Case Summary and Outcome

The United Nations Human Rights Committee held that Kazakhstan violated the right to freedom of expression of journalist and blogger Dina Baydildayeva after she was sanctioned for staging a peaceful single-person picket in Almaty in 2014. Baydildayeva called for the release of her detained colleagues and criticized the city’s mayor, a relative of the President. She was arrested—and a formal warning was issued against her—under domestic legislation requiring prior authorization for public gatherings. Her appeals were rejected at all judicial levels. The Committee held that penalizing an individual, even with a warning, for peacefully expressing political views constituted a disproportionate interference with freedom of expression. It held that Kazakhstan failed to provide a specific and individualized justification for the restriction and did not demonstrate that the measure was necessary or the least intrusive option available. The Committee concluded that Kazakhstan violated Article 19(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and ordered the State to provide compensation to Baydildayeva and review its legislation on public assemblies to bring it in line with international human rights standards.

Facts

On 8 February 2014, Dina Baydildayeva, a journalist and blogger, staged a single-person picket in Republic Square in Almaty (Kazakhstan). She held a poster demanding the release of her colleagues, who had been arrested for reporting on the activities of the Almaty akim (mayor)—a position held at the time by the nephew of the President of Kazakhstan. In addition, she publicly criticized the akim for failing to allocate formal time within his schedule to meet with members of the public. As a consequence for her actions, local police detained her and charged her with violating Article 373.1 of the Code of Administrative Violations.

Subsequently, on 21 February 2014, the Specialized Inter-District Administrative Court of Almaty held that Baydildayeva was guilty of committing an administrative offence under article 373.1 of the aforementioned code—pertaining to violations of the legislation on organizing and holding peaceful assemblies. The court imposed an administrative penalty “in the form of a warning.” [para. 2.2]

Consequently, Baydildayeva appealed the decision to the Almaty City Court, which rejected her appeal on 11 March 2014. She subsequently sought supervisory review from the Almaty City Prosecutor on 9 April 2014 and from the Prosecutor General’s Office on 5 May 2014. Both requests were dismissed on 16 April 2014 and 14 July 2014, respectively.

United Nations Human Rights Committee Communications

On 2 September 2014, Dina Baydildayeva submitted a communication to the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) claiming that the administrative warning imposed on her for conducting a single-person picket violated her rights under articles 19 and 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

On 7 April 2015, Kazakhstan submitted its observations to the UNHRC in response to Baydildayeva’s communication. The State asserted that the sanction was lawful under domestic legislation, which required authorization for all public gatherings, including single-person pickets. Kazakhstan further argued that such regulations were necessary to ensure public order, security, and the protection of the rights of others, and that its laws were consistent with international human rights standards.

Decision Overview

On 10 March 2023, the United Nations Human Rights Committee issued a decision on the matter. The central question for the Committee was whether the administrative sanction imposed on journalist and blogger Dina Baydildayeva constituted a violation of her rights under article 19 of the ICCPR.

The petitioner argued that her right to freedom of expression was restricted unlawfully because she was found guilty of an administrative offence and sanctioned for participating in a public event. As a journalist and blogger, she explained that she was simply demanding the release of her colleagues—who had been arrested for carrying out their professional activities—and expressing her criticism of the work of the Almaty akim for not formally allocating time in his schedule for meetings with the public.

In response, Kazakhstan argued that the sanction was lawful and consistent with domestic legislation, which required prior authorization for any public gathering, including single-person pickets. The State explained that restrictions and exceptions to the right to peaceful assembly are recognized under international law, and that all developed democratic countries regulate assemblies through laws that impose specific conditions. It mentioned that in order to safeguard the rights and freedoms of others, public safety, transportation, and infrastructure, Kazakhstan’s local governments had designated specific areas for non-State public events. The State further claimed that spontaneous unauthorized public gatherings and the loud chanting of slogans in busy public spaces could provoke unlawful actions by others, disturbing public peace and safety. Kazakhstan also emphasized that the number of participants does not exempt a picket from compliance with the legal requirements governing protests, including single-person demonstrations.

The Committee began its analysis by reaffirming that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic society, as stated in its General Comment No. 34 (2011). It stressed that any restriction on this right must meet the strict conditions set out in Article 19 of the ICCPR: it must be provided by law, pursue a legitimate aim, and be necessary and proportionate to that aim. Furthermore, the Committee recalled that “[w]hen a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restricting freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in a specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat to any of the grounds listed in Article 19(3) of the Covenant that is causing it to restrict freedom of expression, as well as the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [para. 8.3] Moreover, the UNHRC explained that any limitation to freedom of expression must be narrowly tailored, using the least intrusive means necessary and proportionate to the aim pursued.

The Committee noted that detaining, prosecuting, and penalizing the applicant, even with a mere warning, for peacefully criticizing a public official and calling for the release of detained colleagues raised serious concerns about whether the restrictions were necessary and proportionate under Article 19 of the ICCPR. The UNHRC held that the domestic authorities failed to provide any specific and individualized justification for the necessity of the restrictions on Baydildayeva’s expression. It also argued that the State did “not [demonstrate] that the measures taken were the least intrusive in nature or proportionate to the interest that it sought to protect.” [para.8.4] The Committee concluded that, although the restrictions were based on domestic law, they did not meet the strict requirements laid out in Article 19 of the Covenant. Accordingly, it held that Kazakhstan violated Baydildayeva’s right to freedom of expression.

In light of the above, the UNHRC ordered the State to provide the petitioner “with adequate compensation and reimbursement of any legal costs incurred by her.” [para. 10] It also urged Kazakhstan to review its domestic legislation on public events, and its implementation, to ensure compliance with international human rights standards on freedom of expression and prevent future violations.