E. Presidental candidacy rights
Article 75 requires a candidate to have a “level of state language proficiency”, which the article states is “determined based on his/her ability to read, write, express his/her thoughts in the state language”. Article 75 further requires the candidate to make an oral presentation of his/her pre-election programme in 15 minutes or less and “read a printed text in the volume not more than three pages”. Article 75 is of concern because language proficiency is determined subjectively based on the opinions of a “language commission” appointed by the CEC. Thus, Article 75 does not state clear and objective criteria for determining proficiency, but instead allows for a subjective “proficiency” decision by an ad hoc commission. Finally, application of the article will exclude the candidacy of a citizen who has a visual or vocal impairment and would discriminate against such a person. The Kyrgyz Republic, although it has not ratified it, has signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Requiring a person with a visual or vocal impairment to meet the requirements of Article 75 in order to be a candidate would violate the general obligations under Article 4 of Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The OSCE/ODIHR and the Venice Commission recommend Article 75 to be amended to provide for objective criteria for determining state language proficiency and to accommodate persons with disabilities by providing alternative means of assessment.
 International standards prohibit wrongful discrimination. See Paragraph 7.3 of the OSCE 1990 Copenhagen Document; Articles 2 and 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Articles 25 and 26 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
 See UN HRC, Ignatane v. Latvia, 25 July 2001, No. 884/1999, CCPR/C/72/D/884/1999, in which limitations to the right to stand for office, based on language requirements, were ruled a violation of Article 25 ICCPR because they were not based on objective criteria and were not applied in a procedurally objective manner. See also the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights of 9 April 2002 in Podkolzina v. Latvia, No. 46726/99.