Letter to the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Kazakhstan,
Religious Affairs Department,
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
USA Embassy in RK,
United Kingdoms Embassy in RK,
Netherlands Embassy in RK
Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Law Observance,
Almaty Helsinki Committee
Dear Mr. Mukhashov:
I am in due receipt of your invitation to the meeting of the Commission for considering the land issue of the Religious Organization Society for Krishna Consciousness in the Karasai district, Almaty province, scheduled for December 22, 2006 (invitation letter No. 6-1-2/i-903 dated December 15, 2006).
However, on December 16, 2006, I received the decision of the Commission with your signature, which has been distributed by the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (see the attached copy).
I wish to call your attention to the fact that although I am a member of the named Commission, I have not been invited to take part in rendering this decision and never received an official decision of the Commission. As far as I understand, the independent observers who officially participated in the meetings of the Commission, namely representatives of OSCE, Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Law Observance, Almaty Helsinki Committee, have also not received an official copy.
Neither I, nor any other members of the Society for Krishna Consciousness, nor the observers, took part in meetings of the Commission to discuss the results of its investigation, to hear reports of its members, or to draw conclusions and pronounce a decision.
As you know, no decision was announced during the previous meetings of the Commission attended by the members of the Commission and the observers and held on September 7 and 28, 2006, October 1 and 2, 2006. Nonetheless, the attached document seems to indicate that a decision was made without my participation as a member of the Commission.
I would thus ask you to clarify the following questions before the meeting of December 22, 2006:
1.What is this decision?
2.Who made it and when?
3.Why were BB Govinda Swami (a member of the Commission) and the observers not invited to discuss and pronounce the decision?
4.Who discussed the results of the Commission’s investigation and when?
5.What are the documents studied by the Commission? Who studied them and when? What was the result of this study?
6.What are the conclusions of the Commission with respect to the ambulatory meeting and the activities of the Commission in general?
7.Considering the fact that the decision appears to already be made, what is the agenda of the meeting scheduled for December 22, 2006?
The fact that a decision was made in my absence and that governmental bodies of the Republic of Kazakhstan distributed the decision of the Commission without having a meeting, raises questions as to the objectivity and fairness of the Commission. As a supposed member of the Commission, I am doubtful about the practical use of holding a meeting to discuss our issue, when you, the Commission’s chairman, have already prepared, signed and distributed the decision.
In light of this ambiguity, I respectfully call on you as the chairman of the Commission to clarify the situation and answer my questions, before the meeting scheduled for December 22, 2006.
BB Govinda Swami