Kyrgyz journalists spoke out in defense of the media, against which Matraimov filed a lawsuit

“This lawsuit was filed in order to intimidate all other media outlets so that they would be afraid to write on this subject. And the decision of the Sverdlovsk district court of Bishkek is undoubtedly the pressure on specific media whose activities are now blocked, even in the absence of a court decision.” Such a statement was distributed by the Association “Journalists”.

Recall, the former head of the Customs Service, Raiymbek Matraimov, filed a lawsuit against radio “Svoboda”, Kloop, and 24.kg. Claims were also brought against journalist Ali Toktakunov. The total sum of the lawsuit amounted to $59.5 million. The reason for the claims of Raiymbek Matraimov was a journalistic investigation into corruption in the Customs Service of the Kyrgyz Republic and the withdrawal of $700 million from Kyrgyzstan.

According to the PA “Journalists”, all media activities, including production and business, are currently blocked so that they cannot meet financial obligations, and salaries are not paid to the staff.

“The Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic determines that any restriction of human rights and freedoms must be established by law, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to the imposed restrictions. The right to freedom of thought and opinion established by the Constitution of the Kyrgyz Republic (Article 20) is not subject to any restriction. The principle of judicial independence requires them to ensure fair trial and respect for the rights of the parties. When applying interim measures, the court, firstly, recognizes the necessity and expediency of their application in a democratic country. Why in a democratic country? Because our Constitution says so, we live in democratic, and not some kind of authoritarian country, where journalists are persecuted, whose mission is to bring problems to light. What is the need for such a decision?”, says the statement of the PA “Journalists”.

The Association emphasizes that the court cannot meddle in the right of organizations, because it is beneficial to someone. The court must, by its decision, bear justice and satisfy the urgent need of society. What is such a need today – the seizure of media’s bank accounts?

“It turns out by its decision, the court recognizes the reality of the implementation of such security measures. In other words, does the court think that media revenues and journalists’ salaries allow such restrictions to be imposed to guarantee the protection of the rights and interests of the plaintiff? We doubt that in Kyrgyzstan there are mass media that earn such millions so that the court can satisfy such amounts, and as a measure of security for a lawsuit that they have not even begun to consider”, the PA said.

Human rights activists emphasize that the plaintiff may demand any amount, this is his right. But according to the law, it is the court that will decide whether to satisfy the claims of the plaintiff. The court cannot and should not ruin the media, and therefore, even if it decides to satisfy the claim regarding the refutation, then when appointing moral compensation, the court must proceed from the requirements of reasonableness, fairness and proportionality of compensation.

“The court’s ruling on the seizure of accounts will undoubtedly be appealed as unconstitutional and unreasonable interference in the right. We hope that the second instance (Bishkek City Court) will cancel this definition in accordance with the law and with the principles of justice and reasonableness,” concluded the Public Association “Journalists”.