CCPR/C/115/D/2304/2013
health by providing him with the medical care he needed or to allow him access to medical
treatment of his choosing, so as to avoid irreparable harm.
The facts as submitted by the author
2.1
In 1998, the author was appointed President of the Kazakhstan National Atomic
Company (Kazatomprom), a State-owned uranium production company. In 2001, he was
also appointed to the position of Deputy Minister of Energy and Mineral Resources of
Kazakhstan. As President of Kazatomprom, he managed several financial and business
operations worldwide.
2.2
On 21 May 2009, the author was arrested on the premises of Kazatomprom by
officers of the National Security Committee and taken to that entity’s pretrial detention
centre in Astana. At the centre, the author was detained under article 132 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure of Kazakhstan. He was told that he was being detained on suspicion of
having committed a criminal offence and that the National Security Committee wanted to
interrogate him.
2.3
The author asked whether he could retain a private lawyer. He was told that he could
not retain a lawyer of his choice since a State-appointed lawyer, S.P., had already been
provided to him. During the first few days of detention, the author was interrogated on
several occasions. The State-appointed lawyer was always present but was passive and did
not ask any questions. Likewise, he did not complain about the author’s detention, made no
attempt to contact the author’s family and did not attend the hearings related to the author’s
case.1
2.4
On 23 May 2009, the author’s period of pretrial detention was prolonged for a
further two months by the military court of the garrison in the region of Akmola. Given the
passivity of the State-appointed lawyer, the author appealed the decision to the military
court of Kazakhstan, claiming that his arrest was unlawful because the Akmola military
court lacked jurisdiction.2 On 29 May 2009, the military court of Kazakhstan examined the
author’s appeal; the examination took place in the author’s absence. The court upheld the
decision to detain him.
2.5
On 26 May 2009, the author’s wife, J., and a private lawyer retained by the family,
D.K., filed a request to the National Security Committee asking that D.K. be considered
Mr. Dzhakishev’s counsel of record. The request was denied that same day on the grounds
that the investigation involved classified information and D.K. had no security clearance
and therefore could not have access to “State secrets”. On 27 May 2009, an appeal against
that decision was made to the Prosecutor’s Office in Astana. The complaint was forwarded
to the Prosecutor General’s Office of Kazakhstan.
2.6
On 3 June 2009, the Prosecutor General’s Office rejected the complaint submitted
by the author’s wife on 27 May 2009. On 16 June 2009, the author complained to Astana
District Court No. 2 about the Prosecutor General’s decision of 3 June 2009. On 2 July
2009, the District Court rejected the complaint, referring to the “classified” status of the
case. On the same day, the author appealed against that ruling to Astana City Court. On 10
July 2009, that court too rejected his appeal.
1
2
It is not clear to which hearings the author refers.
The author submits that, according to article 293 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the military
courts have limited jurisdiction over cases involving crimes that are military offences, offences that
are committed by military personnel and offences that are committed by individuals in the
performance of their official duties, as well as in cases of espionage.
3