HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE

Sixty-ninth session

SUMMARY RECORD OF THE 1843rd MEETING

Held at the Palais Wilson, Geneva,

on Wednesday, 12 July 2000, at 10 a.m.

Chairperson: Ms. MEDINA QUIROGA

CONTENTS

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT (continued)

Initial report of Kyrgyzstan (continued)

The meeting was called to order at 10.05 a.m.

CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 40 OF THE COVENANT (agenda item 4) (continued)

Initial report of Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/113/Add.1; CCPR/C/69/L/KGZ) (continued)

At the invitation of the Chairperson, the Kyrgyz delegation resumed their places at the Committee table.

The CHAIRPERSON invited the members of the Committee to put additional questions orally to the Kyrgyz delegation.

Mr. BHAGWATI wished to know what were the official languages of Kyrgyzstan, whether members of minorities were entitled to use their own languages in dealings with the authorities, whether minority languages could be used in Parliament and whether university education was imparted in minority languages.

With regard to the application of article 19 of the Covenant, he noted that, under a law passed in 1998, authorization to print, publish and disseminate information was granted by the National Communication Agency, whose activities were supervised by the Government and which was thus not an independent body. Did the Agency take its decisions to grant or refuse authorization on the basis of directives and, if not, was the situation in that respect in conformity with article 19 of the Covenant? Could a decision by the National Communication Agency be appealed?

A broadcasting company entitled Almaz, which had been highly critical of the Government, had reportedly been suspended in February 1998 for several months by the National Communication Agency, which had allegedly asked the management, as a condition for renewal of the broadcasting permit, to provide it with information on Almaz’s budget and operations; that requirement was not imposed on other media. The management had apparently refused to comply and the permit was not renewed. He wished to know whether the report was accurate and, if so, what had motivated the authorities’ decision.

He found the legislation governing the offence of libel extremely vague. Furthermore, the offence, which was covered by article 127 of the Criminal Code, was punishable by a term of imprisonment, which could raise questions regarding the guarantee of freedom of expression.

Nine out of 11 political parties had been prevented from taking part in the February 2000 elections for one reason or another. Was that not excessive? Moreover, several opposition party leaders had been prosecuted during the period prior to the elections or between the two rounds of voting, so that they were unable to participate fully in the process. He would be grateful for clarification from the Kyrgyz delegation on all those points and also wished to know whether the elections were monitored by an independent commission or by the national authorities.

Mr. ANDO said that freedom of expression and, in particular, transparency with regard to information were key elements of democracy, and the need to ensure political stability could not be invoked as a pretext for impeding the functioning of democracy. Questions had already been raised about the National Communication Agency, which was under the control, he understood, of the Ministry of Justice. Given the nature of its functions, he suggested that it should come under some other ministry such as the Ministry of Education. He further noted that the Osh independent television channel, which was highly critical of the Government and whose owner was an Uzbek and therefore a member of an ethnic minority, had obtained a broadcasting licence only after a very long waiting period, and then for just one year. He wished to know on what grounds. Moreover, employees of television channels were apparently required to hold a university degree, a stiff requirement for a country such a Kyrgyzstan. Again, he would appreciate an explanation of the reasons. Lastly, he noted that responsibility for nominating, appointing and dismissing the directors of the State-run press and public radio and television stations lay with the President of the Republic. Had the authorities any plans to transfer responsibility to an independent body?

With regard to the application of article 21 of the Covenant, he wished to know why the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR mentioned in paragraph 428 of the report was still in force and whether the authorities proposed to review its content. He would be grateful if the Kyrgyz delegation could cite cases in which permission to organize a public meeting had been denied and state whether such a decision was subject to judicial review.

With regard to freedom of association, he requested details of the criteria for registration of a political party and of the action open to unregistered parties.

Lastly, he wished to know what measures the Government had taken to ensure that persons without computer access to the Internet could obtain human rights information.

Mr. SOLARI YRIGOYEN inquired about the continuous harassment experienced, according to some reports, by human rights defenders. In particular, he wished to know why the Kyrgyz Human Rights Committee had been declared illegal in September 1998. In March 1999, the Committee’s request for official recognition had been turned down on the grounds that another body with the same name had already been registered. The matter had been settled in the meantime but he was keen to know what guarantees of unhampered working conditions the Human Rights Committee currently enjoyed. In particular, he wished to hear from the delegation why 10 of its members had been taken into custody and prosecuted, and how much time they had spent in custody.

With regard to independence of the press, it was apparently not unusual for proceedings to be instituted against the directors of independent news media for tax evasion or administrative negligence. It was a worrying situation that could raise questions regarding the implementation of article 19 of the Covenant. He would welcome any clarifications the Kyrgyz delegation could provide on that point. The delegation had also mentioned the case of a journalist who had been prosecuted for “incitement to national hatred”, a term that he would like to have explained.

Lastly, he understood from paragraph 429 of the report that assemblies, meetings and demonstrations were subject to a very large number of conditions, which could have a dissuasive effect. He asked the Kyrgyz delegation to provide the Committee with statistics, or to forward them at a later date, on the number of requests for authorization that had been submitted during the previous two years and the number that had been turned down.

Mr. YALDEN said he had taken note of the Kyrgyz delegation’s comments on the rules governing the registration of political parties but failed to understand why it was necessary to prescribe such long waiting periods, which could prevent some parties from taking part in elections. He asked the delegation to shed more light on the subject.

With regard to protection against discrimination on the basis of nationality, he would appreciate more detailed information about the steps that had been taken to introduce criminal liability in that regard, as mentioned in paragraph 517 of the report. In particular, he wished to know how many cases had been submitted to the authorities, how they had been dealt with and their outcome. One member of the Committee had inquired about protection against discrimination in employment and promotion based on ethnic origin. He requested the delegation to describe the action taken by the authorities in that area. Moreover, according to paragraph 528 of the report, steps had been taken to promote the participation of various ethnic groups on an equal footing in the country’s social and political life. He wished to have statistics on the representation of minorities in Parliament, in the Government, in higher education establishments and elsewhere, particularly the Russian and Uzbek minorities, who accounted for a large proportion of the population. Lastly, in response to question 23 on the list of issues (CCPR/C/69/L/KGZ), the Kyrgyz delegation had stated that there was no specific legislation to protect the rights of national minorities. Perhaps there had been a misunderstanding, since paragraph 521 of the report mentioned a bill on the protection of national minority rights. He would be grateful if the Kyrgyz delegation could indicate what stage had been reached in the enactment of the bill.

Mr. AMOR requested clarifications of certain points arising under article 18 of the Covenant, and in particular, whether Kyrgyz law defined the concept of sect. Sects currently enjoyed a very poor reputation in the world and the term was often applied to ancient religious movements, new beliefs and sometimes even groups of charlatans, business people and criminals. It was therefore easy to anathematize a religious group by describing it as a sect. Moreover, what was said in paragraph 408 of the report was disquieting and he underlined that it was not for one religion to pass judgement on others. In the circumstances, the State had the right to combat any use of religion for purposes other than confessional ones, but it was also responsible for ensuring full respect for article 18 of the Covenant. He would like to know how sects were viewed in Kyrgyzstan, whether there had been incidents connected with their existence and whether an official census had been taken of them.

He asked the Kyrgyz delegation to explain the legal procedure governing the registration of religious organizations, the number of such organizations registered, the number of requests for registration denied and also the reasons for their rejection.

He also wondered whether religious instruction was given in all public schools and to all pupils, whether its content was based on the religious beliefs of pupils and at what level of schooling it was given. Where such instruction was not imparted in public establishments, were there courses in ethics? He also inquired about the impact of the multi-denominationalism of Kyrgyz society on primary and secondary education and whether the school system truly reflected the composition of society. Private religious schools were certainly legitimate, but the State had a duty to ensure that freedom of religion was not misused for non-religious purposes. In the circumstances, did the Kyrgyz authorities exercise any kind of supervision over what was done or taught in such establishments, bearing in mind that, in some countries, private religious schools had at times been used for military or paramilitary training purposes. Lastly, with respect to the status of women in the context of religion, he noted that the Kyrgyz delegation had provided some clarifications on the question of polygamy but felt that more light needed to be shed on other aspects of the matter. Specifically, some religions countenanced conduct that implied the inferiority of women or was designed to maintain them in a situation of inferiority. For example, women did not always have the right to address themselves to God on an equal footing with men, and some mosques were off-limits for them. Was that the case in Kyrgyzstan or were there special arrangements whereby women could practice their religion? He would be grateful if the Kyrgyz delegation would clear up those points.

Ms. EVATT asked whether it was intended, in the near future, to repeal the provision of the Criminal Code referred to in paragraph 424 of the report establishing criminal liability for libel, as well as the countless restrictions on the freedom of assembly, which in her view were incompatible with article 21 of the Covenant. She also wished to know more about the legal protection of disabled persons, and in particular, people with mental disabilities. Were they covered by specific provisions, did they have the right to appeal a hospital order, and were they covered by the anti-discrimination provision of the Constitution, namely article 15?

Mr. KLEIN pointed out that the report provided a wealth of information about the press but virtually nothing about radio and television. He wished to know specifically whether the law guaranteed equal television time for opposition candidates during election campaigns and whether there were television channels that were private and hence independent of the establishment.

Referring to paragraphs 243 and 247 of the report, he asked how the difference in the treatment of conscripts based on their educational level could be considered as compatible with article 26 of the Covenant. Moreover, noting that in paragraph 4 of the report, it was stated that the remarks and wishes of non-governmental organizations had been taken into account in the final version, he pointed out that those organizations had informed the Committee that they had never been invited to participate in the preparation of that report.

Lastly, he said he shared Mr. Ando’s fears concerning the failure to publicize the report sufficiently. Publishing it on the Internet would be a good thing but considering the minute proportion of the population with access to the new technology, it would be desirable to make

use of traditional means of information as well, such as the press. He emphasized that the best way of safeguarding the rights of a people was to acquaint them with their rights. Hence, while welcoming the fact that the rights embodied in the Covenant could be invoked directly before the Constitutional Court, he noted that the procedure had never been used, which was a fair indication that neither magistrates nor the public at large were aware of it.

Mr. WIERUSZEWSKI took note of the delegation’s statement that no newspaper had been closed in the preceding five years. Other sources, however, had alleged that at least four newspapers had been closed down and that others were still being subjected to pressure or financial penalties. He had also been informed by external sources that several NGOs had been refused registration. It was his understanding that the system of NGO registration came within the remit of the Ministry of Justice, but he wished to have more information on that system.

With regard to the right of assembly, he challenged the argument that the new Kyrgyz law was consistent with article 21 of the Covenant because the latter left room for restrictions to be imposed. Indeed, such restrictions could be tolerated only if they were uniform and known to all, and did not rob the very concept of assembly of its meaning. It seemed that if the administration could decide where a demonstration was to be held its impact would be completely neutralized. Lastly, he joined Mr. Klein in urging the Kyrgyz Government to publicize the report more widely and to share more information with NGOs.

Mr. SCHEININ wondered whether the requirements with which political parties had to comply in order to participate in elections were not in fact a constraint on participation and democracy. He furthermore regretted that the international observers who had monitored the last parliamentary elections had been the butt of derogatory remarks and accusations of interference in internal affairs.

Mr. TURSUNBAI BAKIR uulu (Kyrgyzstan) explained that although Russian was the official language in Kyrgyzstan, the other languages were widely spoken, in keeping with the Constitution. Accordingly, there were a good many newspapers, television channels and theatres where other languages, and especially Uzbek, were used. Two universities gave their instruction in the Uzbek and Ukrainian languages and the opening of a university providing instruction in the Tadjik language was under study. In Parliament, where one out of six deputies represented a minority, a new internal regulation had been adopted prescribing that each deputy could speak in his own language and be provided with simultaneous interpretation.

Only one radio station and one television station were government-run, all the others being fully independent. Given the scarcity of frequency bands, the Government had set up a permanent public agency to regulate postal and telecommunication services in 1997. The only function of that agency was to issue operating licences to radio stations and in no case did it interfere in their operation or censure the content of programmes. The two stations to which reference had been made had had their licences withdrawn only because they had violated technical standards. And in any case, they had resumed broadcasting once those problems had been solved.

There were currently some 30 political parties of various persuasions. The only restriction imposed under the Constitution was that there must be no religious parties. The decision to allow participation in elections only by parties registered one year prior to the election date had been taken because of the sometimes artificial proliferation of parties that had followed the enactment of the new electoral law stipulating that 25 per cent of parliamentary seats should be reserved for parties other than the majority party, and following the entry into force in 1999 of the new law on political parties providing that, henceforth, 10 rather than 500 members were sufficient to establish a party. The opposition parties were not against the one‑year rule; on the contrary, they were the ones that had made the proposal. A party was required to register with the Ministry of Justice not in order to exist, but only for purposes of participating in presidential and parliamentary elections.

He was unable to provide a detailed answer to Mr. Ando regarding the cessation of the activities of television stations, and said that more information on the subject would be provided in the next report. However, he could assure Mr. Ando that the closures in question had not been motivated by censorship.

In reply to Mr. Yalden, he said that national minorities were well represented in local government bodies. In areas where they were present in large numbers, particularly in the south of the country, they even headed territorial authorities in many cases.

The Kyrgyz Criminal Code, unlike previous Soviet legislation, contained no specific provisions concerning sects. A new bill on religion, drafted in cooperation with representatives of various confessions, was to be examined in the near future. Kyrgyzstan was an overwhelmingly Islamic country, but a number of mosques had had to be closed for lack of attendance. The few disputes that had arisen between the authorities and representatives of the Orthodox Church had been brought before the courts and settled without difficulty. Preachers from various religions could speak freely on television and parents could send their children to Islamic or Orthodox schools or to those of other faiths, but public schools did not provide religious instruction.

A question had been asked concerning “schools of terrorism”. Given the proximity of Afghanistan, where such training centres existed, the Kyrgyz authorities were careful to ensure that no religious school overstepped the law and insidiously prepared the way for the establishment of terrorist movements in the country.

As for the equality of men and women in religious matters, it was true that the Sunnis prayed separately and that a segment of the population still favoured the strict application of Shariah, but a large number of believers now wished to pray together.

There were a great many private television channels in the country and they were free to broadcast on the same basis as the government-run television station. Under the Constitution, all candidates were allowed the same air time during election campaigns.

Reverting to the question asked about non-military service and which had already been answered in part, he recalled that the country had a high level of unemployment and that it was difficult to provide employment for persons who did not wish to perform normal military service. It was in that context that the measure had been adopted providing for enterprises employing such persons to transfer 20 per cent of their wages to the Ministry of Defence. The fact that the duration of military service was not the same for all was the result of different levels of education among conscripts, and it was intended to standardize the period of service.

The Committee was right in stating that the population was insufficiently informed about the existence of the Covenant, as well as other instruments ratified by Kyrgyzstan, even though they had been published in the Official Journal. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had been published in 1992 and there were plans to publish the texts of other instruments, but resources were lacking. Recently, the recommendations of the Committee on the Rights of the Child following its examination of Kyrgyzstan’s report had been carried in the press and had aroused considerable interest among the population.

A major opposition newspaper had been closed down for publishing material of a pornographic nature, which was contrary to the Constitution. However the journalists of “Res publica” had paid the fine imposed on them and the newspaper had resumed publication. NGOs, acting in concert, were very active in the country, and had done much to promote the establishment of democracy. Yet there were still not enough international observers, which was unfortunate, as their presence served both to strengthen the democratic process and to prevent the development of authoritarian tendencies.

Mr. ABYSHKAEV (Kyrgyzstan) said that the newspaper “Vecherny Bishkek” had undergone a tax audit, as a result of which it had had to pay a fine, but had not been shut down. The editor-in-chief had indeed left his post, but simply because of an in-house disagreement. Neither the Government nor the President had exerted any pressure on the editorial staff. It was true that the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on the procedure for organizing assemblies, meetings, street processions and demonstrations remained in force because, at the time of independence, a law had been adopted providing that the old decrees would be maintained - so long as they did not run counter to the interests of the Republic - until new legislation had been enacted. Administrative proceedings had been instituted in March 2000 for violation of the above-mentioned Decree, and in a few cases criminal proceedings had been instituted against persons who had infringed its provisions and demonstrated illegally. On the other hand, any person who hampered the staging of legal demonstrations was also punishable under article 392 of the relevant administrative regulations.

In any event, no provision in force in Kyrgyzstan was at variance with article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or with article 21 of the Covenant. Needless to say, everyone was required to respect the freedom of others, as well as morals and public order. Regrettably, some leaders of political parties did not see things that way and had flouted the law as well as the security and freedom of citizens. For example, disturbances had broken out during the elections in Bishkek and the authorities had been obliged to enforce the Electoral Law even though they had been aware that it needed amending since its shortcomings had been revealed by OSCE observers. The People’s Assembly had since drafted proposals aimed at improving its text.

In the city of Dzhalal-Abad, human rights activists who had been refused permission to organize a demonstration had applied to the civil court and the matter had been settled. The delegation would provide the Committee as soon as possible with the information it had requested concerning the number of instances in which authorizations to demonstrate had been withheld.

Mr. TURSUNBAI BAKIR uulu (Kyrgyzstan) wished to provide further clarification of the functioning of the electoral system. Pursuant to article 92 of the Electoral Law the Ministry of Justice had, in November 1999, submitted to the Central Electoral Commission of the Kyrgyz Republic a list of 15 political parties authorized to take part in the parliamentary elections. Those parties were required to have regulations providing for their participation in elections and must have been registered with the Ministry of Justice at least one year prior to the scheduled date of elections. The Supreme Court was empowered to reject the request of a party or a candidate to participate in elections if it had been proved that they had concealed information concerning their assets. In the case of the Democratic Movement of Kyrgyzstan, which had not participated in the elections, he explained that it had been its own members who had requested a Bishkek court to reverse the Electoral Commission’s decision as some of the candidates on the list had infringed the party’s regulations. The Government had in no way interfered in the matter.

Mr. ABYSHKAEV (Kyrgyzstan) reverted briefly to the events that had taken place in May 1999 in the Kumtor region following an accident resulting in the cyanide contamination of the waters of the Barskoon. A demonstration had been organized to protest against the negligence of the Canadian company responsible (Kumtor Operating Company) and the police had had to intervene, detaining a number of persons for drunkenness and assault and battery. The preliminary investigation ordered by the Prosecutor revealed that the demonstrators had blocked the road and prevented the Canadian company from doing its work, but no demonstrator had been manhandled.

Ms. BAEKOVA (Kyrgyzstan), reverting to the question of the dissemination of information on the Internet, acknowledged that the Government had perhaps not acted swiftly enough to publicize it initial report, and assured the Committee that its observations in that regard would be taken into account.

Further to the replies already given concerning the place of minorities in Parliament and the use of their languages, she added that it was not forbidden to use national languages in addressing State bodies but that the reply was always in Russian, and that the only languages allowed in the Constitutional Court and the ordinary courts were Russian or Kyrgyz, although translators and interpreters were always available for those who had no command of those languages. Moreover, while there was no law dealing specifically with the protection of national minorities, the Committee had seen in paragraph 521 of the report that a bill had been drawn up to make good that shortcoming. However, the bill had been withdrawn by the parliamentary representatives of national minorities themselves, as they regarded the proposed protection as humiliating.

Surprise had been expressed that the new Criminal Code had retained one of the provisions of the previous Code, namely, deprivation of liberty for libel. It was a measure that persons who had not lived under the Soviet regime would perhaps find difficult to approve, but it should be recalled that the 1930s had been years of extremely harsh repression and that, at the time, many people had been victims of anonymous defamation and denunciations which had sometimes ruined or cost them their lives. The consequences of those practices were still being

felt at the present time and an effort was therefore being made to rehabilitate the victims and punish the perpetrators. Even so, in a democracy worthy of the name, the observations of experts were fully warranted and the measure in question would be done away with.

The restrictions on participation by members of Parliament in public meetings had attracted considerable comment. The Committee had taken a particular interest in the case of the parliamentarian who had breached the law by organizing, after the end of the parliamentary session, meetings that had not been authorized by the local authorities, and it had been shocked by the fact that a decree going back to the Soviet era had been invoked against him. It had to be borne in mind, however, that the Constitution dated only from May 1993 and that until new provisions were adopted, the laws and decrees that had been inherited from the Soviet era and that were not incompatible with the Constitution remained in force and therefore had to be applied.

She had no statistics available on the number of criminal proceedings instituted for discrimination. The laws in that regard were new and it was true that the population and even the legal profession were still not adequately informed. Her delegation would certainly provide answers to the Committee’s questions on that matter as soon as possible. It had been asked what remedies were available to victims with disabilities, and she had to admit that the only relevant provisions were those of article 15 of the Constitution. Disabled servicemen comprised a separate category however, and special provisions were applicable to them.

In reply to questions concerning the exercise of the right of assembly, she assured the Committee that if a request to hold a meeting was rejected, the matter could be appealed before a court. The fact was that the population had not yet become accustomed to resorting to the courts as it would take them some time to realize that they were no longer simply extensions of the bodies whose decisions they contested, but independent, of different composition and answerable only before the law.

She concluded by assuring the Committee that the Kyrgyz authorities would pay the greatest attention to its observations and would make every effort, with its cooperation, to advance democracy in the country.

The CHAIRPERSON, in accordance with established practice, recapitulated the points raised by the members of the Committee. The first seemed to be the place of the Covenant in the country’s legal order. According to article 12 of the Constitution, the Covenant was indeed directly applicable, but it would be necessary to revert the question of whether it constituted the law or whether it was inferior to or on an equal footing with the law. It was in fact for the

Constitutional Court to decide the matter by giving its interpretation, but as it had so far not had to examine any complaints for violation of a right protected under the Covenant, it had not had to make a ruling; that point therefore had yet to be clarified.

The Committee had also drawn attention to the importance of disseminating information on human rights to the public, and even to judges and lawyers, and of specifying to which rights derogations could be made during states of emergency. In that regard, if the Covenant had the force of constitutional law, the provisions of its article 4 were applicable.

After congratulating the Kyrgyz delegation for being so frank concerning the situation of women, she said she was personally convinced that, as had been stated the previous day, the country as a whole stood to gain if women were allowed to realize their rights and make use of their intellectual resources. New attitudes should be fostered by means of a campaign.

The question of the death sentence and the possible extension of the moratorium on executions had captured the Committee’s attention. The end of the moratorium would raise the problem of possible discrimination between men and women, since Kyrgyzstan had already abolished the death sentence for women. The only solution was the elimination of that penalty for all.

Nor was the situation very clear with respect to the application of article 9 of the Covenant on the deprivation of liberty. The matter was of crucial importance, since the freedom of the individual was a condition for the realization of a good many other rights. In that connection, it was still necessary to spell out the difference between various types of detention, such as police custody, detention for investigation or pre-trial detention, namely, whether persons detained on police premises facilities were systematically examined by a doctor and whether a detainee’s counsel was indeed contacted no later than 24 hours following his arrest. As for the person who ordered detention, the Committee was concerned by the fact that paragraph 47 of the initial report stated that the Office of the Procurator was a State body within the executive branch. In view of paragraph 9 of the Covenant, therefore, he could not discharge judicial functions. Lastly, it would be useful to clarify the matter of solitary confinement. On balance, it was not at all certain that all the provisions of article 9 of the Covenant were being applied.

Another major question still awaiting a clear answer pertained to the application of article 14. If judges were in fact subject to evaluation every seven years and, what was more, by a commission that might base its judgement on factors other than the proper performance of their functions, the independence of the justice system was seriously compromised. In any event, judges could be evaluated only by their peers. Further information should be provided about the composition and powers of military courts. Similarly, it should be explained why a person professing no religion could not be a conscientious objector.

Underscoring the importance of freedom of expression for the advancement of democracy, she said she shared Committee’s concern about practices such as the closure of a newspaper by the tax authorities, the obstacles encountered by journalists in their work, as described in paragraph 420 of the report, and the lack of confidence in civil society that was apparent from paragraph 422.

She would not revert to the various problems raised by the application of articles 20 to 24, and above all article 25, since the statements made on the subject were still fresh in everyone’s mind. In conclusion, she expressed the hope that the next report would contain more detailed information on the practical application of the Covenant, as laws alone could not guarantee human rights effectively.

Mr. ABYSHKAEV (Kyrgyzstan) said that the two days of intense discussions had been extremely valuable and assured the Committee that his Government would endeavour to fill the gaps to which it had drawn attention.

The CHAIRPERSON said that the Committee had completed its examination of the initial report of Kyrgyzstan (CCPR/C/113/Add.1) and would return to it in order to adopt its concluding observations.

The delegation of Kyrgyzstan withdrew.

The meeting rose at 12.55 p.m.