UN experts have expressed strong disapproval of new legislative measures in Kyrgyzstan that restrict the freedom of religion or belief. These laws, denounced by UN representatives, are viewed as severely limiting critical freedoms such as thought, conscience, and religious practice, alongside freedoms of expression, assembly, and association.
The recently enacted Law on Freedom of Religion and Religious Organizations and the Law on Countering Extremist Activities were signed by President Sadyr Japarov earlier in the year. These laws broaden government oversight by stipulating requirements such as mandatory registration with the State Commission for Religious Affairs (SCRA) for religious communities every decade. Additionally, they impose fines for activities like wearing specific religious attire in public settings and conducting religious gatherings without prior notification to the authorities.
Critics argue these measures do not align with international human rights standards. According to General Comment No. 22 by the Human Rights Committee on Article 18 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, restrictions on religious freedom are only permissible under narrowly defined circumstances, such as ensuring public safety and protecting fundamental rights.
The UN experts have urged the Kyrgyz authorities to enter into an open and inclusive dialogue with minority religious groups impacted by these laws. This dialogue aims to realign national legislation with international human rights norms and ensure that Kyrgyzstan’s legal framework supports rather than hinders the diversity of religious belief and practice.
However, representatives of the Kyrgyz government, such as Kanatbek Midin uuly, Deputy Director of the SCRA, have defended the laws, claiming they are designed to stabilize the religious environment in the country and prevent extremism. While the intent communicated by the authorities is to enhance security, the international community and legal experts question whether these objectives justify the reductions in civil liberties. For full coverage, visit the JURIST.