President Japarov’s decision to pursue a referendum reflects the growing public outcry over a perceived increase in violent crimes, particularly sexual assaults and murders targeting women and minors. Speaking candidly, Japarov emphasized that the issue is not unique to Kyrgyzstan but is part of a broader global trend. “The reasons are clear to everyone. We are seeing more cases of sexual assault against minors, not only in Kyrgyzstan but across the world,” he told Kabar. The president framed the reinstatement of the death penalty as a necessary measure to protect the most vulnerable members of society, asserting that the move is driven by a commitment to public safety rather than political opportunism. “We will not make such a decision unilaterally. We will certainly consult with the people,” Japarov declared, underscoring the democratic process that will guide this contentious decision.
The proposal to restore capital punishment marks a significant departure from Kyrgyzstan’s current legal framework, which abolished the death penalty in 2007 as part of its alignment with international human rights standards. To reinstate it, the government would need to navigate a complex legal and political process, including withdrawing from international agreements that prohibit the use of the death penalty. Japarov outlined the procedural steps, noting that a draft law titled “On Amendments to Article 25 of the Constitution” will be introduced to facilitate the change. This bill will first undergo public consultation to gather input from citizens, followed by a review by the Constitutional Court to ensure compliance with legal standards. Only then will the issue be put to a nationwide referendum, where Kyrgyz citizens will have the final say. “This bill could be adopted by referendum. The issue will be decided only by a popular vote,” Japarov emphasized, reinforcing his commitment to a transparent and participatory process.
If the referendum passes, the responsibility will fall to the next parliament to enact legislation that would formalize the reinstatement of the death penalty. This would involve not only amending national laws but also withdrawing from international treaties, such as those under the United Nations framework, that Kyrgyzstan has previously committed to. Such a move could have far-reaching implications for the country’s international standing, particularly with organizations and nations that advocate for the global abolition of capital punishment. Japarov acknowledged the complexity of the process but framed it as a necessary step to address the growing public demand for stronger measures to combat violent crime.
The catalyst for this renewed debate over the death penalty was the tragic and brutal murder of 17-year-old Aisuluu Mukasheva in late September. The case, which shocked the nation and dominated headlines, has become a rallying point for those advocating for tougher penalties. Mukasheva’s killing, described as particularly heinous, sparked widespread outrage and prompted protests calling for justice and systemic change. In response, President Japarov announced that he had taken personal control of the investigation, signaling the government’s determination to address the case with utmost seriousness. “The brutal killing of Aisuluu Mukasheva has shaken our society to its core,” Japarov said, adding that the tragedy underscored the urgent need for stronger action to protect women and children. He pledged to implement measures that would enhance safety and prevent similar atrocities in the future.
The public’s reaction to Mukasheva’s murder reflects broader frustrations with what many perceive as a lenient justice system. In recent years, Kyrgyzstan has faced growing concerns over gender-based violence and crimes against minors, with high-profile cases fueling demands for stricter punishments. Advocates for the death penalty argue that it would serve as a deterrent to would-be offenders, sending a clear message that such crimes will not be tolerated. However, opponents warn that reinstating capital punishment could lead to irreversible miscarriages of justice, particularly in a country where the judicial system has faced criticism for corruption and inefficiencies. Human rights organizations, both domestic and international, are likely to oppose the move, citing the risk of executing innocent individuals and the moral implications of state-sanctioned killings.
The debate over the death penalty in Kyrgyzstan is not new. The country has a complex history with capital punishment, having used it during the Soviet era before abolishing it in 2007 as part of broader reforms to align with international human rights standards. Since then, life imprisonment has been the maximum penalty for serious crimes. However, public sentiment has periodically swung in favor of harsher punishments, particularly in response to high-profile cases of violence. The Mukasheva case has reignited these discussions, with many citizens expressing frustration that existing laws are insufficient to address the severity of such crimes. Social media platforms and public forums have been abuzz with calls for justice, with some users explicitly advocating for the return of the death penalty.
Japarov’s decision to pursue a referendum rather than a unilateral decision reflects the delicate balance he must strike between responding to public anger and adhering to democratic principles. By framing the issue as one that will be decided by the people, the president aims to legitimize the process and deflect accusations of authoritarianism. Critics, however, argue that referendums on issues as complex and emotionally charged as the death penalty can be swayed by public sentiment rather than reasoned debate, potentially leading to outcomes that prioritize vengeance over justice. The public consultation phase, which will precede the referendum, will be a critical opportunity for stakeholders to present their arguments and for citizens to weigh the implications of such a significant policy shift.
The international community is likely to closely monitor Kyrgyzstan’s next steps. Reinstating the death penalty could strain relations with countries and organizations that view capital punishment as a violation of human rights. Kyrgyzstan’s commitments to international treaties, such as the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which aims to abolish the death penalty, would need to be addressed. Withdrawing from such agreements could provoke criticism from global human rights bodies and potentially impact foreign aid and diplomatic relations. Domestically, the referendum will test the unity of Kyrgyz society, as citizens grapple with competing values of justice, retribution, and human rights.
As Kyrgyzstan prepares for the referendum, the government faces the challenge of ensuring a fair and transparent process. The public consultation phase will need to provide ample opportunity for diverse voices to be heard, including those of victims’ families, human rights advocates, legal experts, and ordinary citizens. The Constitutional Court’s review will also be crucial in determining whether the proposed amendment aligns with Kyrgyzstan’s legal framework. For President Japarov, the referendum represents a high-stakes gamble, as the outcome will shape not only the country’s justice system but also his political legacy.
In the coming months, the debate over the death penalty is likely to dominate public discourse in Kyrgyzstan. The tragic death of Aisuluu Mukasheva has brought the issue into sharp focus, forcing the nation to confront difficult questions about how to balance justice, deterrence, and human rights. Whether the referendum leads to the reinstatement of capital punishment or reaffirms the country’s commitment to abolition, the outcome will have profound implications for Kyrgyzstan’s future. For now, President Japarov’s pledge to let the people decide signals a commitment to democratic principles, even as it opens the door to one of the most divisive issues in the nation’s recent history.
