On September 29, 2017, the appellate instance of the Regional Court of Shymkent upheld the decision of the Yenbekshinskiy District Court of the Town of Shymkent. It will be recalled that on July 25, 2017, Judge Svetlana Shinaliyeva of the Yenbekshinskiy District Court of the Town of Shymkent returned a guilty verdict to the KNPRK President Larisa Kharkova, sentencing her to four years of restricted freedom of movement, one hundred hours of community service, and a 5-year ban from holding leadership positions in non-governmental associations and other non-commercial organisations. The sentence also prohibits Kharkova from changing her place of residence and her place of work, visiting certain places, and leaving town without permission from competent bodies.
It will be noted that even before the appeal was filed, Larisa Kharkova and othe KNPRK leaders had experienced ongoing pressure. Surveillance, phone tapping and insinuations in mass media never stopped.
Thus, around 08 p.m. on September 14, Nina Vasilyevna Khodeyeva, the mother of Larisa Kharkova, made a phone call reporting that the motor-car of Vladimir, Larisa’s son, was on fire on a fenced-in piece of land, in the courtyard of her private house. Two fire fighting vehicles arrived, one of them extinguished the fire; police officers arrived only in the evening of the following day. They examined the scene of the fire and the burned down car, took a statement and an explanatory note from Vladimir, and left. We do not know who set the car on fire or maybe it caught fire by itself but the fact is there; the fire did take place.
We suppose that the fire was started deliberately by an unknown person who had trespassed onto the territory of the private house where Nina Khodeyeva had residence, because, according to Nina Vasilyevna, the dog in the courtyard had been barking loudly before the fire started, probably having spotted a stranger in the courtyard.
It will be noted that Larisa Kharkova’s son and her sister both had their money and documents stolen on the same day, September 1. Regrettably, we cannot see this fact as a mere coincidence.
Also, on September 12 an unknown object looking like an explosive device was discovered attached to the bottom of the KNPRK Press-Secretary’s car. Police was summoned, along with fire-fighters, sappers, emergency service officers, and other emergency response personnel. After working on the car for one hour, the police officers announced that they had found no explosives and left, taking the package with them.
On September 27, in Almaty, an unknown driver created a dangerous situation on the road which resulted in a minor car accident involving the car of Nikolai, the husband of the KNPRK Press-Secretary. Since the cars suffered no particular damage, the parties to the accident went their own ways. However, later police officers appeared at Nikolai’s workplace and demanded that he should come with them to the station as it had turned out that after the accident a certain passenger allegedly suffered numerous contusions and the brain concussion while the Press-Secretary’s husband ran from the scene of the accident. Moreover, a video was made thirty minutes later which was posted in the social media (https://www.nur.kz/1632591-voditel-subaru-v-almaty-sovershil-d.html). We believe that this was a premeditated act that was later on disseminated through the social media.
We declare that this is connected to criminal persecution of Larisa Kharkova and the dissolution of the national trade union association Confederation of Independent Trade Unions of the Republic of Kazakhstan (KNPRK).
We declare that the court wrongfully gave L.N. Kharkova the sentence under the sanction of Part 1 of Article 250 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan that does not entail deprivation of liberty in the form of restricted freedom [of movement] with confiscation of property, a ban from holding leadership positions in NGOs and non-commercial organisations, imposition of probation supervision and compulsory community service.
Besides, the court wrongfully indicates that the injured parties have the right to file civil law claims under Part 3 of Article 166 of the Criminal Procedure Code, following the withdrawal of their claims in the court in question. The so-called “injured” persons have no such right as they have suffered no property damage from L.N. Kharkova.
The court wrongfully sustains the seizure of property and bank accounts for as long as necessary. The court wrongfully charges L.N. Kharkova with procedural costs in the amount of KZT 131,624 (One Hundred and Thirty-One Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty-Four). Larisa Kharkova denies her guilt of committing a crime under Part 1 of Article 250 of the RK Criminal Code completely, due to the absence of corpus delicti and the failure of investigators, the prosecutor’s office, and the court to prove her guilt.
Source: KNPRK
