(Kazakhstan – January 26, 2026) On January 23, a court in Taldykorgan, city in southeastern Kazakhstan, held the first hearing in a criminal case against several volunteers of the Nagyz Atajurt Kazakh Human Rights organization. Following the hearing, defense lawyer publicly stated that the case involved serious procedural violations and claimed it was “clearly political in nature.”
Serikzhan Bilash, the organization’s founder and a prominent human rights activist, stated in an interview that the proceeding would be fully translated and submitted to the U.S. Congress and several international human rights organizations. “This information is of great significance; the international community needs to know the true facts of the case,” He stated.
Riza Alimnur, daughter of Alimnur Turganbay, has called on China to release her father and for Kazakhstan to lift the house arrest of her mother. She also demanded that Kazakh authorities drop the criminal charges against her mother, Guldaria Sherizat.
Multiple defendants cited Article 174 of the Criminal Law
A total of 19 people were criminally charged in this case, 17 of whom were members of the “True Atajurt” organization. The other two were the wife of Alimnur Turganbay, a Kazakh truck driver currently detained in Xinjiang, and Ayan Kalymbek, a non-member of the organization.
Lawyer Shynkuat Baizhanov represented 18 of the defendants, while Ayan Kalymbek hired a separate lawyer.
According to Baizhanov, the prosecution charged the 17 Atajurt volunteers under Article 174, Paragraph 2 of the Kazakh Criminal Code. This article is typically used to handle cases of “inciting social, ethnic, or religious hatred.”
The trial began at 3 p.m. on January 23. The courtroom was packed with family members of the defendants, journalists, and social activists, but only about half were allowed into the main courtroom; the rest were held in segregated rooms and observed via television broadcast.
The case was presided over by Judge Baibolov Erzhan Kalimoldanovich.
The decision to hold a closed door trial sparked controversy
At the start of the trial, “experts” from Semey and Kyzylorda, along with the defendant Kalimbek, who was under house arrest in Semey moved a motion for a closed trial, citing “threats to their lives,” but did not specifying the source of the threat.
The prosecutor subsequently supported the motion.
Baizanov opposed the request in court, pointing out that open trials are a fundamental principle established by the constitution. According to the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan, closed trials are only permitted when the privacy of minors is involved, the nature of the case is highly confidential, or the parties face a clear and real threat to their lives.
“None of these conditions apply in this case,” Baizanov stated. He also cited a special resolution of the Supreme Court of Kazakhstan, emphasizing that criminal cases should, in principle, be tried in public, and the media has the right to free access to the courtroom.
Under Kazakh law, this decision cannot be appealed independently; it can only be raised as a procedural defect after the final judgment. Baizanov stated that this decision itself could constitute direct grounds for the future reversal of the judgment.
“This is a political decision from above,” he said.
Reactions of Family Members and Xinjiang Background
Following the announcement of the trial decision some of the defendants’ families became emotional. Oralkhan Aben, the wife of Tursynbek Kabi, a witness who was detained in a Xinjiang “re-education camp” (concentration camp), wept outside the court. Her husband had been detained in Xinjiang for two years. She stated that it was under international pressure that the Chinese authorities released her husband.
After returning to Kazakhstan, Kabi publicly recounted his experiences in the Xinjiang detention facilities. “The CCP detained my husband for two years, and now he’s being detained in Kazakhstan, and it’s a secret trial,” Aben said outside the court.
The judge ruled that the case would have a second hearing on January 29th in a closed session. This follows the trial format of the former Soviet Union. The “closed-door trial” mechanism requires lawyers and defendants to sign confidentiality agreements, prohibiting them from giving interviews, disclosing any mistreatment during interrogations, or publishing the trial content. Otherwise, they will bear the consequences.
Oralkhan Aben, Tursynbek Kabi’s wife, wept outside the courthouse. (Photo provided by Serikzhan Bilash)
Lawyer: Case Lacks Criminal Basis
In a statement, Baizanov argued that the case should not be considered a criminal case. He believes the defendants’ actions at most constitute administrative violations, such as holding an assembly without permission.
International observers believe the case should have ended there, given that the defendants had already been detained for 15 days and fined for administrative violations.
However, the lawyer stated that on November 13th of last year, the authorities restarted the administrative proceedings and upgraded the case to a criminal one the following day. This repeated prosecution violates the constitutional principle that “the same act should not be repeatedly prosecuted.”
He also pointed out that there is external diplomatic pressure behind the case, particularly from China.
“This exposes China’s growing influence in the region and raises concerns about the independence of the Kazakh judiciary,” international observers said.
International Experts and Organizations Concerned
Several independent foreign experts have expressed concern about the case. Renowned anthropologist Rune Steenberg, in his analysis report, pointed out that the defendants’ actions were not directed against the Chinese nation or ethnic group, but rather a peaceful protest against the Chinese government and its Xinjiang policies.
The report stated that “there is no evidence of incitement to ethnic hatred” in the case.
Serikzhan Bilash stated that 14 major international organizations from Europe and the United States have assessed the case and reached similar conclusions. These organizations include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Mary Lawler, and members of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission.
These organizations have issued a joint appeal to the Kazakh authorities, demanding adherence to international human rights standards.
Possible Outcomes
Baizanov indicated that he believes not all defendants will be sentenced to imprisonment, but he does not rule out the possibility of other restrictive rulings from the court, including: a four- to five-year ban on public and political activities; and restrictions on certain civil rights.
“Where there is political intervention, the law often cannot prevail,” he said.
The case stems from the Chinese government’s arbitrary detention last year in Xinjiang of a truck driver who had become a naturalized citizen of Kazakhstan, and the subsequent detention of 19 people by local Kazakh authorities during a protest.
Original interview between Serikzhan Bilashuly and lawyer Shynkuat Baizhanov.