A/HRC/43/46/Add.1 46. Moreover, legislation provides for an overreaching immunity clause for law enforcement officials, which entirely shields them from accountability. 32 According to information received, the last time such immunity was invoked was in Aktobe in June 2016, a case in which 7 victims were killed and 31 injured. The ensuing counter-terrorism operation resulted in 18 suspected attackers being killed and 9 arrested. Unable to get precise information from official sources, the Special Rapporteur is struck by the secrecy that surrounds this operation. She is clear that when law enforcement officers use lethal force, there needs to be an independent, impartial, effective and public investigation carried out by the authorities to determine the legality of the use of force, and ensure accountability. 47. The Special Rapporteur is also troubled by provisions that limit burial ceremonies and keep the places of burial secret for persons who have been convicted of acts of terrorism, and of “alleged terrorists”, who died at the hands of security forces in the course of counter-terrorism operations.33 The dead must be treated with respect and dignity, which lie at the core of all international human rights law. Failures in this regard constitute a violation of the right to a family life and even a violation of the prohibition of torture and ill-treatment.34 E. Preventing and countering (violent) extremism 48. The Special Rapporteur was made aware of multiple initiatives in Kazakhstan to address deradicalization in the context of extremism. These include initiatives in prison, with young persons and in socially marginalized and remote areas. At this point, prison deradicalization appears to be a key initiative in terms of programming and developing methodologies. 49. While recognizing the value of such preventive work, the Special Rapporteur highlights a number of concerns. Recalling the broad and vague definitions of extremism, she notes that deradicalization work in Kazakhstan is being advanced with persons convicted of extremism and not persons convicted under a law on violent extremism. Therefore, it is unclear as a legal matter how international programming addressing violent extremism in Kazakhstan is selecting its target group, and if such selection is subject to fair and accessible legal criteria, accessible to judicial review or appeal and overseen in a transparent manner. She cautions against the legal jeopardy of creating an informal and highly stigmatizing category of violent extremism within prisons when no such legal category exists in law. Moreover, as regards existing work within prisons and with other groups, the criteria for what constitutes a “radicalized” status is unclear, and may be overlapping with protected international legal categories of speech, assembly and belief, fuelling concerns that it is indeed the forum internum of non-violent extremists that deradicalization targets (A/HRC/31/18, para. 7). She suggests a human rights-compliant review and oversight of deradicalization programmes, both by the Government of Kazakhstan and by international entities and programmes. United Nations entities must pay particular attention to their due diligence obligations. 50. The Special Rapporteur is also particularly concerned at the Concept of State Policy in the Religious Sphere for 2017–2020, which was approved in 2017. Aiming to detect and counter “destructive movements” and “extremists” by placing a formal duty on authorities at the local level, the broad policy gives rise to a number of discriminatory practices against individuals who display outward religious symbols or specific religious practices. The measures are numerous, including being listed and arrested. Furthermore, she stresses that such programmes consistently pose the problem of precise identification of the target population and involve over-inclusion (“flagging”) by authorities fearful of the consequences of underreporting. This concern is particularly acute in the context of Kazakhstan where the definition of non-violent “extremism” is extremely broad. She stresses that successful policies should instead focus on assisting individuals and 32 33 34 Ibid. Law on Countering Terrorism, art. 21-1. See Staselovich v. Belarus (CCPR/C/77/D/887/1999) and European Court of Human Rights, Sabanchiyeva and others v. Russia (application No. 38450/05), judgment of 6 June 2013. 15