Indira Sautova: a catastrophic situation can develop in the prisons of Kyrgyzstan
The head of the Coalition against Torture in Kyrgyzstan, Indira Sautova, recently went through pneumonia. The disease seems to have receded – for several days she has not had a fever. Despite her weakness, the human rights defender came back to work. Now she, together with her colleagues in the Coalition, is trying to understand what is happening in the country’s closed institutions, whether a dangerous virus has penetrated there, and is trying to get an adequate response from the authorities to the situation.
In an exclusive interview, Indira Sautova told ACCA about what information human rights organizations have and to what actions they are trying to encourage the authorities.
– Recently, the Coalition Against Torture sent an open letter to the Supreme Court (SC) of the Kyrgyz Republic. What do human rights defenders want?
– Given the unfavorable epidemiological situation in the country, in conditions when the courts are physically closed, the investigating authorities practically do not carry out investigative actions, and the participation of lawyers in legal proceedings or monitoring of closed institutions by national human rights institutions becomes more and more difficult, the courts practice a form of absentee consideration not provided for by law the investigating judges did not sufficiently reasoned petitions for the extension of the preventive measure, in the absence of the suspects and without even informing them about it. We appealed to the SC of the Kyrgyz Republic with a request to stop this illegal practice. Besides, we ask the SC to consider encouraging investigating judges to consider alternative preventive measures more often.
– Which for example?
– The courts of the Kyrgyz Republic so far rarely use preventive measures unrelated to isolation from society, although the legislation prescribes the possibility of releasing persons under investigation under house arrest or on bail. This would help to offload the penitentiary system, which, in our opinion, is very important in the context of a coronavirus pandemic. Moreover, today, when the country’s borders are closed due to a pandemic, a person simply cannot escape. Moreover, the introduction of collateral practice is beneficial for the state budget. It is unclear why this is not being applied at a time when the authorities are declaring a reduction in revenue to the treasury.
– Why does the Kyrgyz Republic often choose detention as a preventive measure?
– From the appeals to the Coalition, we concluded that it is the prosecutors and investigators who do everything to ensure that such a measure of restraint is chosen. The courts, when considering cases on the choice of a preventive measure, in most cases satisfy the requests of the prosecutor, which often contain premature conclusions that the person involved in the case will try to escape. Another common argument is the lack of identity documents. Such arguments are speculative or based only on the severity of the charges, and no real attempts to escape or threats are made by the suspects. A striking example can be the decision on Esenbek Abdimazhit uluu. His father contacted the Coalition. After the arrest of Esenbek, the investigating authorities deliberately did not provide the court with information about the presence of a Kyrgyz passport. When the term of the primary measure of restraint expired, it was simply extended in the Leninsky Court of Bishkek. At the same time, no one informed the relatives, the lawyer, or the person under investigation. Everything happened in absentia, with reference to the act of the State Penitentiary Service and the motivation for refusing to participate in court due to the epidemiological situation. The court argued in the arguments about the need to leave the suspect in custody so that, once free, he can hide, start threatening witnesses or other participants of the proceedings. The investigator on July 10 has already extended the measure of restraint in violation of the law. Neither the relatives nor the lawyers of this person knew about this. This is not the only case when the investigating authorities deliberately provide the court with information that the persons under investigation do not have identity documents. And this is the reason to lock the person away.
– Is this related to the problem of occupancy in pre-trial detention centers?
– Yes, we, the Coalition, are approached by defendants suffering from serious illnesses, often not receiving medical assistance in the required amount, but being held in pre-trial detention centers. We are generally worried about what is happening now in the penitentiary system. The State Penitentiary Service (SPS) denies that there is COVID-19 among prisoners. At the same time, the media reported about 75 employees of the State Penitentiary Service infected with coronavirus. During the emergency, the authorities reassured us that only those employees who had not been in contact with the special contingent were infected. This explanation does not seem convincing now. Now it would be correct to assume that if employees get sick, then prisoners get sick as well. In this regard, we asked the State Penitentiary Service for data on mortality in closed institutions, in comparison with the data of the previous year. We want to understand whether the mortality rate has increased and, if so, what is the reason for this. At the same time, we want to understand how the medical service of the penitentiary system will operate. This is parallel healthcare, and we do not yet know how much they will be able to integrate the protocols of the Ministry of Health for the treatment of COVID-19, do they have enough drugs, do they have the necessary equipment? This is very worrisome for the human rights community. In our country, even on the outside, they cannot really cope with the virus, there is a crisis in public management, a lack of coordination in the actions of various government structures, panic attacks in society and the media. In this situation, people who are in the penitentiary system will be remembered last.
– In March-May, when the state of emergency was operating in Bishkek and several regions of the Kyrgyz Republic, the Coalition Against Torture urged the authorities to hold an amnesty as soon as possible to reduce the prison population. The amnesty law was passed. Did it work as expected?
– The amnesty has been going on for a little less than three months. Unfortunately, we see that this process will not help offload prisons as it should have done.
– It turns out that officially there is no COVID-19 in the prisons of the Kyrgyz Republic, although an epidemic is raging. Is there any unofficial information on this?
– We received a signal that two people transferred to hospital No. 47 died of pneumonia. Now, when the country has combined statistics on the mortality of pneumonia and coronavirus infection, this information raises concern and gives rise to suggestions that these deaths could be due to COVID-19. However, we understand that in prisons diseases of the respiratory system are not uncommon. This is due to the peculiarities of ventilation. So far, we cannot say anything we will wait for the response from the State Penitentiary Service on inquiry about these deaths. Undoubtedly, any death in a closed institution must be investigated, the administration of the institution must immediately inform the supervising prosecutor, this is not my demand, but still a requirement of the law. Therefore, in any case, mass infection in a closed institution will be impossible to hide. The most important thing now is to pay attention to the vulnerable group on time.
– What else is the Coalition against Torture going to do to in order to somehow influence the situation?
– This is not the first time we have addressed the government with signals and recommendations, but so far our calls have remained unresponsive. Now we again intend to contact the government and headquarters to understand what measures they are taking. At the same time, it seems strange to us that the leadership of the State Penitentiary Service itself does not sound the alarm – after all, they must also understand what catastrophic consequences will arise if the coronavirus goes to prisons. We see the practice of Russia. There, not human rights activists, but the chairman of the Federal Penitentiary Service (Federal Penitentiary System) applied to the Supreme Court. He realized that the system was failing and asked the judges to consider the possibility of wider implementation of the practice of alternative restraint measures. As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation prepared an overview of the situation in prisons against the background of the coronavirus and, in general, which measures applied.
