(Almaty, January 12, 2026) — In December 2025, Kazakhstani authorities initiated criminal proceedings against 19 of their own citizens, accusing them of “inciting ethnic hatred” during a political protest directed against China. The case quickly drew significant public attention and is widely regarded as a major test of Kazakhstan’s judicial independence, freedom of expression, and sovereign stance.
According to the indictment, the 19 individuals are charged with violating Article 174, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan, namely “inciting ethnic hatred and insulting national dignity, committed by a group of persons with prior conspiracy and carried out through the media.” The indictment was finalized on December 19 last year by the police of Uygur District, Almaty Region.
The case stems from a peaceful protest held on November 13, 2025, in Qalzhat Village, Uygur District, Almaty Region. On that day, demonstrators gathered to protest the detention by authorities in China’s Xinjiang region of Alimnur Turganbay, a truck driver who had been naturalized as a citizen of Kazakhstan. At the time, the charges against him were not clearly specified and were reportedly related to “dual nationality,” despite the fact that he had already given up his Xinjiang household registration and passport.
According to those familar with the situation, there is indication that Alimnur Turganbay has been sentenced to two and a half years in prison by authorities in the Xinjiang Kazakh Autonomous Prefecture. However, his family has not received any formal legal documentation to date. According to his relatives, Alimnur ceased to be a Chinese citizen as early as 2018, as China does not recognize dual nationality. The exact nature of the charges against him remains unclear, although authorities have reportedly stated verbally that the driver “participated in illegal religious activities while in Xinjiang, including several instances of engaging in proselytization by unauthorized religious figures and listening to their religious speeches.”
The protest against arbitrary detentions in Xinjiang took place in an open area and involved no physical violence. It consisted solely of symbolic political expressions, including the burning of the national flag of the People’s Republic of China and a portrait of Chinese President Xi Jinping.
The protest was directed at the Chinese Communist Party and its policies, rather than at any specific ethnic group or community. While such actions may touch upon political taboos in China, they do not constitute incitement of hatred against any individual or ethnic group. The demonstrators’ core objective was to draw public attention to the situation of a Kazakhstani citizen detained in China.
Following the protest, the Chinese government lodged representations with Kazakhstan through diplomatic channels. Observers widely view the case as a critical test of whether Kazakhstan can uphold judicial fairness and national sovereignty or whether it will yield to China’s transnational influence and so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” pressure.
A decade ago, China intensified its “strike hard” security campaign in Muslim-majority areas of Xinjiang, leading to the arbitrary detention of more than one million people within just a few years. However, the Atajurt organization, widely recognized for its significant efforts in exposing Beijing’s human rights abuses, is now facing the full force of Kazakhstan’s legal system as a result of protest activities.
Kazakhstan’s national security and judicial authorities have not issued clear or firm protests to Chinese authorities regarding the tragic plight of their fellow ethnic group in Xinjiang. Instead, they have arbitrarily detained the victims’ wives and friends who organized support, citing legal charges that are utterly absurd.
Under Kazakhstani law, burning a foreign national flag and engaging in peaceful protest do not, in themselves, constitute a criminal offense. Both the Constitution of Kazakhstan and the international treaties it has committed to—including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)—explicitly guarantee the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Numerous international human rights court rulings have also confirmed that symbolic acts of protest, including flag burning, are a protected form of political speech, particularly when expressing political dissent.
Chief of Police, Almaty Region Department of Internal Affairs.
At present, there are no signs of de-escalation in the case. The proceedings have been deliberately dispersed across different locations, with the Almaty Region Prosecutor’s Office nominally responsible for the trial. However, given China’s diplomatic involvement, the complexity of the case now extends beyond the judicial sphere and could influence higher-level political decisions. If Kazakhstani authorities do not lift the coercive measures against the individuals involved, it is likely to have long-term repercussions for the country’s international image and its commitments to human rights.
Against this backdrop, Mr. Serikzhan Bilash, the U.S. representative of the human rights organization Atajurt, invited attorney Shynkuat Baizhanov on the Atajurt channel to provide a legal analysis of what has been referred to externally as the “Atajurt case” and to outline possible avenues for defense.
The following is a summary of the interview conducted in Kazakh with human rights activist Serikzhan Bilash and attorney Shynkuat Baizhanov.
Serikzhan Bilash: “Attorney Shynkuat, welcome to our YouTube channel. Could you please explain to our audience the case involving the activists?”
Shynkuat Baizhanov: “In general, the criminal investigation against the members of the Atajurt organization has been completed. As defense counsel, we have reviewed all the case materials, totaling 10 volumes. However, these ‘10 volumes’ are largely nominal, as most of the documents contain very similar content.
Most importantly, I have not found any conclusive evidence in these materials to support the charges brought under Article 174, Part 2 of the Criminal Code.”
First Alleged Violation: On November 13, 2025, administrative proceedings were initiated against these individuals, and they were subjected to administrative penalties. In other words, they were held administratively liable. However, the very next day, on November 14, criminal proceedings were initiated without first overturning the administrative decision.
This constitutes a violation of the Constitution, which explicitly states that no one may be held liable twice for the same act. Initiating criminal proceedings while the administrative penalty remains in effect is unlawful.
Second Violation: All investigative actions carried out in the unlawfully initiated criminal case should also be considered illegal, because the initiation of criminal proceedings requires the prior existence of conclusive evidence.
Yes, there was an administrative violation, as they did not obtain permission from the local administrative authorities. They were fined and given suspended sentences ranging from 7 to 15 days, all of which have already been served.
However, criminal cases require expert evaluations. Consider the following: The criminal proceedings were initiated on November 14, yet the expert reports were completed on November 21, 22, and 27. In other words, for 13 days, there was no evidence. The investigators and prosecutors are not experts; without expert analysis, they could not have reached any valid conclusions.
The Third Issue Concerns The Expert Reports:
“I have been practicing law for 30 years. To bring charges under Article 174, there must be specific verbal statements that constitute incitement of ethnic hatred.”
In this case, only four individuals spoke:
- The first is Guldariya Sherizatkyzy, whose husband was detained in China. She only said, “Chinese authorities have illegally detained my husband; I demand his release.” She never insulted the Chinese people or their ethnicity, nor did she incite violence.
- The second speaker is Beikzat Maksutkhan. He criticized the policies of Chinese authorities, issues of genocide, the visa-free regime, and agreements signed between Kazakhstan and China. These remarks constitute political criticism of the authorities, not statements directed at any ethnic group.
- The third speaker spoke in Chinese. His statements targeted the policies of Chinese authorities and President Xi Jinping.
- The fourth individual is a woman. In a moment of anger, she shouted, “Curse China,” and kicked the Chinese national flag. She said these words after the police arrived, in a state of outrage.
These statements were not directed at the Chinese people but expressed anger toward Chinese authorities.
According to the law, criticizing authorities is one thing, while making statements targeting a specific ethnic group or community is entirely different.
Using phrases such as “must be eliminated” or “should be exterminated” with reference to a particular ethnic group constitutes incitement of ethnic hatred. In this case, no such statements exist.
However, the expert reports conducted in the Kyzylorda and Yeshkemin regions contain problematic statements and fail to comply with legal requirements. Therefore, these expert reports cannot be considered legally valid.
Conclusion: The initiation of this case is unlawful, lacks evidence, and relies on flawed expert reports.
Note: This article is excerpted from an interview with Shynkuat Baizhanov and Serikzhan Bilash on the Atajurt YouTube channel. (The interview related to this case starts at 1:09:02)
Gao Zhensai, Special Correspondent for ChinaAid
Related Stories
Kazakhstan Prosecutes 19 Protesters; Case Raises Concerns Over China’s Cross-border Influence