Office of Ombudsman denies info of the press service of High Court of the Kyrgyz Republic
On July 21st press service of the Office of Kyrgyz Ombudsman applied to the press service of the High Court of the Kyrgyz Republic with a request to deny info which was posted on the official site of the High Court of the Kyrgyz Republic. But press secretary refused to do it.
In connection with that Kyrgyz Office of Ombudsman informs that in point 3 of the art. 110 of the Criminal Procedure code of the Kyrgyz Republic it is pointed out the persons who were mentioned before oblige to participate at the process. Hence it does not limit on a number of participants. It means that there is no prohibition on presence at the court including the observers. According to the art. 18 of the Kyrgyz Constitution everyone shall fully carry out any activity except those which are prohibited by the Constitution and laws.
Besides from that in the letter sent by Kyrgyz Ombudsman Kubat Otorbaev to the Chairman of the High Court on restoration of lawfulness during consideration of court materials on election of a preventive measure by the local courts today a letter from vice chairman of the High Court of the Kyrgyz Republic Kachyke Esenkanov was received. In this letter High Court of the Kyrgyz Republic recommends the local courts to apply part 1 of the art. 99 of Kyrgyz Constitution and art. 22 as well as art. 254 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Kyrgyz Republic. It confirms that info posted on 19 July 2016 by the press service of the High Court of the Kyrgyz Republic is false.
Court hearing of Leschinskaya case where Ombudsman`s staff member was banned from attending the court was not and could not be an indoor court. It is connected with the fact that the case does not contain materials which could make it an indoor court. According to part 2 art. 22 of the Criminal Procedural code of the Kyrgyz Republic closed trial is permitted by a reasoned decision of the court or a decision made by judge and in cases of sexual and other crimes in order to prevent the disclosure of information about the private life of persons involved, as well as in cases of the offenses of the under aged and in cases that require security of the victim, witness or other persons involved and their family members or close relatives.
Based on that fact Kyrgyz Ombudsman Office states again that on May 23 2016 Bishkek city court`s panel of judges violated principles of transparency and openness of the trial which are enshrined in part 1 of the art. 99 of Kyrgyz Constitution and art. 22, art 254 of the Criminal Procedural code of the Kyrgyz