Lawyer for the founder of FBRK Kirill Pavlov, Sergei Utkin from the International Freedom of Speech Foundation "Adil Soz" has filed a complaint with the Specialised Court for Administrative Offences of Astana against the actions of the local police inspector in drawing up the protocol.
The defence has identified critical procedural violations: the protocol states an incorrect date for the offence, which has led to the expiry of the statutory time limits for bringing charges. Furthermore, the document lacks key information regarding the nature of the offence.
Recall that on 13 October, local police inspector of the Yesil district police department, Arman Sagadildayevich Baidildayev, drew up an administrative offence protocol against Pavlov under Part 4 of Article 456-2 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan ("Dissemination of false information"). The founder of FBRK was scheduled to be tried directly at the police station, but the hearing was postponed due to technical reasons.
It is worth noting that this is the same local police inspector who previously summoned journalists via WhatsApp half an hour before their scheduled appearance, raising questions about compliance with official procedures.
The defence has found that the protocol describes the essence of the administrative offence as follows:
"On 06.08.2025 it was established that citizen Kirill Ivanovich Pavlov posted and disseminated false information on the Telegram channel 'Fund-Bureau for Corruption Investigations'; the publication was discovered on 25.09.2025."
At the same time, the date of the offence in the protocol is given as 25 September 2025 — that is, the date of discovery of the publication, not the date of the publication itself.
"It is obvious that the time of the offence is the date of the publication itself, not the date of its discovery. The concepts of 'commission' and 'discovery' are not synonymous," the complaint states.
According to a statement from a representative of Sunkar Eavision International LLP dated 25 September, the company considers false the information regarding the cost of the drones, amounting to 7.1 million tenge, contained in the publication "How the fight against locusts turns into budget embezzlement" dated 15 July.
Consequently, the actual date of the administrative offence is 15 July, not 25 September as stated in the protocol.
According to Part 1 of Article 62 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a person shall not be subject to administrative liability after two months have elapsed from the date of the commission of the administrative offence.
"As of 13.10.2025, Pavlov K.I. was not subject to administrative liability for the administrative offence committed on 15.07.2025, since more than two months have passed since its commission," the complaint notes.
Utkin pointed out serious deficiencies in the protocol: the document does not specify the date of publication, the title of the publication, or the specific information identified by the official as false.
"It is impossible to determine from the content of the protocol the date of publication (the date of the offence), the name of the publication, or the content of the false information; consequently, the protocol essentially lacks the substance of the administrative offence," the complaint states.
According to Part 1 of Article 827 of the Code of Administrative Offences of the Republic of Kazakhstan, a person whose rights and freedoms are directly affected by the actions of an official carrying out proceedings in an administrative offence case has the right to lodge a complaint with the court regarding a violation of the law in drawing up the protocol, if the protocol contains information that does not correspond to the actual data and circumstances.
"The contested protocol violates the rights and legitimate interests of Pavlov K.I., because the drawing up of an unlawful protocol results in unlawful administrative prosecution," the document emphasises.
Utkin is demanding that the actions of local police inspector Baidildayev in drawing up the protocol be declared unlawful.
Recall that Sunkar Eavision International LLP accused the journalists of lying over the publication about the cost of the drones, even though the information was taken from an official document on the public procurement portal.
Meanwhile, the International Freedom of Speech Foundation "Adil Soz" has previously recognised such persecution as unlawful.