INFORMATION LETTER OF DEFENSE LAWYER

http://www.humanrights.kz/event_38-1.php

On the criminal case instituted against Elizaveta Eugenievna Drenicheva, charged
with repeatedly popularizing idea of people’s deficiency in regard to their social
belonging and generic assignment under Article no. 164, p. 2 of the Criminal Code
of Kazakhstan

By following the order of the first deputy head of the Department of National
Security of Kazakhstan for Almaty – A. A. Ashimov – dated March 25 2008 and
approved by the Almaty City’s Prosecutor – D. I. Baytukbayev, on April 1st, 4th,
8th and 14th E. V. Ryzhkov, a national security police officer, secretly filmed
5-hour seminar conducted by the member of the Religious Alliance “Unification
Church”, E. E. Drenicheva, for 4 invited visitors.

The shorthand report prepared by national security police officer R. B.
Mukhamedzhnov on the film was assumed for psychological and philological
expertise. The expertise was made by A. E. Svankulov, a philologist, and D. R.
Musina, an expert in religion, from the Center for Forensic Expertise, as well as
E. E. Burova, an employee of the Institute for Philosophy and Law under Education
and Science Ministry of Kazakhstan, invited to make one time expertise. There were
two expert evaluations performed within the case, which are the primary expertise
under no. 6141, dated 17.06.2008, and additional expertise under no. 6978, dated
30.07.2008 (with participation of Zh. A. Baysalbayev – expert in politics,
political science docent of the Contemporary Kazakh-Russian Humanitarian
University, and A. A. Ustimneko – expert in politics and Editor-in-Chief of
“KazEnergy” Magazine).

According to the conclusion of the expert in philology, the evidences assumed for
expertise don’t contain calls for breaking constitutional order and Unification of
the Republic of Kazakhstan, as well as idea of necessity to perform some violent
activities.

According to the conclusion of the expert in religion, the evidences assumed for
expertise contain ideas common for a neo Christian alliance which belongs to new
non-traditional cults of “Unification Church”.

E. E. Burova, PhD and professor concluded that the records contain as follows: a)
propaganda of the idea of the people’s deficiency in regard to their generic
assignment, b) propaganda of the idea of the people’s deficiency in regard to
their social belonging. The performed report on the film doesn’t contain
propaganda of the idea of people’s uniqueness, superiority or deficiency in regard
to their belonging to different religions, nationalities or races. The report
includes signs of negative impact on a personality, family, society, as well as
moral and ethic foundations of the state.

As E. E. Burova thinks, the propaganda of the idea of people’s deficiency in
regard to their generic assignment was represented by E. E. Drenicheva through
promoting idea of “perfect” human being who establishes relations with God and
other people, by understanding his responsibility to create conditions for the
Messiah’s arrival; who achieves perfection by serving to God; who belongs to
Church.

From the opinion of E. E. Burova, propaganda of the idea of people’s deficiency in
regard to their belonging to family as a social group was represented by E. E.
Drenicheva through creating negative image of secular family that is opposed to
“perfect” and “ideal” family based on the principle of loving God, which appears
to be main one when creating relationships between husband, wife and kids.
Therefore, the actual personal relations within family are meant to be replaced
with the relations with God. As a fact, the latter relations are non real; they
mutilate perception of the reality, as well as the way of thinking in general.
Thus, such kind of relations contradicts the system of secular values, existing
within the society, formed by means of the official education system, traditions
of the family education, socializing processes in the secular society and law-base
state, as well as general conditions of social and individual life in the Republic
of Kazakhstan.

The additional philological and politological expertise showed the same results as
the primary expertise did.

E. E. Burova, examined upon the case, testified that she became Candidate of
Philosophy Science (“Ontology, dialectics and theory of knowledge” as a major
course, on the thesis titled “Unification of the Marxism concept of determinism”).
She worked in IPK of KazNU, the Institution of Drama, and High Party School. In
2001 she received her PhD degree in “Ontology, dialectics and theory of knowledge”
on “Commensuration of social and humanitarian disciplinarity”. She also worked in
RKP NGOOC “Bobek”, in the Institution for Harmonic Development of Humanity and
Institution of Philosophy and Political sciences under Education and Science
Ministry of Kazakhstan (since 2006).

Explaining the meaning of her conclusions to the investigator within the inquiry,
she testified that the idea of deficiency on principle of generic assignment is
represented through permanent and open division of people on so called “perfect”
and “non-perfect” to show the inability of the latter and advantages of the
former. Deficiency related to belonging to classes is represented by the
followers of the movement through artificial creation of non-real division of
people (perfect or non-perfect, saved or lost) and social groups, including family
institution (“true”, “ideal” families and “non-ideal” families).

According to Zh. A. Baysalova, “in order to promote the idea of people’s
deficiency on principle of belonging to human race, E. E. Drenicheva in her
lectures insisted on the idea that a human being is non-perfect due to his
belonging to human race, which causes his deficiency as “non-perfect” one. She
also tried to compare such person with “perfect” (chosen) being who must devote
his life to God. On recognizing his non-perfection, a man should understand and
devote his life to arrival of the Messiah. Such statement is very dangerous for a
personality, as it can cause a person to degrade, to loose his/her social and
moral values (it’s very important to mention here that the visitors of the
lectures are mainly young people). By saying that “not all of the people can
achieve the perfection, the lecturer divides people in two groups: those who
devoted to God and those who stay remote (non-perfect people).

Concerning the propaganda of the idea that people are deficient in their belonging
to social groups, it can be said that the lecturer paid close attention at
comparing such meanings as “perfect” and “non-perfect” person, “saved” and “lost”,
“true” and “non-true” families. Within the conditions of the modern Kazakhstan’s
society where a family is expected to be secular, the movement compares it to
“ideal” family which is based on love towards God. They break the fundamental
perception of institution of family and marriage, based on human nature (love,
understanding, tolerance and etc.) The lectures of E. E. Drenicheva are aimed
against civil, legal, family relations existing in Kazakhstan, calling in question
the process of person’s socializing in our society. Moreover, the lecturer applied
the movement’s ideology to promote the ideas among young people who are not aware
enough of social issues yet, which represents threat in the field of information
and ideology safety of our society, Zh. A. Baysalbayeva concluded.

D. E. Uzakov and M. K. Khudaykulov, witnesses examined within the investigation
procedures, testified that statements of E. E. Drenicheva “humiliated person’s
dignity, as all of the seminar’s participants were persuaded that a person
initially is meant to be non-perfect, sinful. In order to become pure and better,
a person should create true family; strive for becoming true person, with help of
the movement headed by reverend San Men Mun. Besides, she said than San Men Mun
and his wife are true parents who managed to create family that is perfect
example, by which they decreased the dignity of other parents who don’t take San
Men Mun as an example and who are not members of the movement”.

On the basis of the above materials, on June 28th 2008 D. Bazarbauev, an
investigator of the ID of NSCD, instituted criminal case against E. E. Drenicheva
under Article no. 164 p. 2 of the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan (Repeatedly
popularizing idea of people’s deficiency in regard to their social belonging and
generic assignment). From July 2 to 4 she was kept in the investigational jail of
the NSC. On July 4th he was refused of arrest warrant by the Deputy Prosecutor of
Almaty, took back E. E. Drenicheva’s written pledge not to leave the city, accused
her of the above mentioned article, completed the case on September 12th and
directed her case though the prosecutor of the Almaty City to the Almalinskiy
District’s Court of Almaty.

Z. B. Keykibasova, the judge of this court, appointed the hearings on October
24th, 10:30 a. m., Sharipova St. 62.

The investigator refused the defender of his appeal to appoint the additional
expertise and gave back the conclusion of S. Y. Kolchigin (PhD, professor, head of
the Department of Onthology and Theory of Knowledge of the Philosophy and
Politology Institute of Education and Science Ministry, winner of Ch. Valikhanov
Award).

The specialist concluded that “family” means community based on the same origin.
The same meaning is used in the jurisdiction (please, refer to Article no. 164 of
the Criminal Code of Kazakhstan). Therefore, the word “family” is used not only to
name community of close relatives and etc, but also to indicate that the humanity
is the one family.

In its activities the Unification Church promotes the idea of uniting people as
representatives of human kind on the basis of the only spiritual values. So,
nothing can be said that the movement promotes the idea of “perfection or
non-perfection in regard to belonging to social group”. According to the movement,
all people are considered as children of one Father (the same is in Christianity).
In other words, they have common origin.

The meaning of social belonging has clear idea. Social group is a community based
on the common social origin. Social group is a group of people with certain rights
and responsibilities, fixed by traditions or laws and passed from one generation
to another. The idea of social groups proposed definitive hierarchy within the
society, related to gaps in privileges and statuses. At the same time, under the
idea of “ideal family” the followers of the Unification Church mean the whole
humanity having internal Unification and close spiritual relations between each
other, but not some exclusive group of people. Also the conclusions of Mr.
Kolchigin contain other facts.

The p. 2 of the Article no. 164 of the Criminal Code assumes from 2 to 6 years’
imprisonment, which appears to be very strict punishment for E. E. Drenicheva who
sees her duty in supporting the moral values of the society.

B. O. Idrisov,
Defense lawyer,
October 19, 2008