Reinstating the death penalty in the Constitution: Kyrgyzstan at a Constitutional Crossroads

In late 2025, Kyrgyzstan’s government proposed constitutional amendments to reinstate the death penalty for crimes against women and children, triggering widespread alarm in a context of shrinking civic space and mounting repression. Introduced after a high-profile case of gender-based violence, the initiative was ultimately rejected by the Constitutional Court as unconstitutional and incompatible with Kyrgyzstan’s international obligations. Murat Karypov situates the proposal within broader trends of populist governance and democratic backsliding, and examines its implications for human rights, the rule of law, and the country’s constitutional direction.

The government’s recent proposal to amend Kyrgyzstan’s Constitution to reinstate the death penalty has caused alarm across the country. In recent years, President Japarov’s government has systematically tightened the screws on dissent, including by introducing harsh media laws, ‘foreign agent’ bills, and blanket bans on protests, creating a climate of fear and repression. Against this backdrop, Japarov’s announcement this fall that he wanted to reinstate the capital punishment for “horrific crimes” against women and children stunned many. On the surface, it constituted a response to the brutal murder of a 17-year-old girl, but the proposal betrays a deeper political agenda and a disregard for human rights. In a society already reeling from high profile detentions of journalists and activists, and where the right to freedom of peaceful assembly is routinely being curtailed, the mere idea of reinstating state executions is a shocking throwback that threatens to reverse decades of democratic progress.

Context and Constitutional Court ruling

In September 2025, following the abduction, rape and murder of a 17-year-old girl which led to public outcry and demands for stronger protections against gender-based violence, President Japarov instructed the government to draft constitutional amendments to reintroduce capital punishment for crimes against women and children. By October, the draft amendments were published, proposing to rewrite Article 25 of the Constitution to permit death as an “exceptional” sanction “to ensure the protection of the life and health of children and women.”

The justices stressed that restoring executions would violate the constitutional guarantee of life and breach Kyrgyzstan’s binding international commitments.

In early December, Japarov formally asked the Constitutional Court to rule on whether this scheme is legal. The Court responded swiftly on 10 December, declaring that “bringing back the death penalty is unacceptable and legally impossible”. The justices stressed that restoring executions would violate the constitutional guarantee of life and breach Kyrgyzstan’s binding international commitments. Crucially, the court ruled that the proposed amendment could not even go to referendum or be implemented and should be shelved entirely. 

Legally, the proposal is untenable. Kyrgyzstan abolished the death penalty in 2007, and in 2010 ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which includes a commitment to permanently abolish the death penalty. Article 25 already guarantees an “inalienable right to life,” explicitly prohibiting capital punishment. In other words, the introduction of the death penalty would be incompatible with the Kyrgyzstan Constitution, which, as the Constitutional Court recently reiterated, places “the priority of the right to life” at the core of Kyrgyzstan’s legal order. What is more, as per Article 6 of the Constitution, international treaties like the ICCPR Second Optional Protocol and customary norms are automatically part of Kyrgyzstan domestic law, which means they cannot be disregarded. 

The Constitutional Court’s ruling, welcomed by the international community, vindicates the Constitution’s intent and reaffirms society’s direction toward stronger rights, not reversal.

Reactions

Reactions to these developments have been vocal. Civil society and human rights experts immediately denounced the death penalty initiative. The civil society organization Bir Duino, in partnership with other groups like Equality Now, issued a formal legal statement urging the authorities to abandon this retrograde plan.  The analysis emphasized that global experience shows that harsh punishments do not deter sexual violence. On the contrary, it argues that introducing executions would deepen systemic injustice: judges might demand extraordinary proof to avoid error, which would likely result in fewer convictions and deter victims from coming forward. 

Dozens of local NGOs and international partners echoed these points. For example, Civil Rights Defenders and other allies noted that reinstatement “risks further abuse in a legal system already plagued by corruption, impunity and weak rule of law,” while violating the Constitution and international commitments. The analysis points out that Kyrgyzstan’s 2007 death penalty abolition was a major step forward for human dignity and that any reversal would damage the country’s international standing.  The European Union and the United Nations have both reaffirmed their unequivocal opposition to the death penalty, warning it “assaults human dignity” and cannot be reintroduced. The UN Human Rights Committee and other treaty bodies have stressed that Kyrgyzstan must improve protection of women through investigation, prevention and support for victims rather than by reinstating executions.

[I]nstead of tackling gender-based violence through enhanced police training and expanded victim services, officials are proposing vengeance (...).

It is important to note that much of the political opposition in the country is either silent or suppressed.  Under Japarov, pro-government forces have expanded their power while dissenting voices in parliament remain weak. Some observers view the death penalty initiative as a populist ploy to bolster the regime ahead of the upcoming 2027 presidential elections, rather than a sincere justice reform. Many politicians and activists recognize it as a distraction: instead of tackling gender-based violence through enhanced police training and expanded victim services, officials are proposing vengeance, a move that preys on public emotion without providing meaningful solutions.

Likely consequences

The likely consequences of reinstating the death penalty would be dire. Legal scholars warn that no justice system is immune to error, and adding irreversible punishments only makes those mistakes permanent. In countries that have reintroduced the death penalty (including Pakistan, Egypt, and the Philippines), human rights organizations have documented how the death penalty was used arbitrarily, sometimes as a tool of political repression, and did not measurably improve public safety. 

In Kyrgyzstan, where impunity is already a concern, victims would suffer again: under a death penalty regime, judges would likely hesitate to convict individuals without “irrefutable” evidence, a situation especially troubling for sexual violence cases which often solely hinge on the survivor’s testimony. Paradoxically, reinstating executions could increase impunity by prompting prosecutors to drop cases lacking exhaustive proof of guilt. Diplomatically, Kyrgyzstan’s standing would suffer: the Constitutional Court decision itself warns that proceeding with the proposal would take Kyrgyzstan “away from the country’s chosen constitutional direction” and damage its international reputation. In short, reintroducing capital punishment would set a dangerous precedent, risk grave miscarriages of justice, and isolate Kyrgyzstan on the world stage.

All of this is happening amid the broader closing of civic space. Security forces and sympathizers on social media have been hailing the death penalty initiative as another tool to “re-educate” or silence critics. In this atmosphere, a return to the death penalty would only compound the dangers civil society already faces. 

In fact, over the past three years, Bishkek’s once vibrant public square has been transformed into a cage. Legislation and law enforcement have targeted NGOs, media and assemblies alike. The “foreign representatives” law, signed in April 2024 as a blunt mimic of Russia’s foreign agents’ regime, imposes heavy registration and reporting burdens on non-profit organization receiving foreign funding. The United Nations Special Rapporteurs and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe have found this law to “clearly violate” Kyrgyzstan’s international obligations and conflict with multiple constitutional provisions on freedom of association. Independent media outlets, including some of the most trusted in the country, have been branded as “extremist” or simply blocked.  Journalists have been detained on trumped up charges of extremism or “false news,” as was the case when eight “Kloop Media” reporters were arrested last spring. Peaceful protests are routinely criminalized: a blanket ban on rallies in Bishkek’s central districts, in force since early 2022, remains extended, in direct conflict with Article 39’s guarantee that everyone may assemble freely. The Ombudsman has explicitly criticized these measures, underscoring that the right to assembly is fundamental and must not be unduly restricted.

The toll on civil society has been heavy. Human rights defenders, lawyers and activists live under constant intimidation.  Authorities conduct raids on NGOs, seize their documents, and label dedicated citizens as “foreign agents” or even “extremists.” Several prominent defenders have been harassed or charged with baseless crimes. In one particularly chilling incident last year, Bir Duino’s office was attacked and vandalized as a clear retaliation for our work forcing us to relocate and rebuild. Quite a few human rights groups have chosen to close their office or operate from underground rather than risking such reprisals. 

[C]ivil society fears that the reinstatement of the death penalty, or the adoption of similar proposals, could be used by the government as an additional tool to exert pressure on human rights defenders and activists (...).

In this context, civil society fears that the reinstatement of the death penalty, or the adoption of similar proposals, could be used by the government as an additional tool to exert pressure on human rights defenders and activists—for example, by initiating legal proceedings against them on the basis of trumped-up charges and fabricated criminal cases.

Conclusion

Kyrgyz people are driven by deep concern for their homeland’s future. Every day, we see how the chilling government policies drive citizens into silence: how a young person reluctant to demonstrate will never see their rights protected, how an imprisoned journalist speaks for all. We know Kyrgyzstan can do better. True public safety comes not from state sanctioned executions but from a professional police force, transparent courts, victim support systems, and democratic accountability. During this crisis, we stand by the Constitution and the promise it contains that the state exists to protect life and dignity. As Timur Shakirov from the International Commission of Jurists has said, because judicial systems are fallible, maintaining abolition of the death penalty “remains essential to the effective protection of the right to life”.

Kyrgyzstan’s constitutional path should be guided by justice and respect for human rights, not vengeance. The recent ruling by the Constitutional Court that reinstating executions is “legally impossible” is a relief, but it must be followed by concrete action. The Parliament should formally shelve any amendment proposal to reinstate the death penalty, and repeal laws that infringe on freedoms of assembly and association. Authorities should address crime with humane, evidence-based reforms—such as strengthening investigation techniques, prosecuting criminals, and caring for gender-based violence victims—instead of draconian shortcuts. Finally, international partners, embassies, UN experts, and NGOs abroad should keep on pressing the Kyrgyz government to honor its international and domestic commitments.

Under Kyrgyz law, the government could still seek to advance initiatives with a similarly restrictive and punitive effect on civil society by exploiting the people’s legislative initiative. Under this mechanism, the government could mobilize administrative resources, exert public pressure and enforce populist narratives to collect the required 10,000 citizens’ signatures in support of proposals that would further limit fundamental rights and freedoms. Such initiatives, which would be framed as expressions of the “popular will,” risk being used to legitimize government repression and weaken constitutional safeguards. For this reason, the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms in Kyrgyzstan remains under acute threat. In the present climate of shrinking civic space, vigilance, constitutional guarantees, and international solidarity are more essential than ever to prevent new legislative attacks on civil society and democratic life.

About the Author

Murat Karypov is a human rights defender with over eight years of professional experience in promoting and protecting the rights and freedoms of vulnerable groups, particularly local communities and minorities living in conditions of risk and disaster in Kyrgyzstan. Murat was also a member of the Constitutional Council of the Kyrgyz Republic, which was responsible for developing the current edition of the Constitution of Kyrgyzstan. 

How to Cite This Article

Murat Karypov, ‘Reinstating the death penalty in the Constitution: Kyrgyzstan at a Constitutional Crossroads’, ConstitutionNet, International IDEA, 29 December 2025, https://constitutionnet.org/news/voices/reinstating-death-penalty-constitution-kyrgyzstan-constitutional-crossroads

Further Reading

• Updates on constitutional developments in Kyrgyzstan.
• International IDEA, Designing Resistance: Democratic Institutions and the Threat of Backsliding.
• International IDEA, Time, Space and Information: Lessons Learned from the Abuse of Law to Attack Civic Space.

Contribute to Voices from the Field

If you are interested in contributing a Voices from the Field piece on constitutional change in your country, please contact us at constitutionnet@idea.int.