This week, the international human rights organization Human Rights Watch publicly called for an end to what it described as “pressure on journalists in Kazakhstan.” The statement quickly entered the global media cycle, creating the impression of a systemic problem and prompting concern among international audiences, DKNews.kz reports.
However, officials in Astana argue that such conclusions fail to reflect the full legal and factual context.
Kazakhstan’s position was laid out in detail by Aida Balayeva, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Culture and Information of the Republic of Kazakhstan, in a post published on her official Facebook page.
According to Balayeva, representatives of the international organization were misled amid an intensified information campaign surrounding several criminal cases in which media representatives are among the defendants.
“There is no doubt that representatives of the organization were misled, as in recent days the topic of alleged ‘torture’ has been deliberately amplified in Kazakhstan to draw international attention to several criminal cases,” Balayeva wrote.
What Is Actually at Stake
The central point of the statement is a clear distinction: there is no persecution of journalists for their profession in Kazakhstan, but there are legal proceedings addressing specific actions within the framework of the law.
“I state with full responsibility that no one in Kazakhstan is being persecuted for their profession,” Balayeva emphasized.
She argues that attempts to portray routine procedural actions by law enforcement agencies as “pressure on freedom of speech” are not about protecting journalism, but about deliberately manipulating public opinion.
“Attempts to present procedural actions as ‘pressure on freedom of speech’ are a conscious manipulation of public opinion,” the statement reads.
Importantly, the issue is not about political views, editorial policies, or journalistic criticism. Rather, it concerns specific legal claims raised by private individuals, which are being examined by competent authorities in accordance with the law.
How the Allegations of “Torture” Emerged
A separate part of the statement addresses claims of alleged torture of detainees. According to Balayeva, these allegations have been actively promoted by defendants and their legal teams in order to increase public and international attention around the cases.
“Any claims of violations of rights and freedoms must be based exclusively on facts, evidence, and the rule of law - not on interpretations, emotions, or attempts to attract additional attention,” she wrote.
From the government’s perspective, it is precisely these unverified claims that have distorted perceptions of the situation both domestically and internationally.
The Reform Context Often Overlooked
Balayeva also draws attention to the broader context that is frequently omitted from public discussions. Since 2022, Kazakhstan has been implementing a series of reforms to its media and information legislation. These reforms are aimed at strengthening the legal protection of journalists, enhancing their professional status, and modernizing the media sector in line with digital realities.
She stresses a fundamental principle:
“Freedom of speech and freedom of the media are fundamental values enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and in our country’s international obligations.”
At the same time, she underscores that freedom of expression does not eliminate legal responsibility.
“Freedom of speech does not mean exemption from responsibility and cannot replace the requirements of the law - neither in Kazakhstan nor in any other rule-of-law state.”
Why the Government Is Calling for Restraint
The key appeal in the statement is directed at international organizations, media outlets, and the public at large: refrain from drawing premature conclusions before investigations and court proceedings are completed.
“I strongly urge all international organizations, as well as the media and the public, to refrain from premature conclusions until the investigation is completed,” Balayeva wrote.
According to her, external pressure on investigative bodies, the spread of unverified information, and attempts to politicize procedural actions pose risks not only to individual cases but to the stability of the legal system as a whole.
“This is a path toward destabilization,” the statement warns.
The government’s position is stated unambiguously: all matters related to the activities of the media, journalists, or specific criminal cases must be addressed strictly within the legal framework.
“Those found guilty will inevitably face punishment proportionate to their actions, if this is proven in court,” Balayeva concluded.
In short, Kazakhstan insists that the issue at hand is not a struggle against freedom of speech, but the application of the rule of law. And in a legal state, it is the court - not public pressure or international statements - that must have the final word.
