"Representatives of the opposition want the Central Election Commission (CEC) to publish election results from each election precinct. There is no government in the world that publishes such results", - said Marat Kaipov, Minister of Justice of the Kyrgyz Republic in the interview to BPC (IPP media project) connected to Human Rights protection issues in Kyrgyzstan.

BPC: How do you assess the current human rights situation in Kyrgyzstan?

Marat Kayipov: After the people's revolution that took place on March 24, 2005, in the Kyrgyz Republic (KR), there were some radically positive changes related to the protection and exercise of human rights. The first concerned a fundamental political right (also called a natural right), the right to elections. We have fundamentally changed the Constitution to ensure this right. All social classes in Kyrgyzstan, regardless of sex, nationality, or age, have the opportunity to be represented in the country's legislative bodies. For the first time, Kyrgyzstan has introduced a 100-percent party list electoral system. Now it is possible for all political parties to participate in elections. We have set the following requirements for the composition of political party lists. First, no more than 70% of the people on a list can be of the same gender; second, at least 15% must be youth; third, at least 15% must be representatives of other nationalities. Thus, Kyrgyzstan, as a multinational state, resolves the issue of minority representation in the legislative body.

Why have we selected this path? As you know, political parties are formed with only one purpose: to come to power in a democratic way. We have set these requirements for list compilation to ensure genuine rights for ethnic minorities, to avoid unrealistic requirements for one specific ethnic group or minority, and to avoid the creation of a political party based on ethnicity.

Everyone knows that Kyrgyzstan is unitary state, which indicates its inseparability and the absence of autonomous formations within it. Therefore, we should ensure that our Constitution does not have space for anyone demanding autonomy in future. To avoid such claims, we should give other ethnicities the opportunity to participate in elections. We should open a path to Parliament for them and ensure that representatives of ethnic minorities exist in the list of every political party. Today, 30% of representatives in Parliament are women and almost 30% are representatives of other ethnic groups, and obviously, youth is also represented. I think that is the country's main achievement in the sphere of the development and protection of the rights of the Kyrgyz nation.

BPC: The opposition and a number of NGOs have stated that they regard the current Parliament as illegitimate because the Jogorku Kenesh (JK) race results have not been published, which means that election results are still unknown. As a lawyer, what can you say about that?

Marat Kayipov: Representatives of the opposition want the Central Election Commission (CEC) to publish election results from each election precinct. There is no government in the world that publishes such results. The CEC published overall election results even before the deadline passed, two weeks after the elections. Everyone knows about it. But no one is going to publish results from election precinct, because that is not required by the law.

BPC: What do you think about situations related to the restriction of right for freedom of peaceful assemblies?

Marat Kayipov: The word "restriction" either comes from the opposition or from so-called human rights organizations. I would call it not "restriction" but, rather, "bringing order." Because state authorities should be in the middle - in other words, they should be fair and unbiased - with regard to protesters, anti-protesters supporting the government, and citizens who are indifferent to these demonstrations. But, first of all, the state power should ensure order, safety, and the protection of the life and health of the protestors, anti-protesters, and citizens who do not participate in these demonstrations. Until now, our Constitution has assumed that any citizen may organize picketers and go to any place that is convenient to him (with preliminary notification), while authorities have no choice but deal with this situation. It should not be this way.

We have unfortunately experienced such demonstrations, and that has opened our eyes. First, it turned out that a rally can be organized artificially - so-called "commercial demonstrations." Given our peoples' hardships and the unemployed rate, it turns out it is possible to get people out on the square by paying them a certain amount of money and forcing these bribed people to shout or to march along a route chosen by the opposition. There were cases when they wanted to take over "White House" - I mean Baryktabasov's group. Such political actions can lead to the destruction of the state, not to mention political stability and peace.

That is one aspect. On the other side, during artificial demonstrations, people who wanted to support the current government also went out to the square and we witnessed provocations and clashes between these parties, which were resolved by the militia. That brings us to a conclusion: these political rights should be protected and exercised, but it is also important to remember the rights of citizens who are indifferent to demonstrations. We will also protect anti-protesters. If there is an opinion "against," why should an opinion protecting the government and refuting the opinion of the previous be forbidden? That is the second concern.

Third, there was the notification that all demonstrations would be conducted on the square. But then protesters organized marches and followed specific routes that had not been discussed before and protesters had not disclosed the street they would march along or any administrative building they would approach. For example, when they were coming from the square to the NTRC (National TV and Radio Company) building, they crossed dozens of streets - and they were main streets - but the government had not prepared those streets for marching. The streets were running their everyday courses: transport was traveling along them and residents seeking only peace were living there, but despite all this, meeting participants were shouting out slogans, calling passersby to join them, and finally, had a demonstrationnear the NTRC building, during which some confrontations occurred. This raises the following questions: Why didn't the authorities ensure the protection of the rights and freedoms of the protesters marching in those streets? Why didn't we close those streets? What if a car had run into the crowd at full speed? Where is the guarantee that on this route they would not confront anti-protesters? What if blood had been shed?

In other words, rights are rights, but as I have already said, the state authorities should be in the middle, providing equal protection of all rights. Therefore, we came to the conclusion that during the organization of such political campaigns, in the interest of protecting public freedoms, we should provide specific conditions in places where rallies are organized. For example, we will provide special equipment, a microphone, and ensure the presence of a government representative. The Bishkek City Council and mayor's offices of other cities have undertaken to attempt this.

From an unbiased point of view, I think that rallies and demonstrations of this nature should be ordered and well-organized. Also, where is the logic? They stood on the square for the whole day and at night went up to an administrative building, one time to the NTRC, and another time to the State Kyrgyz Security Council. But do civil servants work at night? It does not make sense. If they want to organize demonstrations or marches, they should give notification in advance and provide a route so the authorities can ensure safety and order.

Regarding location, Gorkiy Square is also one of the central regions of the city. These types of political demonstrations have been conduced there before. But if there is not enough room for protesters in that square, then the City Council will identify a different place, and if even that were too small then, as far as I know, it is possible to meet on the old square in front of the Jogorku Kenesh (Parliament) building. In other words, depending on the number of protesters, the City Council will organize a space for the demonstration.

BPC: Many human rights activists think that restricting the right for freedom of peaceful assembly raises the discontent of citizens and leads to an even bigger number of protest campaigns. What do you think about that?

Marat Kayipov: I do not think that there are restrictions now. I do not think that there are intentions to introduce any new rules for organizing rallies that would lead to serious negative consequences. It all depends on how the government works and how it ensures the fundamental rights of its citizens. The current government is doing everything so that the Kyrgyz nation can live an easier life. We create job opportunities, give salary rises, and ensure that our citizens live in a clean and beautiful city. I think that results will not take too long to appear and - in the future - the city won't have to organize revolutions or other types of protest campaigns.

BPC: How do you assess the latest legislative bills related to access and information?

Marat Kayipov: In regards to new developments related to fines imposed for refusing to provide information, it is important to differentiate information provision from giving interviews. These are different things. You will never be able to call me accountable for refusing to give an interview. But it is a different matter if a civil servant did not give you information that a ministry or other state body had.

I was a speaker of the Parliament myself and a certain law that we had drafted was passed. So I have to disclose information to you. If the person responsible for providing information refused to do so or provided distorted information, then he would be fined 500 to 1,000 soms. I am sure that this mechanism will discipline civil servants, will make them take the public's right to access to information seriously. That is the only way of ensuring that the right can be exercised: by targeting civil servants' pockets.

An interview is a conversation between a journalist and a respondent, and it should be solely a voluntary practice. You cannot use this law to force a civil servant to give an interview. Refusal to give an interview can be justified in several ways: possibly, a person is simply not in the mood; maybe he does not have time; maybe he does not want to give an interview to a certain media organization. However, he can provide the requested information in written format, not necessarily orally.

The current authorities have not taken any actions to limit access to information. On the contrary, every minister and every the head of administrative unit is required to always speak publicly about his job. We even have a schedule for communication with the media.

BPC: What do you think should be done to ensure more open access to information for the media and the general public?

Marat Kayipov: First of all, it is a problem of communication. Residents of remote villages - Kyrgyz villages - do not receive timely information: they do not have an opportunity to watch TV; newspapers come late and are very expensive; and many areas do not have access to the Internet. Consequently, we should resolve the issue of communications to ensure that information is available in each village, to the largest extent possible.

Regarding media access to information, I think that every state body should have its own Internet website. What is it for? First, as soon as the slightest piece of new information appears, we can publish it on the website. In other words, any information a journalist might need would be posted on the website and finding it would not take much time.

Recently, there was a contest for the websites of state bodies and our website took the first place. I'm proud to brag about it. We have three databases available online. There is a database of all normative legal acts of the Kyrgyz Republic, which is updated as necessary. There is also a database of draft bills, which contains legal acts that are in the development stage; while the draft bill is being developed, every state body, ministry, administrative unit, and Deputy can introduce changes to it. Also, every citizen can access this database online, read a specific bill, and send his comments and recommendations via email.

The third database includes all legal bodies, including all NGOs, political parties, religious organizations, mass media, and other institutions. Please, all of it is for you! I think that similar Internet sites will be opened by other agencies and the work of the journalist will become much easier, since any journalist will be able to visit a website and get the information he needs without asking the permission of any official. By the way, today many Internet portals including AKIPress and Kabar draw information from our website.

BPC: What issue in the area of human rights do you think deserves special attention?

Marat Kayipov: Our state should pay more attention to the rights and freedoms of citizens who are outside the country - especially in Russia, Kazakhstan and other countries. Otherwise what kind of a state are we? Sovereign Kyrgyzstan should have realistic mechanisms for protecting its citizens, regardless of their location, at any place on the Earth, or even in the space.

Once again, I want to draw attention to the rights of citizens located outside of the state and, first of all, we are talking about guest workers. Everyone knows why they are there. By the way, many of them get citizenship in other countries. Out of 100 guest workers, 99 are Kyrgyz. In other words, they are representatives of the titular nation making up the core of our state. Consequently, such a large immigration flow raises concerns. If representatives of the current generation get foreign citizenship, they can still return to the homeland, since they have friends and relatives here and they have grown up, lived and studied here - that means they have ties to the republic. But their children and grandchildren - will they come back after getting citizenship in another country?

Since my interview will be published on your website, I want to seize the opportunity to explain to these guest workers one of their constitutional rights: any Kyrgyz person who has received citizenship in a different country can return to the homeland or can simply mail the necessary documents for getting KR citizenship from abroad. The Kyrgyz people have the right to hold dual citizenship so that the nation will not be lost, since there are not very many of us.

BPC: What mechanisms would you suggest to protect the rights of KR citizens abroad?

Marat Kayipov: Naturally, the main one is diplomacy. Under some conditions, protecting their rights and freedoms through diplomacy alone seems impossible. In these cases case, we should thoroughly scrutinize this question with our Russian colleagues and maybe we should conduct joint activities. The mindset of some of the people should change. Especially, the mindset of those who infringe on the national dignity of people of other nations who are located on the territory of the Russian Federation. In short, I mean that we should conduct ideological work against fascism.

The interview was prepared by Bermet Egemberdieva, BPC