The ministry of justice determined that Kulov, who has right under the law for probation, cannot be released. Legislation in this field does not apply to Kulov, because he is the main opponent of Akaev. Laws, state services, courts and everything else in Kyrgyzstan serve only Akaev’s regime and cannot serve other individuals, especially if they are not favored by Akaev. Following is the statement of the ministry of justice released for press.

Chairman of KCHR – Ramazan Dyryldaev

The ministry of justice of Kyrgyz Republic denies information about Kulov’s release on probation

Bishkek—The ministry of justice of Kyrgyz Republic on August 5th of 2004 distributed through governmental newspaper “Slovo Kyrgyzstana” an official statement, in which it denied information about releasing the leader of the party “Ar-Namys” Felix Kulov from the colony on probation.

Felix Kulov is serving term in the reformatory colony #19 in Sokuluk from April 8th of 2003. Starting from June 5th 2004 till now he addressed three times the colony administration with a petition to consider his release on probation. To these petitions the administration gave written answers about non-appliance of release on probation in relation to him, due to the fact that the term is served not according to law, said in the official statement of the ministry of justice.

According to data of the ministry of justice F. Kulov sent twice petitions to Sokuluk regional court in this period, but they were returned to him without consideration, due to absence of attached decision of the colony’s administration. On August 2nd 2004 Kulov again addressed this court with a petition on allegedly illegal actions of the colony’ administration that is refusing to send to court materials about his release on probation. “However the administration of the colony #19 is acting according to law”, - claims the ministry of justice.

At the same time the party “Ar-Namys” considers that the statement of the ministry of justice does not give answers to certain questions. “F. Kulov was supposed to receive a decree of commission: affirmative or negative to his petitions sent to the administrative commission, not only three written answers. F. Kulov could appeal in court only a decree, or address the court on the negligence of the administration. But by delaying the consideration of his petitions, they are not giving F. Kulov an opportunity to address the court”- says the party “Ar-Namys”.