CONTRA-ARGUMENTS TO STATEMENTS OF KAZAKH GOVERNMENT REGARDING LEGAL GROUNDS FOR BULLDOZING KRISHNA COMMUNITY AT KARASAI DISTRICT
Kazakhstan Government states: %u201CAs a matter of fact, ISKCON as a religious association doesn%u2019t own the land.%u201D
ISKCON: Originaly the land of 47.7 hectares was purchased by members of ISKCON in 1999 in the Karasai district of Almaty, 40 km from the Almaty city. As laws changed members of ISKCON were able to privatize the land in the spring of 2004. ISKCON as organization purchased the land later in 2004. According to the Supreme Court of Republic of Kazakhstan, ruling No.3a-61/2-05 June 30, 2005, ISKCON has a right of land use. It is confirmed by the ruling of the RK Supreme Court that ISKCON is a bona fide land user and purchaser of the land plots at issue. This ruling has never been cancelled. According to the law of Kazakhstan it is still in force and cannot be overruled by lower courts%u2019 decisions. Significantly, the Supreme Court ruled that the land in question %u201Cis given to the Religious Organization Society for Krishna Consciousness%u201D with the right of full private ownership arising upon registration of the land. However, the local government froze all transactions on the property such that proper registration could not take place.
Kazakhstan Government states: %u201DThe right for land use was acquired by members of ISKCON illegally in 1999 by arbitrarily changing its functional purpose in violation of the Farming Law of Kazakhstan.%u201D
ISKCON: First, there is no Farming Law in the legislative system of Kazakhstan. In the court practice of the RK questions regulating violations of the legislation in the sphere of land use are considered by the court exclusively on the basis of the Land Code of RK dated June 20, 2003, and the Code of Administrative Infractions of January 20, 2001.
Second, members of ISKCON were conducting all the transactions with the land strictly according to the Legislation of Kazakhstan, with full approval of the government authorities.
Third, the issue of a forgery committed at the time of entering into the contract of sale-puchase in 1999 was not confirmed by the legal bodies of the RK. There was no ruling of the criminal court in regard to the persons that made this contract (because such actions are subject to criminal prosecution and punishment). Not only the fact of forgery was not established, but it had never been proved that these were the members of the community who commited it, let alone the community. In this case according to presumption of innocence no one can accuse ISKCON in breaking the Law.
Forth, the government%u2019s attempts to find disc
