In Kyrgyzstan, the convict Bahadir Juraev was twice deprived of his legal right to amnesty. The reason for the refusal was allegedly a violation of the deadlines for submitting an application.
45-year-old Bahadir Juraev is serving the sentence on charges of participating in mass riots in 2010 on South of Kyrgyzstan. Initially, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison, but later lawyers managed to reduce the term to 18 years by applying new criminal legislation aimed at humanization, decriminalization and depenalization.
Defenders also counted on reducing the sentence due to amnesty. During nine years, that Bahadir Juraev spent in prison, there were two: in 2011 and 2014.
“His case comes within both amnesties declared by the state, but none of them was applied to him. In this connection, in 2019, an individual complaint concerning his case was filed to the Human Rights Committee,” the human rights organization “Odin Mir” [“One World”] said.
The defense also filed a petition to the State Penitentiary Service and the Prosecutor’s office for supervision of compliance with laws in the structures and institutions of the penal system.
“The request was redirected for consideration at the place of serving the sentence. For almost two months there was no result. And then the defense appealed to the court at the location of the colony with a statement on the application of amnesty to Juraev,” the human rights organization said.
In the statement, lawyers indicated that Juraev did not violate the regime of detention and was characterized positively. In addition, his health condition worsens, as after torture, he had serious complications: diabetes, hypertension, gangrene of the right foot and others.
However, the court did not take into account the arguments of the lawyers and in July the Alamudun district court of Chui region refused to satisfy the application for the amnesty regarding Bahadir Juraev, citing the fact that after the announced amnesty, there was a temporary restriction of 6 months, when the lawyers should contact the administration of the State Penitentiary Service where the convict is serving the term.
The defense did not agree with the decision of the district court and sent a complaint to the Chui regional court, indicating in the complaint that there was no answer to their letters from the State Penitentiary Service. Regarding the time limit of six months after the publication of information about the amnesty, they replied that there were no regulations that would indicate the limited effect of the amnesty.
In turn, the judge of the Chui regional court did not take into account the arguments of the lawyers of Juraev, and in September 2019, it upheld the decision of the district court.
Leave feedback about this