Today, on July 4, 2025, at 11:00 a.m., the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic considered the cassation appeal filed by citizens Tolekan Ismailova, Darya Gerasimova, and Bermet Borubaeva (represented by authorized attorney Timur Arykov) against the decision of the Pervomaisky District Administration to restrict peaceful assemblies within the district from July 1 to September 30, 2025 (inclusive). It should be recalled that the disputed decision was adopted and deemed lawful by the court of first instance without the participation of the interested citizens. The decision was not promptly delivered to the applicants, which constitutes a violation of the law. The Bishkek City Court reinstated the deadline for filing an appeal for valid reasons but upheld the restriction on citizens’ right to peaceful assembly.

In their cassation appeal, the citizens and their representative Mr. Arykov presented the following arguments:

As outlined in the decision of the court of first instance, the subject of review was the lawfulness of the decision by the Municipal Administration to restrict the location of peaceful assemblies within the Pervomaisky District, except for state and municipal events held at Ala-Too Square, during the period from July 1 to September 30, 2025 (inclusive), relocating assemblies instead to Gorky Park, located at the intersection of Ryskulov and N. Isanov streets.

However, the courts of first and appellate instance, by deeming this decision lawful, misapplied substantive legal norms provided in the Law on Peaceful Assemblies.

First, the appellate court failed to assess the inaction of the Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek, which, despite our preliminary appeal filed on June 24, 2025, reviewed the application validating the legality of the Municipal Administration’s June 26, 2025 decision on “Restricting Locations for Peaceful Assemblies” and issued a decision without our participation. This constitutes a violation of Part 2 of Article 263 of the Civil Procedure Code, which stipulates that special proceedings must be conducted with the participation of applicants and interested parties.

Second, per Part 2 of Article 14 of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, a restriction decision may only apply to a specific (singular) event with a clearly defined time, location, or route. However, the Municipal Administration’s decision restricts an undefined number of potential future assemblies, for which no specific details (time, location, or route) were known or can be established at the time of the decision.

Third, according to Part 1 of Article 15 of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, a restriction may be imposed only during periods of real threat to the safety of participants and others in the specified location. Authorities are obligated to inform organizers and participants of the reasons for such restrictions. Yet, neither the decision nor the court records provide any verified facts indicating that there is a real threat to public safety in the Pervomaisky District during the specified period. The claim that Gorky Park is the "safest location" is unsupported by evidence and is therefore questionable. Under Part 5 of Article 14, any doubts about restrictions must be interpreted in favor of the right to peaceful assembly.

Fourth, the Municipal Administration’s decision restricts peaceful assembly for private citizens but makes exceptions for official state and municipal events at Ala-Too Square. This distinction between government-organized and citizen-organized events violates Part 1 of Article 4 of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, which prohibits any discrimination based on political or other beliefs, origin, social status, etc.

Moreover, under points 2 and 5 of Article 5, local governments must work with competent agencies to ensure peaceful assemblies, including services like medical aid and fire departments. The Ministry of Internal Affairs is obligated, under points 6, 7, 10, and 11 of Article 6, to:

• Ensure public order and stop disruptions;
• Protect assembly participants and bystanders;
• Create perimeters, reroute traffic, and install signs if needed;
• Prevent clashes between opposing groups.

Yet, in this case, the municipal administration and Pervomaisky ROVD essentially shirk their legally assigned duties by citing "inability or unwillingness" to ensure assembly security.

Fifth, the administration's decision effectively dictates the location of all peaceful assemblies within the district to Gorky Park. This contradicts point 3 of Part 5 of Article 4, which forbids local authorities from specifying the time, location, or route of peaceful assemblies. While they may limit locations, they may not assign specific venues.

Sixth, the Municipal Administration exceeded its authority. The decision contains legal norms that, according to paragraph 9 of Article 2 of the Law on Normative Legal Acts, constitute general rules for an undefined number of persons and repeated application. Under Article 5, the administration is not authorized to issue such normative acts.

Instead, under the Law on Administrative Activity and Administrative Procedures, the administration may issue individual administrative acts that define rights and obligations for specific persons. Under Article 50 of this law, such acts must include the name of the recipient, appeal deadlines, and relevant authorities. The decision lacks these elements and, under Article 55, is null and void.

Seventh, under Part 4 of Article 14 of the Law on Peaceful Assemblies, the burden of proof for restrictions lies with the petitioner. Article 65 requires all parties to prove their claims.

However, the administration's motivations are vague and include:

• “Tense and unstable political climate globally”;
• “Global terrorism risk analysis”;
• “Social media criticism of rallies affects public-political stability”;
• “Protests provoke ideological clashes”;
• “Rallies disrupt city functioning.”

No evidence was provided to show that, for example, a lone citizen with a cleanliness sign at Ala-Too Square could pose a threat or trigger any of the consequences listed above.

Eighth, per Part 2 of Article 15, only assemblies with unlawful aims can be banned and are no longer considered peaceful. Article 16 allows law enforcement to stop such unlawful events. Thus, authorities already have tools to stop illegal assemblies, making blanket restrictions unnecessary.

At the hearing, representatives of the Municipal Administration and Pervomaisky ROVD repeated prior arguments without addressing the new objections.

After reviewing case materials and hearing the parties, the Judicial Collegium of the Supreme Court of the Kyrgyz Republic, chaired by Batyraliev B.B., with judges Usubaliev B.T. and Eshaliev N.K., ruled to deny the cassation appeal and upheld the lower court decisions affirming the Municipal Administration’s restriction of peaceful assemblies from July 1 to September 30, 2025.

Next Legal Strategy:

Citizens Darya Gerasimova, Bermet Borubaeva, and Tolekan Ismailova, along with their legal representative, attorney Timur Arykov, intend to appeal to the Constitutional Court of the Kyrgyz Republic and relevant international bodies to protect their constitutional and fundamental right to peaceful assembly in the Kyrgyz Republic.

TOGETHER!

For all inquiries, please contact attorney Timur Arykov
+996 770 3417 20
✉️ birduinokyrgyzstan@gmail.com