Kyrgyzstan: judges violate the rights of juvenile defendants

Employees of the human rights organization “Advocates. Human Rights’ Center” monitored criminal cases against 29 minors aged 14-18 years on the observance of the rights of the defendants in the courts.

They were accused of committing less serious cases (over 70%) – against public order and against health.

Observers note that in every fourth case, judges with all their appearance demonstrated their indifference and lack of interest in the life of teenagers in the dock. The judges addressed the teenagers in an orderly tone, which clearly aroused fear and a sense of their inferiority.

There was a case when the underage accused were not provided with an interpreter. In two cases, there was no interpreter even after the defendants told the court that they didn’t understand the language of the proceedings and needed translation from the state language into the official language.

In 13 trials, when the judges didn’t specify whether the accused minors understood the language of the proceedings, three teenagers of Kyrgyz nationality needed translation into Russian.

“Almost every third minor hasn’t been explained the right not to testify against himself or herself and close relatives. In two trials against minors, the participation of a lawyer wasn’t provided by the court,” the human rights activists say.

In their opinion, all these problems lead to a loss of confidence in the attorneys of the juvenile defendants themselves.

“There was a case when the legal representatives refused legal assistance from the state lawyers appointed by them at the pre-trial stage, because they came to the conclusion that they weren’t interested in protecting the rights and interests of their children,” the employees of the human rights organization recall.

There were also violations of the principle of equality of parties in the cases: minors were not given the right to the last word; and in cases, where the last word was still given, the judges interrupted them at the last word, asked leading questions and asked to speak faster and shorter.

After the announcement of the guilty verdict, only in 75% of cases the courts explained the content of the verdict to the accused and other participants in the process. Only 1 case was recorded when the courts didn’t provide explanations regarding the procedure for appealing the verdict.

It’s noted that in cases involving minors, online courts haven’t been conducted.