Propaganda of terrorism using telecommunication networks

By the verdict of the district court No. 2 of the Saryarkinsky district of the city of Nur-Sultan dated May 22, 2020: M., previously convicted by the verdict of the Zerendinsky District Court of the Akmola region dated October 6, 2006 under paragraph "b" of part 3 of Article 179 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Criminal Code) with the application of Article 55 of the Criminal Code to 5 years in prison with confiscation of property, with serving a sentence in a correctional colony of general regime; by a decision of the judicial board for Criminal Cases of the Akmola Regional Court dated January 17, 2007, the court's verdict was changed, the application of article 55 of the Criminal Code was canceled and the sentence was imposed in the form of 10 years of imprisonment to be served in a high-security penal colony, the rest of the sentence was left unchanged; by a decision of the Kokshetau City Court of the Akmola region dated February 15, 2012 The unserved part of the sentence of 3 years, 9 months and 15 days was replaced by a milder type of punishment in the form of restriction of liberty, released on January 31, 2016 after serving his sentence.; – convicted under part 2 of Article 256 of the Criminal Code to 8 years in prison, under part 2 of Article 405 of the Criminal Code to 1 year in prison. Accordingly, according to part 3 of Article 58 of the Criminal Code, by absorbing a less severe punishment by a more severe M., the sentence was finally imposed in the form of 8 years of imprisonment to be served in an institution of the maximum security penal system. On the basis of part 1 of Article 14 of the Criminal Code, M.'s actions were recognized as a recidivism of crimes. Collected from M. procedural costs in the amount of 4,922 tenge, forced payment in the amount of twenty monthly calculation indices in the amount of 50,500 tenge to the Compensation Fund for Victims. The fate of the physical evidence is resolved. By the verdict of the court M. He was found guilty of propagandizing terrorism using telecommunications networks, as well as participating in the activities of the international religious organization At-Takfir wal-Hijrah, in respect of which there is a valid decision of the Saryarkinsky District Court dated August 18, 2014 recognizing its activities as extremist and banned in the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan. By the decision of the Judicial Board for criminal Cases of the Nur-Sultan City Court dated July 20, 2020, the verdict remained unchanged. In the petitions, lawyers B. and Sh. in the interests of M. They point out that the court's conclusions do not correspond to the actual circumstances of the case, the verdict is based only on contradictory testimony from witnesses "H." and "M." there is no other evidence confirming the guilt of the convicted person.

Propaganda of terrorism using telecommunication networks

They point out that examinations, interrogations of witnesses, correspondence between the convicted person and the witness under the pseudonym "H." on social networks, negotiations between the convicted person and witness "M." were investigated unilaterally, biasively and, according to the law, cannot be evidence in the case. They believe that the criminal case was investigated with violations of the procedural law. They are asking for judicial acts to be canceled and criminal proceedings to be terminated due to the absence of elements of criminal offenses in the actions of the convicted person. The court of cassation, in accordance with part 14 of Article 494 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the CPC), verifies the legality, validity and fairness of the court's verdict in full. The conclusions of the lower courts on the evidence of M.'s guilt in promoting terrorism and participating in the activities of the international religious organization Al-Takfir wal-Hijrah are correct, as they are based on evidence that the court of first instance carefully examined, gave them an objective assessment, and their analysis is contained in the verdict. The validity, admissibility, and sufficiency of these proofs are beyond doubt. The circumstances to be proved in which the said crime was committed have been established in the present case. M.'s guilt in the charges was proved by the testimony of a witness under the pseudonym "H.", who testified that around 2019 she met M. through the social network "In Contact", where he had his own page. Then we got to know each other better, communicating through audio and video calls. Then the communication moved to the social network "Telegram". M. he sent her the texts of books with religious meanings, which she read and retold their contents to M., because he did not believe that she had really read them and understood the meaning. During the communication via Telegram and during the meetings, M. spoke mainly. He explained that it is necessary to adhere to true Islam, and the Constitution and laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan are incorrect. And everyone who obeys them is also an infidel. In addition, M. forbade her to listen to imams and other Muslims. D

To confirm his arguments, he gave examples from history and excerpts from religious texts. In addition, M.'s guilt is confirmed by the testimony of witness "M.", in respect of whom, according to article 97 of the CPC, a security measure has been chosen. She revealed that around 2019 she met M. through the social network "In Contact". Then we communicated via the Telegram network. Around July 2019, we met with M. at the Pizza Bar cafe in the city of Nur Sultan, we talked about the religion of Islam. M. said that one should not listen to imams, and all those who obey the Constitution and the laws of the state are infidels. M. explained that jihad is a war against infidels, that jihad is underway now, it is necessary to fight against kafirs, and the spread of true Islam is also a jihad. Before meeting with M., the KNB staff provided her with special technical means to record the conversation. When she was shown the transcript of the conversation with M., she confirmed the correctness of its contents. From the testimony of witness S., it was established that he met M. in 2009, when he arrived at the EC-166/10 facility. They went to the institution's mosque together and met while reciting prayer together. In this institution, most of those serving their sentences received their religious literacy from a Russian citizen, a convicted person named A. Those serving their sentences who adhered to religious principles gathered in a "jamagat", took religious lessons from A., listened to his lectures. A. was a person who adhered to the religious view of "takfir" because, in his opinion people who live not according to the laws of Allah, but according to the Constitution, are "kafirs", that is, people who have left religion. He explained that many things need to be resolved religiously according to Sharia and the relationship between people should be in accordance with the order of Islam, but those who live by the rules of the Constitution and the leadership of the state should be opposed, Muslims all over the world should unite and create a "Caliphate." A. constantly contacted a person named "Abdulhaq" by phone. After his release from prison, while living in the capital, he met with members of the capital's "jamagat", who adhere to the religious view of "takfir", among whom were A., M., K. and others. With K. and D. He served his sentence together. While communicating at meetings with these individuals who adhere to the religious movement "Takfir", he met M. several times.

These individuals were later convicted. Similar testimony was given by witnesses K. and N. N. testified that A., M. and others referred to themselves as "jamaghat" At-Takfir wal-hijrah, they did not recognize other Muslims, considering themselves true followers of the religion of Islam. Witness B. testified that in the course of carrying out operational investigative activities in the field of countering terrorism, the staff of the National Security Committee for the city of Nur-Sultan received information that M., being an adherent of a destructive religious movement, was engaged in the propaganda of radical ideas in his environment. Operational and investigative actions were carried out in accordance with the requirements of the criminal procedural legislation. Conversations were recorded between a witness under the pseudonym "M." and M. According to expert opinion No. 2048 dated October 30, 2019, the general orientation of the above conversation is defined as an exchange of motives, goals, interests, motives and needs. M.'s statements can influence a change in a person's condition, opinions, and behavior. The ideas outlined in the materials presented for the study relate to the Sunni Islamic religion and are somewhat close to the radical religious organization Al-Takfir wal-Hijrah. There are signs of terrorist propaganda in M.'s statements. The materials of the criminal case established that a Samsung mobile phone was seized from a witness under the pseudonym "H.", through which correspondence was conducted with M. When examining the mobile phone, information of evidentiary value in the case (electronic books and pamphlets of religious content) was found, which M. sent to the witness.

According to expert opinion No. 72 dated January 20, 2020 on the texts sent by M. to the phone of witness "H.", the general orientation of the available information, in accordance with the form of their provision, is defined as a statement of the main provisions of the Islamic religion and their interpretation. The ideas contained in the texts relate to the ideology of the At-Takfir wal-Hijrah organization, which preaches religious radicalism. There are signs of terrorist propaganda in the literary texts. The arguments of M.'s defenders, based on the conclusions of the specialists of the ANO "Saint Petersburg Institute of Independent Expertise and Assessment" dated June 1, 2020 and the specialist of LLP "E" M. dated July 13, 2020 No. 68/2020/3, that the text submitted for research does not contain propaganda of terrorism and public calls for the commission of an act of terrorism, they are untenable. These arguments have been thoroughly investigated by the Court of appeal and given a proper assessment.

Propaganda of terrorism using telecommunication networks

The lawyers' arguments that M. did not pursue any goal of propagandizing terrorism are unfounded and are refuted by the testimony of witnesses and other evidence examined in the case. The testimony of witnesses "H." and "M." was fully confirmed in the contents of the transcripts of correspondence with M. via the Telegram mobile application (correspondence with "H."), as well as in the transcript of the secret audio documentation (conversation between M. and "M."). At the same time, the testimony of witnesses is confirmed by the conclusions of the expert examinations that M.'s actions contain signs of propaganda of terrorism. The pre-trial investigation body did not allow violations of the law that could affect the court's conclusions about M.'s guilt or the recognition of evidence as inadmissible. The actions of the pre-trial investigation body from the moment of registration of offenses until the referral of the criminal case to the court comply with the requirements of criminal procedural legislation. In this regard, the arguments of the defense in this part are untenable. M.'s actions are correctly qualified under part 2 of Article 256, part 2 of Article 405 of the Criminal Code. The Judicial Board for Criminal Cases of the Supreme Court left the judicial acts of the local courts in relation to M. unchanged. The petitions of lawyers B. and Sh. left without satisfaction. 

Attention!   

       Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.  

 For more information,  please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085. 

Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office  Court Cases