Recent developments in the case of Botagoz Jardemalie, a Kazakh refugee and lawyer residing in Belgium, have reignited concerns over Belgium’s judicial cooperation with authoritarian regimes. Despite her recognised refugee status and evidence of persecution, Belgian authorities have persisted in assisting Kazakhstan in pursuing legal proceedings that fail to ensure fundamental human rights.
While cooperation between police forces, prosecutors, and judges through ‘mutual legal assistance’ (MLA) is crucial for tackling cross-border crime, Fair Trials has repeatedly denounced the abuse of international mutual assistance mechanisms that are politically motivated. States must not instrumentalise criminal justice mechanisms for the purposes of oppressing people or suppressing political dissent in violation of human rights. Nor can they contribute to human rights violations by providing assistance to states that seek to use international cooperation for such purposes. Fair Trials is concerned at any attempt to misuse international mutual assistance mechanisms in violation of fundamental rights or to cooperate in the misuse of such mechanisms.
Given the human rights implications of cross-border cooperation, states must apply all necessary human rights safeguards when assessing and executing mutual legal assistance requests and refuse requests made by States to pursue political opponents and refugees.
Resolution 2509 (2023) of the Parliament of the Council of Europe on transnational repression calls on member states to ‘effectively investigate all allegations of acts of transnational repression’ (point 15.1), to ‘ensure that victims of transnational repression receive adequate reparation’ (point 15. 3), to ‘carry out additional checks on extradition requests, INTERPOL Red Notices and other forms of mutual legal assistance between States’ (point 17.4), to ‘take into account the history of transnational repression in States of origin’ (point 17.7), and to ‘ensure that human rights defenders and activists working with international organisations, including the Council of Europe, are better protected against the risk of transnational repression’ (point 17.11).
In 2019, we had already questioned the Belgian authorities’ decision to assist Kazakh authorities in their investigation into lawyer Botagoz Jardemalie, by raiding her home and seizing documents. In January 2022, Belgium’s Constitutional Court granted Ms. Jardemalie the right to challenge the legality of mutual legal assistance provided to Kazakhstan and to access the case file. However, subsequent actions by Belgian authorities, undermine the findings of the Constitutional Court.
Beyond ongoing surveillance and harassment that Ms. Jardemalie has endured under Belgian protection, a further troubling development occurred in 2023. Kazakhstan was granted access to and copy of the Belgian file, despite assurances that cooperation would be suspended pending the resolution of appeals. Moreover, Kazakh officials were involved in the proceedings, further exposing procedural flaws.
Documents recently accessed by Ms. Jardemalie’s defence reveal that the MLA request from Kazakhstan directly pertains to politically motivated charges that formed the basis for the granting of her refugee status in Belgium and the withdrawal of an Interpol red notice. We have also been informed that the Kazakh proceedings in which Belgium’s cooperation is requested are precisely those in which Ms. Jardemalie’s brother, Iskander Yerimbetov, was subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, and an unjust conviction in Kazakhstan, leading the UN Special Rapporteur on torture to directly address Kazakhstan.
Despite these clear links to persecution, the Belgian Public Prosecutor’s Office continues to support cooperation, proposing a review of the seized materials for potential transmission to Kazakhstan. These contravene Belgium’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, particularly the right to an effective remedy. By prioritizing cooperation with Kazakhstan—an authoritarian regime with a documented history of transnational repression —Belgium also risks complicity in judicial harassment and the recycling of torture-tainted evidence.
On February 4, the hearing before “la chambre des mises en accusation de Bruxelles” represents a crucial opportunity for Belgium to reaffirm its commitment to the rule of law and human rights by refusing to enable further persecution of a political refugee.
Collaborating in investigations involving torture or politically motivated charges not only endangers individuals like Ms. Jardemalie but also undermines the credibility of Belgium’s justice system. Fair Trials alongside other legal organisations urges Belgium to cease any cooperation with Kazakh authorities in this matter, refuse the transfer of seized materials, and take decisive action to protect those who seek refuge from oppressive regimes.
The right to an effective remedy requires at least concrete examination of allegations of transnational repression before approving international cooperation with authoritarian states. Pursuing investigations against victims of such repression constitutes judicial harassment and benefits the persecuting regime.
Failing to act risks setting a dangerous precedent, enabling authoritarian states to weaponize international legal mechanisms against dissidents and refugees. Fair Trials urges Belgium to ensure its justice system does not become a tool for oppression, reaffirming its commitment to human rights and the rule of law.
