Expert Opinions on the Trial of Nargyz Atajurt Volunteers

Dr. Rune Steenberg offers his expert analysis on the Trial of Nargyz Atajurt Volunteers

By Dr. Rune Steenberg, Palacky University Olomouc, Doctor rer. nat. from Freie Universität Berlin (2014), leader and PI of Horizon Europe Project coordination and support action 101079460 — REMOTE XUAR — HORIZON-WIDERA-2021-ACCESS-03, geographer and anthropologist, expert on Xinjiang and Central Asia.

To whom it may concern,

My credentials: As an expert on Xinjiang and Central Asia with particular expertise on minority issues, human rights and refugees and migrants from Xinjiang in Central Asia, I have been asked to comment on the existing law suit filed against the head of Nargyz Atajurt Volunteers, Bekzat Maksutkhan and 18 other codefendants. 

I know the organisation Nargyz Atajurt Volunteers as well as the earlier and other related organisations also known as Atajurt. I know of their work and discourse which I have followed since 2018 and I know of the context which brought the organisation about and has been the focus of the work of this organisation. This is namely the human rights situation, arbitrary detentions, land grab and the detention centres and so called re-education camps of Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in the People’s Republic of China, particularly since 2018. These are topics I have worked and published on myself at Columbia University, University of Copenhagen and Palacky University Olomouc. 

Process: I will now proceed to describe the crimes that the defendants are accused of as well as the actions that the defendants are alleged to have done in order for the persecution to conclude that these crimes have been committed. I then discuss the connection between the alleged actions and the alleged crimes by putting the action into context and asking whether they can indeed meaningfully be considered constitutive of the crimes they are accused of.

Conclusion: I come to the conclusion that the crimes they are accused of do not match the actions they have alleged carried out and that in my opinion the case should therefore be dismissed.  

Analysis: 

The 19 defendants are accused of the following crimes:

1) deliberately committing a grave criminal offense under Article 174, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (incitement of national discord), by conspiring with a group of people and using mass media to incite national discord against the Chinese people,  

2) to insult the national dignity and honor of Chinese citizens,

3) and thus to deliberately committing a serious criminal offense against peace and human security.

The wording is important. The accusation is to have incited «national (or ethnic) discord against the Chinese people». It is about the Chinese people as a people and about ethnic discord or ethnic hatred against them. Secondly they are accused of insulting the «national dignity and honor of Chinese citizens». Here too it is about the Chinese nation or ethnicity and the honor and dignity of the people, not about the government or officials, not is it about the criticism of the governments policies or the states actions.

The lawsuit is built its accusations of criminal action on a report that it also quotes: the  «psychological and philological examination dated November 27, 2025, No. 1801/E/25/16/6535». According to the lawsuit this examination of video evidence posted on Facebook found that «signs of incitement to interethnic discord or national enmity were observed». It also found «visual elements that insult the national dignity and honor of representatives of the Chinese ethnic group». Lastly it notes that «disrespect toward the state symbols was displayed».

The lawsuit does not regard the disrespect towards state symbols criminal, but focusses on the «national (or ethinic) discord against the Chinese people» and the insult to the «national dignity and honor of Chinese citizens».

To be accused of inciting hatred against or insulting the dignity of a people, one must utter explicit hateful or demeaning expressions aimed at this people as a people, not against any one politician from that contry nor against the country“s government or its policies. The criticism of a government, a policy or a politician does not constitute an attack against the people, nation or ethinicity which this government governs or that this individual is a member of.

Therefore, in order to lawfully confirm the accusations, the evidence must unambigiously show an expression of hatred or disgust against the Chinese people as a people in general, not against the government, its policies or any one politician.

Furthermore, in the case of China, we are dealing with a multi-ethnic state. China holds 56 ethnic groups of which the Han, the Kazakhs and the Uyghurs are three. Accusations of incitement of ethnic hatred must therefore be built on a clear expression of hatred or disgust against a particular ethinic group, not China as a country, which as stated is home to at least 56 ethnic populations. 

According to the lawsuit, it was insulting and inciting discord against «the Chinese people» and «Chinese citizens». The examination it was citing and building on for its accusations and which was being made to serve as a link between the actions described and shown in the videos and the criminal accusations made in the lawsuit clearly designates the hurt party as «the Chinese ethnic group». 

This makes sense for the law that is being used: Article 174, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (incitement of national discord). This law may indeed only be invoked if grounded suspicion of such incitement against a national or ethnic group as such can be sustained. Making this connection is the task of the «psychological and philological examination dated November 27, 2025, No. 1801/E/25/16/6535».

To reach at the conclusion that the defendants have committed thse crimes, the lawsuit describes them as having carryied out the following actions:

1) Having gathered on 13.11.2025 at the “Arasan” recreation site located in Uyghur District, Almaty Region, and at 12:30, in the territory of Qalzhat village, Qalzhat Rural District, Uyghur District, Almaty Region.

2) Having planned these gatherings on beforehand.

3) Having burnt two Chinese flags and a picture of the Chinese president Xi Jinping.

4) Having stepped on the burning flags and pictures.

5) Having uttered the following sentences:

1. «Alimnur has been held captive by the Chinese for four months, and since then, these Chinese have not given us any concrete response. Therefore, I will not stop my opposition to the Chinese until Alimnur is released. Our opposition is opposition because Alimnur is a citizen of Kazakhstan.» 

2. «Assalamu alaikum, people of Kazakhstan. As you have just heard, our brother, Kazakh citizen Alimnur Turganbay, has been unjustly detained and held in prison by the Chinese for many days. It has been fully established that Alimnur Turganbay is a citizen of Kazakhstan, as well as his spouse and children. Nevertheless, China does not recognize our independence, does not acknowledge the documents issued by the Republic of Kazakhstan, and continues to detain Alimnur Turganbay without any criminal justification.»

3. «Furthermore, the Chinese authorities have imprisoned many of our relatives in camps without cause; many have died, and many others continue to suffer in prison. Those who have been released from the camps have lost their health and are still enduring hardships. In addition, the Chinese are purchasing our lands and large facilities, posing economic threats to us, and also threatening us in terms of democracy. The growing presence of Chinese influence in our country risks turning us into a minority in our own state. Therefore, we oppose the visa-free regime with China, reject all unequal agreements with China, demand the regulation of relations with China, and express our opposition to China.»

4. «We oppose! We oppose! We oppose!» 

5. «We will now express our opposition by burning the Chinese flag. Here it is,…»

6. «China must release Alimnur Turganbayuly! An innocent citizen!»

7. «Release Alimnur Turganbay, a citizen of Kazakhstan, who was unjustly detained after leaving China. Stop the pressure and injustice being inflicted on the Kazakh and Uyghur peoples. Down with the Communist Party! Down with Xi Jinping!»

8. «Down with China! They have flooded Kazakhstan with Chinese—down with China!»

6) Having filmed these actions, upladed them and shared them on social media.

All defendants have been identified on the videos seemingly using face recognition technology. 

Almost all of the expressions at this gathering referenced in the lawsuit are about the imprisonment of Kazakh citizen Alimnur Turganbay earlier this year. This seems to be indeed what the gatherings were about. The dissent expressed is against the Chinese government for imprisoning this individual. This is very much in line with Atajurt’s previous actions which have been focussed on securing the release of other Kazakhs in Xinjiang who were, according to Atajurt and many international observers arbitrarily detained by the Chinese state. 

The camp detainees are also mentioned by the defendants during their gathering further strengthening the impression that we are here seeing a protest action aimed at the Chinese state’s imprisonment of Kazakhs, including Kazakhstani citizens rather than an expression of hatred against any particular ethnic group. Indeed, in none of the statements above quoted in the lawsuit the Chinese as an ethnic group are mentioned except as buyers of land in Kazakhstan and as migrants and business people entering the land. Particular in the latter of these statements, the use of words, saying that Kazakhstan is being «flooded with Chinese» is not very elegant, but it merely consitutes a sentiment and an experience by an individual and can not legitimately be read as an attack on an ethnic group nor as an incitement to hartred or action against them.

None of the statement made in any way seem to constitute the incitement of discord against any national or ethnic group nor the insult the national dignity and honor of country“s citizens. Also, none of these statements can be said to be «committing a serious criminal offense against peace and human security». To the contrary, they seem to be concerned with preventing arbitrary detentions and securing the release of to their best knowledge wrongfully imprisoned people. This must be said to be the opposite of inciting discord or insulting anyones dignity, it is calling for the respect of national and international laws. 

The calls for a cancellation of what the defendants see as «unequal agreements» with China including the visa-free travel agreement are likewise in no way aimed at any ethnic or national group but at a certain policy of the involved states and governments. While one may disagree with their stance on these issues, the expression of them does not constitute a violation of Article 174, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The burning of and stomping on the Chinese flags and the picture of Chinese president Xi Jinping, too, may be considered tasteless expressions of discontent and lack of respect against an individual and against the state of China, but again is not aimed at the Chinese people as such nor any other national or ethnic community. 

Xi is a Chinese politician and an individual considered responsible for the mass detention of Kazakhs and Uyghrus in Xinjiang. The defendants understandable discontent with him and his policies should not be mistaken for hostility towards the Chinese people as a people. The same goes for the Chinese flag, which to these people represents the Chinese state adn the Chinese Communist Party, which they have all experianced as a violent force in Xinjiang, detaining their relatives, freidns and in several cases also them personally at earlier times.

Neither of these actions can therefore be said to be a violation of peace and human security. They to my best understanding and knowledge do not incite national discord against the Chinese people orinsult the national dignity and honor of Chinese citizens. 

The connection between the described actions carried out by the defendants and the crimes they are accused of does not seem to be legally defendable. Contrary to the findings of the «psychological and philological examination dated November 27, 2025, No. 1801/E/25/16/6535» cvited in the lawsuit, I do not see the actions of the defendants violating Article 174, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The examination seems to be confusing a Chinese politician with a known history of violent policies against Kazakh people in Xinjaing and particularly the relatives of the defendant for «the Chinese people» or «the Chinese ethinic group» generally. They seem to make a similar conflation of representation with the Chinese flag, interpreting it as standing for the Chiense ethnic group when it in fact represents the Chinese state consisting of 56 different ethnic groups and particularly for the defendants stand for the Communist Party and its colonial policies in Xinjiang. 

Lastly the examination and the lawsuit seem to have decontextualised the event from its background. The fact that the protest was aimed at the arbitrary detention of a community member and that many of the defendents have lost relatives and friends to the detention schemes of the Chinese state in Xinjiang or are themselves suffering from the consequences of such detentions, does not seem to be considered in the interpretations of the events. As this background is generally known, this lack of consideration looks suspiciously disingenuous. 

This leads me to my last point. The only reference to past activities of Atajurt are the reference to them by «the Peoples Republic of China» in a letter addressed to « the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan» on the 14 November 2025 – one day after the events described. In this letter the Chinese state representatives (unnamed in the lawsuit) claim that individuals from the organisation Atajurt have previously «carried out numerous incitement actions against China» and that these actions are «considered premeditated open acts aimed at tarnishing the dignity of the Chinese people, as well as the image of the Communist Party of China and its leader, and have negatively affected the friendship between the two states». 

The text which seems to come from the letter is reproduced in the lawsuit without quotation marks. Also no other sources regarding Atajurt’s previous actions is quoted or mentioned. This leaves the impression that the prosecutor filing the lawsuit is doing so on behalf of the Chinese Government and is not checking their assertions. This gives rise to concerns about the Kazakh legal system’s sovereignty in this case. It rises suspicion about the possibility of this being a case of the Chinese state using the Kazakh legal system for it’s political purposes, for silencing critics and for persecuting Kazakhs form Xinjiang outside China.

Recommendation: I do not see legal grounds for keeping the defendants in detention nor for finding them guilty in accordance with Article 174, Part 2 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (incitement of national discord). I recommend that all charges should be dropped and an inquiry into possible attempted misuse of the Kazakh legal system started instead.

Please feel free to reach out for any further inquiries.

Sincerely,

Dr. Rune Steenberg Reyhé

Palacky University Olomouc

rune.steenberg@upol.cz

+49-176-7444-8423