(Almaty — April 10, 2026) On Thursday, a trial in Taldykorgan, a city in southeastern Kazakhstan, once again came to a halt amid heavy security and an atmosphere of strict secrecy. Eighteen activists linked to the human rights organization “Atajurt” appeared in court on charges of “inciting ethnic hatred,” yet the outside world knows almost nothing about the details of the accusations.

A Solemn Courtroom and the Absence of Transparency

On April 9, the courthouse was surrounded by tight security. A large number of anti-riot police gathered outside, with armored vehicles and ambulances stationed nearby. However, this show of force contrasted sharply with the proceedings inside: less than an hour after the hearing began, it was adjourned again, with the next session scheduled for April 14.

Since the handling of the case began, authorities of Kazakhstan have adopted the highly unusual approach of a “closed trial.” All participants, including lawyers and family members of the defendants, have been required to sign strict confidentiality agreements.

Fears of “Black Box” Operations

“I fear for their safety,” said Oralkhan Aben, the wife of Xinjiang re-education camp witness Tursynbek Kabi, in a video released on Thursday. She mentioned that unidentified individuals had recently entered the detention center and pressured two members to sign documents of an unknown nature.

Ms. Aben’s anxiety reflects a broader sense of helplessness among the defense. In Kazakhstan’s politically sensitive legal environment, procedural transparency often gives way to national security concerns.

Lawyer Under Constraint: The Shadow of Five-Year Sentences

Despite silence from the authorities, fragments of information about the trial have emerged. Prosecutors have reportedly recommended sentences of five years’ imprisonment or five years’ probation for all 18 defendants.

Defense lawyer Shenkuat Baizhanov confirmed in an interview with Radio Free Europe that the prosecution is seeking prison or suspended sentences for about “half” of the defendants. However, when asked for specific names, he became cautious.

“I can only disclose details after the verdict,” Baizhanov said. In a livestream conversation with activist Serikzhan Bilash, he further admitted that any substantive disclosure about the case could result in the revocation of his legal license.

Core Controversy: Public Acts, Secret Trial

For observers, the most striking contradiction in this case lies at its core: the protests and statements attributed to the defendants were previously conducted openly, on social media or in public gatherings, yet the court insists on handling the case in secrecy.

This form of judicial “black box” operation has raised concerns among international human rights organizations about a decline in the rule of law in Kazakhstan. Critics argue that classifying advocacy for human rights—and protests against another government’s arbitrary detention—as “incitement of ethnic hatred” has become a legal tool to suppress dissent in this Central Asian country. Kazakhstan, they note, has not only failed to fully secure the release of its own citizens detained in China, but has instead detained those protesting on their behalf—an exceedingly rare case globally.

As the next hearing approaches on April 14, the fate of these 18 defendants remains locked behind the closed doors of the Taldykorgan courtroom.

Gao Zhensai, Special Correspondent for ChinaAid