy, Bakhtiyar Albani and Zhanar Sekerbayeva, although based on domestic law, were not justified pursuant to the conditions set out in article 19 of the Covenant. It therefore concludes that their rights under article 19 of the Covenant have been violated.” [para. 8.9]

For all the reasons outlined above, the UNHRC concluded that Kazakhstan violated the petitioners’ right to peaceful assembly as enshrined in Article 21 of the ICCPR. It also concluded that the State infringed on the right to freedom of expression of Arkhangelskiy, Albani, and Sekerbayeva under Article 19, by failing to justify the necessity and proportionality of the imposed restrictions.

As a remedy, the Committee ordered Kazakhstan to provide the petitioners with “adequate compensation and reimbursement of the imposed fines and any legal costs incurred,” [para. 10] and to adopt measures to prevent similar violations in the future.

---