Pervomaisky District Court of Bishkek has sentenced the former chairman of the State Committee for National Security (SCNS) of Kyrgyzstan, Kamchybek Tashiev, and seven other defendants in the case known as the "letter of 75". The court found them guilty on one of the charges, sentencing each to 4 years in prison. However, probation was also applied to the convicted individuals, so they will not serve their sentences in a penal colony.
WHAT SENTENCE DID THE COURT HAND DOWN
According to Kaktus Media, on 2 July 2026, Judge Aziret Mederov announced the verdict in the criminal case concerning the "letter of 75".
The court found Kamchybek Tashiev, Kurmankul Zulushev, Nurlanbek Turgunbek uulu, Bekbolot Talgarbekov, Kursan Asanov, Kurmambek Dyikanbaev, Aaly Karashev and Emil Uzakbaev guilty of preparation for the violent seizure of power.
Each was sentenced to 4 years in prison with confiscation of property, however the court simultaneously applied probation to the convicted individuals, so they will not serve their sentences in a penal colony.
In addition, Aaly Karashev, Bekbolot Talgarbekov, Kurmambek Dyikanbaev, Kursan Asanov and Emil Uzakbaev, who had been in custody since February 2026, were released from the courtroom.
ON WHICH CHARGES WAS THE DECISION MADE
Regarding the episode of abuse of official position, the court acquitted Kamchybek Tashiev, Kurmankul Zulushev, Nurlanbek Turgunbek uulu, Bekbolot Talgarbekov and Aaly Karashev.
Thus, the guilty verdict was handed down only for the charge of preparation for the violent seizure of power, while the listed defendants were acquitted on the second episode.
CONTEXT
The criminal case is related to the so-called "letter of 75" — an appeal from a group of 75 people to the President of Kyrgyzstan, Sadyr Japarov, calling for early presidential elections.
Following this, Kamchybek Tashiev was removed from his positions as chairman of the SCNS and deputy chairman of the cabinet of ministers. Later, a criminal case was opened against him and seven other individuals. Initially, the trial was held behind closed doors, then some sessions were made public, after which the case was once again classified.
