VZCZCXRO2928
PP RUEHDBU RUEHLN RUEHVK RUEHYG
DE RUEHTA #2302/01 1790954
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 280954Z JUN 06
FM AMEMBASSY ALMATY
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 5963
INFO RUCNCIS/CIS COLLECTIVE
RUEHVEN/USMISSION USOSCE 1600
RUEHNO/USMISSION USNATO 2123
RUEHAST/USOFFICE ASTANA

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 ALMATY 002302 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR SCA/CEN (J. MUDGE), DRL/PHD (C. KUCHTA-HELBLING) 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM PGOV KZ
SUBJECT: KAZAKHSTAN: FIVE-YEAR SENTENCE UPHELD FOR REGIONAL 
POLITICAL ACTIVIST 
 
REF: ALMATY 1759 
 
ALMATY 00002302  001.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶1. (U) Summary: On June 22, opposition activist Alibek 
Zhumabayev's appeal was rejected by the Taraz Regional Court. 
Zhumabayev had earlier been sentenced to five years in jail for 
hooliganism, insulting President Nazarbayev's dignity and honor, 
and organizing mass disorder.  Zhumabayev's defense team had 
asked the court to drop the charge of organizing mass disorder 
and grant him amnesty regarding the other two charges.  However, 
a panel of three judges rejected these requests as groundless. 
The hearing was held in an orderly, open fashion, leaving the 
defense little chance to protest it on procedural grounds.  About 
50 people attended the hearing, most (if not all) of whom had 
come in support of Zhumabayev.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (U) The June 22 proceedings began at about 10:30 in the 
morning, 30 minutes later than originally scheduled.  They were 
held in a large courtroom with a seating capacity of over 100. 
Just before the hearing began, one of the three judges walked to 
the front of the room, surveyed the scene, and loudly announced 
that his staff should admit anyone into the courtroom who so 
desired.  At this point about 20 people were in attendance, 
including U.S. Embassy staff, an OSCE observer, Zhumabayev 
friends and relatives, and opposition activists.  When Zhumabayev 
was escorted into the room, most of the audience stood and 
cheered.  Neither the court staff nor the panel of judges made 
any attempt to quiet the crowd. 
 
¶3. (U) Zhumabayev's defense team was made up of four people.  The 
first, Zhamshit Kapparov, was a professional lawyer who had been 
appointed by the regional court after Zhumabayev dismissed his 
previous defense team during a city court hearing in April 
(reftel).  Also speaking in Zhumabayev's defense were two 
opposition activists, Petr Svoik and Marzhan Aspandiyarova, and 
Zhumabayev's wife Aynur.  The defense was well organized and each 
speaker approached the case from a different angle.  Kapparov 
focused on legal and technical matters.  Svoik argued that the 
case was politically motivated.  Aspandiyarova spoke of 
international opinion and Kazakhstan's image in the world.  And 
Ms. Zhumabayeva made a personal appeal for the sake of her young 
children. 
 
--------------- 
The Legal Angle 
--------------- 
 
¶4. (U) Kapparov argued that two of the three charges against 
Zhumabayev (hooliganism and insulting the honor and dignity of 
the President) were subject to amnesty according to a law signed 
on January 9, 2006.  He pointed out that these charges had been 
filed, and the crimes allegedly committed, before the decision to 
grant amnesty had been made.  The third charge of organizing mass 
disorder was added on January 19, 2006.  While he admitted that 
the amnesty law did not apply to this more serious offense, 
Kapparov asked the court to dismiss the charge due to 
insufficient evidence.  Given the January 9 law, without the 
third charge Zhumabayev should be set free immediately, he said. 
 
------------------- 
The Political Angle 
------------------- 
 
¶5. (U) Svoik began by saying, "It is no coincidence that OSCE and 
U.S. Embassy representatives are here.  This is a political 
case."  He then proceeded to highlight inconsistencies in the 
case, some of which he said proved illegal action on the 
government's part.  Svoik also cited the investigation report as 
evidence that the case against Zhumabayev was part of a plan 
designed by the National Security Committee (KNB) to discredit 
the opposition. 
 
¶6. (U) The heart of Svoik's statement concerned the students who 
had testified against Zhumabayev.  They told investigators that 
he had urged them to "do in Astana what happened in Kyrgyzstan." 
During the city court proceedings, however, Zhumabayev's defense 
team had asked the students a series of questions: Do you know 
what rioting means?; Did Alibek ask you to gather supporters?; 
Did he ask you to commit arson?; Did he ask you to destroy 
property?; Did you see any firearms?; Were leaflets prepared?; 
Was there an action plan? The students said "no" in each case. 
 
----------------------- 
The International Angle 
----------------------- 
 
 
ALMATY 00002302  002.2 OF 002 
 
 
¶7. (U) Aspandiyarova made a more emotional appeal, switching from 
Russian to Kazakh for rhetorical effect.  She built off of 
Svoik's statement in an apparent attempt to impart a sense of 
shame in the proceedings to date.  Along those lines, she noted 
that Zhumabayev was arrested the same day that Kazakhstan 
ratified the International Covenant on Civic and Political 
Rights.  Throughout, she implied that the international community 
would judge Kazakhstan harshly should the appeal be rejected. 
Specifically, she wondered aloud how the case would affect 
Kazakhstan's aspirations to chair the OSCE and to become one of 
the world's top 50 competitive nations. 
 
---------------------- 
Zhumabayev Unrepentant 
---------------------- 
 
¶8. (U) When Zhumabayev was asked to speak, he expressed little 
remorse and addressed the court somewhat combatively.  As his 
remarks became increasingly antagonistic, Zhumabayev's friends 
and defense team signaled and called out for him to be silent. 
However, he continued: "Tomorrow these students will replace you. 
They were scared and forced to testify against me.  I did not 
call for rioting.  I wanted to stop Rakhmetov [the man who 
admitted destroying campaign billboards, allegedly at 
Zhumabayev's request].  I never looked for him.  He came to me." 
He then criticized what he characterized as the inability in 
Kazakhstan to speak freely - to speak negatively of the 
President, or to say that the situation was better in Kyrgyzstan, 
as he said he believed. 
 
¶9. (U) The court recessed for an hour while the judges 
deliberated.  When proceedings resumed, the judges rejected the 
appeal as groundless in a short statement that echoed the remarks 
of the procurator.  A member of the audience shouted, "Shame on 
you," but the judges did not react and left the room.  By this 
point in the day, about 50 people had come to watch the 
proceedings.  Most appeared shocked by the ruling. 
 
¶10. (SBU) As Zhumabayev has already been in detention for seven 
months, roughly four and a half years remain on his sentence.  He 
will be eligible for parole in just over a year.  While 
Zhumabayev has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court, his 
defense team did not immediately agree on what to do next. 
Aspandiyarova was strongly in favor of filing a complaint, but 
Svoik was more cautious, saying, "We have to discuss this." 
Aspandiyarova approached POLOFF and requested U.S. support in 
this matter, be it through diplomatic channels or in the form of 
a roundtable or seminar on political freedom in Kazakhstan. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Communist Party member Tolen Tokhtasynov also 
approached POLOFF to share his views on the case.  According to 
him, the KNB planned to trap Zhumabayev and make him testify 
against opposition presidential candidate Zharmakhan Tuyakbay, 
and against Tokhtasynov himself, who was Tuyakbay's campaign 
manager.  He said Zhumabayev had refused to cooperate with the 
KNB. 
 
¶12. (SBU) Comment: Court officials were clearly interested in 
making the proceedings appear fair.  The hearing was held in a 
large room, and the presiding judge called three times for court 
officials to admit anyone waiting outside.  The proceedings took 
almost three hours, several times the length of a normal appeal 
hearing, and Zhumabayev's defense was allowed to speak for nearly 
half of that time.  Finally, the judges were exceptionally 
tolerant of Zhumabayev's harsh criticism, his defense team's 
pointed and somewhat accusatory remarks, and the audience's 
repeated outbursts. 
 
¶13. (SBU) Comment, cont.: While the sentence seems excessive 
given the facts of the case and the lack of physical evidence, it 
will be difficult for the defense to file a complaint on 
procedural grounds.  The opposition also strongly suspects that 
the decision was dictated by Astana for political reasons; if 
that is the case, further legal action would probably not lead to 
a more favorable result for Zhumabayev.  At this point, barring a 
high-level political decision to release him, perhaps in an 
effort to bolster Kazakhstan's international image, Zhumabayev's 
prospects appear bleak.  End comment. 
 
ORDWAY