ODIHR Legal Reviews, Assessments and Guidelines

Summary: Overall, ODIHR questions whether a specific law on countering so-called “extremist activity” should be retained at all, given the inherent difficulty of providing a legal definition of the term “extremism” and the serious human rights concerns arising from vague and overbroad definitions and provisions. If the Law is nevertheless retained, it should be substantially revised to ensure that its provisions comply with the principle of legal certainty. ODIHR also concludes that many of the measures contained in the Law impose severe restrictions on the rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly and on the freedom of the media, and should therefore be reconsidered entirely.

Rezumat: În general, necesitatea elaborării unui act legislativ special adresat contracarării sus-numitei ”activități extremiste” este cel puțin îndoielnică, luând în considerare dificultatea inerentă de a atribui o definiție juridică pentru termenul ”extremism” și îngrijorările majore privind posibilitatea încălcării drepturilor omului ce rezultă din elaborarea unor definiții şi prevederi ambigue și atotcuprinzătoare în actele normative. În cazul în care se decide că o astfel de Lege este totuși necesară, legiuitorii trebuie să revizuiască substanțial definițiile și prevederile din Proiectul de lege, pentru a asigura corespunderea acestora principiului securității juridice a actelor normative. De asemenea, multe din măsurile stipulate de Lege constituie ingerințe severe în exercitarea dreptului la libertatea de exprimare, libertății de asociere, libertății desfășurării întrunirilor pașnice și a libertății mass-media și, prin urmare, trebuie reconsiderate.

Summary: The Preliminary Opinion notes that the legal definition of “terrorism” and so called “extremism”-related offences in the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan would benefit from further amendments in order to comply with the principles of legal certainty, foreseeability and specificity of criminal law, and to ensure that only “violent extremism” is criminalized. It also concludes that the draft amendments introduce some new provisions which have the potential to unduly restrict freedom of movement and to choose one’s residence, the right to freedom of expression – particularly in terms of access to the Internet and other communication tools, as well as the right to freedom of religion or belief.

Summary: ODIHR concludes that the Law raises numerous serious concerns with regard to its compatibility with international human rights standards and has the potential to unduly restrict the full range of human rights, particularly the rights to life, liberty and security of person, privacy, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief and equality. An overarching concern raised in the Opinion pertains to the legal definitions of “terrorism” and related terms in the Law, which require amendment in order to clarify their scope and comply with the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability. Also, the counter-terrorism powers conferred by the Law to public authorities are far-reaching, yet there is currently no clear legislative framework to regulate and limit them, clearly specifying the circumstances and conditions when such powers may be used, to what end, and subject to what procedures and safeguards. 

Summary: Overall, ODIHR questions whether a specific law on countering so-called “extremism” should be retained at all, given the inherent difficulty of providing a legal definition of the term “extremism” and the serious human rights concerns arising from vague and overbroad definitions and provisions. If the Law is nevertheless retained, it should be substantially revised to ensure its compliance with OSCE commitments and international human rights standards and to reflect the need to safeguard legitimate activities, especially the exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms and activities of human rights and humanitarian organizations.

Summary: Overall, ODIHR finds that the Shanghai Convention raises a number of concerns from an international human rights law perspective, especially regarding the ability of States Parties to adopt broader national definitions of the terms “extremism” and “separatism”, allowing criminalization of the broad range of conduct that may be captured by such terms and the absence of any requirement to ensure that implementation of the Convention and obligation of co-operation between States Parties is rendered in accordance with international human rights law.