29.10.15

US Secretary of State, John Kerry

Dear Secretary of State

We are writing to you on the eve of the joint meeting in Samarkand with foreign Ministers from the five Central Asian countries in the new format of dialogues between USA and Central Asia “C5+1”.

We would like to bring to your attention that the Uzbekistani authorities have begun to equate the work of human rights defenders and independent journalists with anti-state activities.  In a democratic community freedom of expression is an integral part of the social process. However, in Uzbekistan activists who defend human rights principles and freedoms are blacklisted by the Uzbek security services.  

We are especially concerned about the fate of imprisoned human rights defenders Nuraddin Dzhumaniyazov who suffers from severe diabetes and Isroil Holdarov, who is disabled.  Both men are over 60 years old and no information about their whereabouts or state of health has been available for over a year now.

Imprisoned journalists Muhammad Bekhjanov, Dilmurad Saiydov and Salijon Abdurakhmanov are in extremely poor health. All three were imprisoned on politically motivated charges in retaliation for their work as independent journalists.

Former member of Parliament Murad Dzhuraev has spent 21 years in prison now, and his prison sentence has been arbitrarily extended four times.

None of the above prisoners who are in prison on politically motivated grounds have been treated humanely, nor has any act of amnesty been issued in relation to them. Over 40 civil society activists are in prison at the present time on falsified charges.

Since 2004 it has been extremely difficult to carry out independent monitoring of implementation of human rights obligations in Uzbekistan.  In 2011 the accreditation of the international organization “Human Rights Watch” was rescinded by the Uzbekistani authorities and for the last six years its staff has been refused visas to visit the country.

For the last 14 years the 13 thematic special rapporteurs of the United Nations have been unable to visit Uzbekistan.  There are no effective mechanisms for protection and investigation of allegations of torture or other ill-treatment, even in courts. 

We would therefore like to express our trust and respect to you and the US government and ask you to take any available opportunity to draw attention to the fate of imprisoned civil society activists in Uzbekistan.  We request you also to urge the government of Uzbekistan to resolve the issue of accreditation for Human Rights Watch and allow independent international observers into the country. You can be sure that your actions will provide valuable moral support to human rights activists and encourage them to continue their socially useful activities.

Yours faithfully,

Nadejda Atayeva,
President of the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia - AHRCA




Central Asia: US Secretary of State should speak up in support of region’s hard-pressed civil society during visit


29 October 2015.  In the next few days, US Secretary of State John Kerry will visit the five Central Asian countries of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. Our organizations -- Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law, Nota Bene, Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights, the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia and International Partnership for Human Rights -- urge him to use his visit to prominently raise human rights concerns with the Central Asian governments and to speak up in support of the region’s hard-pressed civil society.

During his visit, Kerry will hold bilateral and multilateral talks with senior government officials from the Central Asian countries, including at a meeting with the foreign ministers of all five countries in the city of Samarkand in Uzbekistan.

Kerry’s visit comes at a time when civil society in Central Asia is under more pressure than ever. In the context of political developments in the wider region and the current economic downturn, the Central Asian authorities have exploited concerns about national security and stability to step up rhetoric and tighten measures against civil society actors who criticize government policies and advocate for human rights, justice and rule of law. 

It is imperative that the Secretary of State uses his visit to condemn this alarming trend and to express strong support for civil society groups and activists at risk in the region.

These are some key concerns that we urge Kerry to raise with his Central Asian counterparts:

While existing legislation sets out strict requirements regarding the operation and funding of NGOs in the Central Asian countries, new restrictive provisions on the funding of NGOs have recently been initiated in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.

Draft legislation currently pending in Kazakhstan’s Senate may result in that a non-independent body is granted monopoly over the allocation of grants to NGOs, including grants from foreign donors. A Russia-inspired “foreign agents” bill that passed the first reading in Kyrgyzstan’s parliament this summer could be used to stigmatize and obstruct the work of basically any foreign-funded NGO. There are also

concerns that new legislation adopted in Tajikistan in August 2015, which requires NGOs to report all funds received from foreign sources to the government prior to using them, may be used to restrict NGOs’ access to funding in violation of international standards. NGOs have made active efforts to influence and improve these legislative initiatives in the three countries, but their suggestions have been largely disregarded.

Government regulations in force in Uzbekistan set out onerous requirements with respect to obtaining and using foreign grants, which effectively bar access to such funding for NGOs. According to Turkmenistani legislation, foreign grants received by NGOs must be registered with the government and are subject to close scrutiny.

In the current climate, Central Asian NGOs and their leaders have increasingly been singled out for negative and discrediting statements by government representatives, public figures and public media who have accused them of promoting ”foreign” interests and values and of undermining national security, stability and reputation.  

NGOs that work on “sensitive” issues such as human rights have also been denied registration and closed down on various pretexts in the region. Several human rights NGOs are currently at the threat of closure in Tajikistan because of the alleged failure to comply with administrative and technical requirements. If adopted, the new NGO legislation under consideration in Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan could lead to closures of human rights NGOs in these countries. In Uzbekistan, it is practically impossible for independent human rights NGOs to obtain mandatory registration, as a result of which such groups are forced to work without legal status. Independent Turkmenistani human rights groups can only operate underground or in exile. Numerous NGO activists from these two countries have had to flee abroad because of the repressive climate, and there are reasons to fear that this may be a growing trend across the region.

In the recent period, new cases of intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders, civic activists, lawyers and other outspoken individuals have been reported in all the Central Asian countries. Cases where such individuals have been arrested, charged and imprisoned in retaliation for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly and other fundamental rights are of particular concern. Recent worrying examples include the arrest of civil society activists Ermek Narymbaev and Serikzhan Mambetalin in Kazakhstan in October 2015, the arrest of lawyer Buzurgmehr Yorov in Tajikistan in September 2015, and the reported three-year prison sentence handed down to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Saparmamed Nepeskuliev in Turkmenistan in August 2015.

Some human rights defenders and dissidents imprisoned after unfair trials in the region have been behind bars for years already. There are serious concerns about the health and well-being of these individuals, including among others Azimjan Askarov, who continues to serve a life sentence in in Kyrgyzstan, and Azam Farmonov, who in April this year was given an additional five-year sentence in Uzbekistan instead of being released after serving out a 9-year sentence.

More information about current concerns regarding the situation of civil society in Central Asia is detailed in a briefing paper, which was issued by our organizations on 22 October 2015.

According to a press statementissued by the US Department of State, US Secretary of State John Kerry will visit Central Asia after attending Syria talks in Vienna on 29-30 October 2015. He will travel to Bishkek, Samarkand, Astana, Dushanbe and Ashgabat on his tour to the region, which is scheduled to end on 3 November 2015.



21.10.15

The situation of civil society in Central Asia: Key concerns and recommendations


Briefing for human rights seminar organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, 22-23 October 2015

As part of a broader trend in the region of the former Soviet Union, civil society in Central Asia has recently come under growing pressure. New restrictive legislation has been initiated and repressive measures taken against groups and individuals who criticize government policies and speak up for human rights, justice and rule of law.

This briefing outlines major concerns regarding the situation of civil society in the five Central Asian countries, as well as recommendations to the government of the Federal Republic of Germany for how to address and respond to concerns in this area. It has been prepared by the following Central Asian NGOs: Kazakhstan International Bureau for Human Rights and Rule of Law (Kazakhstan); Voice of Freedom Foundation (Kyrgyzstan); Nota Bene (Tajikistan); Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (Turkmenistan, based in exile in Austria); and the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia (Uzbekistan, founded by political emigres in France), together with International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium).

Kazakhstan

There are worrisome signs that the civil society climate is deteriorating in Kazakhstan.

Vaguely worded draft legislation currently under way in the parliament could result in that a non-independent body is granted monopoly over the allocation of grants to NGOs, including non-state grants. According to the draft, grants would be allocated to NGOs for work in certain listed areas of activities, which do not include human rights promotion. The Ministry of Culture and Sports would be granted new broad powers to monitor and oversee NGOs, and the failure by NGOs to provide required or “correct information to a database operated by this Ministry may result in that they are fined, suspended, or eventually closed down. The draft legislation was approved by the lower house of the parliament in late September 2015 and in the first reading by the Senate in early October 2015. 

In a joint appeal[1], several dozen Kazakhstani human rights NGOs voiced concern that the draft legislation on NGOs poses a threat to independent civil society and called on the president to ensure that it is reviewed in terms of its compliance with national and international human rights standards, as well as to veto it if needed. UN human rights representatives have also warned that the draft law, if adopted in its current format, may result in violations of international standards[2].

The new Criminal Code, which entered into force in January 2015, contains a number of provisions that may be used to penalize legitimate civil society activities. Among others, it criminalizes “unlawful interference” in the activities of authorities by members of public associations; characterizes leaders of such associations as a separate category of offenders; and retains ambiguous provisions on “inciting” social, national or other “discord” and “spreading false information”, which have repeatedly been used against civil society activists and other outspoken individuals. For example, in mid-15 October 2015, civil society activists Ermbek Narymbaev and Serikzhan Mambetalin were arrested on charges of “inciting national discord” and are currently in pre-trial detention[3].

Civil society activists also remain vulnerable to being charged and convicted on other grounds in retaliation for their exercise of fundamental rights. Human rights activist Vadim Kuramshin, poet/dissident Aron Atabek and opposition leader Vladimir Kozlov remain imprisoned after being convicted on charges deemed politically motivated in unfair trials.

Kyrgyzstan

The draft “foreign agents” law under consideration by Kyrgyzstan’s parliament poses a serious threat to civil society in this country[4].

Similarly to the corresponding Russian law, the Kyrgyzstani draft law requires NGOs to adopt the stigmatizing label of “foreign agents” if they receive foreign funding and engage in “political activities”, a term that is so broadly defined that it could be applied to virtually any NGO activities. It also grants authorities new, broad powers to interfere in the internal affairs of NGOs and introduces problematic provisions on criminal liability for NGO representatives as a separate category of offenders.

In spite of widespread criticism of the draft “foreign agents” law, it was passed by the parliament in the first reading in June 2015. Later the same month it was taken off the plenary agenda for additional discussion at committee level. The new parliament that will assemble after the 4 October elections may pick up the consideration of the draft law where the previous parliament left it.

In the recent period, NGOs, civil society activists and lawyers in Kyrgyzstan have increasingly been subjected to verbal attacks, intimidation and harassment. Both media and public figures have accused NGOs of promoting the political interests of foreign donors and betraying national values. At a press conference in July this year, President Atambayev also made such statements[5].
It has now been five years since a life sentence was handed down to human rights defender Azimjan Askarov for his alleged role in the inter-ethnic violence that took place in southern Kyrgyzstan in June 2010. The trial against him was marred by due process and fair trial violations, and credible allegations that he was tortured in pre-trial detention have never been properly investigated. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a decision to discontinue a new investigation into his case. There are concerns that his health has deteriorated considerably in prison.

Tajikistan

In recent months, the civil society situation in Tajikistan has seriously worsened.

Tax and other authorities have carried out a series of intrusive inspections of NGOs, in some cases with specific reference to national security considerations. This has given rise to concerns about attempts to intimidate and silence, in particular, NGOs that work on human rights issues. Several human rights NGOs are currently at the threat of closure because of the alleged failure to comply with administrative and technical requirements. Among them is Nota Bene, which is facing a liquidation lawsuit brought by the Tax Committee. This body is accusing the organization of taking advantage of gaps in the law when registering as a “public foundation” rather than as a “public association” in 2009.

Existing legislation does not regulate the conduct of inspections of NGOs in any detail and sets out broad grounds for warning, fining, and closing down NGOs. Amendments to the Law on Public Associations signed by the president in August 2015 state that a procedure for inspections will be approved by the Ministry of Justice, but so far this has not happened.

The recent amendments to the Law on Public Associations also require NGOs to provide information about all funds received from foreign and international sources to the Ministry of Justice for inclusion in a special registry. No clear procedure is set out for how this will be done and a government regulation on the implementation of the new provisions is yet to be adopted. Civil society organizations have expressed concern that the new requirement will not only place an additional administrative burden on NGOs, but that it may also be used to obstruct NGOs’ access to funding in violation of international standards[6]. UN human rights bodies have likewise criticized the new requirement[7].

Human rights defenders and lawyers are under pressure by authorities to refrain from addressing politically sensitive issues. Lawyer Buzurgmehr Yorov, who has provided legal assistance to members of the recently banned Islamic Renaissance Party, was arrested on fraud and forgery charges in late September 2015. Another lawyer, Shukhrat Kudratov is serving a five-year prison sentence on similar charges believed to have been motivated by his work on high-profile cases.

Turkmenistan

The civil society environment in Turkmenistan remains highly repressive. 

The 2014 Law on Public Associations retains a restrictive approach by requiring compulsory registration of associations, providing for strict registration rules especially for national-level organizations, and granting authorities wide powers to oversee the activities and funding of associations.

In practice, the government promotes the work of GONGOs, while independent civil society groups addressing human rights and other sensitive issues can only operate underground or in exile.

Civil society activists, journalists and others who dare to openly challenge official policies face intimidation and harassment. Several recent cases illustrate this trend. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty correspondent Osmankuly Hallyev resigned this summer citing unprecedented pressure, while Saparmamed Nepeskuliev from the same service was reported to have been sentenced to three years in prison on spurious “narcotics” possession charges in August 2015. Horse-breeding expert Geldy Kyarizov, who fell out of favour with the government years ago, was prevented from travelling abroad with his family members in August 2015 and only allowed to leave several weeks later. Well-known civil society activist Natalia Shabunts had her private satellite dishes arbitrarily removed this summer, as part of a wider campaign against this source of alternative information.

This year an official Turkmen delegation attended the OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw for the first time in many years. On 30 September 2015, the Turkmen Foreign Ministry issued a press release [8], accusing participants in this meeting of making “biased” comments aimed at “discrediting” Turkmenistan and expressing regret that such statements had been circulated online. This showed again that the Turkmen authorities view with hostility any criticism of the situation in the country.

The Austria-based Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights, which is well-known for its independent coverage of developments in Turkmenistan, has repeatedly been subjected to cyber-attacks and its representatives and family members have been intimidated.

Uzbekistan

The civil society situation in Uzbekistan shows no signs of improving.

While the government claims that there are over 8000 NGOs in the country [9], an overwhelming majority of these are GONGOs. Most independent human rights NGOs continue to operate on an informal basis due to the lack of opportunities to obtain mandatory registration. Recent regulations[10] reinforce restrictions on NGO activities by setting out a new procedure for informing and obtaining permission from the government for holding seminars, trainings and other events.

Independent human rights defenders experience serious difficulties to carry out their work and are subjected to ongoing intimidation and harassment. When examining the situation in Uzbekistan in July 2015, the UN Human Rights Committee expressed concern about ”consistent reports” of harassment of human rights activists, independent journalists and government critics, including through surveillance, arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture and ill-treatment, and prosecutions in retaliation for their work[11].

For example, in the last few months, human rights defenders Dmitry Tikhonov and Yelena Urlaeva have both been detained, questioned and intimidated on several occasions in relation to their efforts to monitor and document the continued use of forced labour in the cotton sector[12].  Human rights defender Shukhrat Rustamov remains at the risk of being forcibly placed in a psychiatric clinic after he was found “mentally incompetent” by court because of complaints submitted to authorities about human rights violations.

Numerous activists, journalists and dissidents remain imprisoned on trumped-up charges. There are serious concerns about their health and well-being due to notoriously bad prison conditions and widespread torture and ill-treatment. The practice of arbitrarily extending the sentences of “inconvenient” prisoners for allegedly disobeying the orders of prison authorities is highly troubling[13]For example, human rights defender Azam Farmonov, who was due to be released in April 2015 after serving out a 9-year prison sentence, was given an additional five years on such charges.

Exiled human rights activists have also faced pressure by Uzbekistani authorities. 

Recommendations to the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as its diplomatic representations in Central Asia
  • Raise concerns about the situation of civil society in a prominent and consistent way with the Central Asian governments; and use the leverage of Germany as a major European partner of the Central Asian countries, a leading EU member state, and the holder of the 2016 OSCE chairmanship to insist on the implementation of concrete and effective measures to address these concerns. In particular, request the authorities of the region to: 
     — Refrain from adopting or enforcing new legislation restricting the activities and access to funding of NGOs in violation of international standards protecting the right to freedom of association and other fundamental rights.

     — Bring existing legislation and practice on the operation of NGOs into line with the requirements of international human rights law, and consult and cooperate closely with international experts and civil society on reforms in this area. 

     — Ensure that NGOs can carry out their activities without hindrance and undue interference, irrespective of their sources of funding or the issues they address, and that NGOs are not denied registration, sanctioned or closed down on arbitrary grounds.

     — Refrain from using rhetoric that stigmatizes and discredits civil society organizations and their representatives; and put an end to intimidation and harassment of human rights defenders, lawyers, journalists and dissidents.

     — Ensure that no one is arrested, charged or convicted for exercising their rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly or other fundamental rights; and immediately and unconditionally release all those who are held on such grounds.

     — Take concrete and effective measures to implement recommendations made by UN human rights bodies with respect to the situation of civil society in their respective countries. 
  • Maintain regular and close contacts with independent human rights groups and defenders in the Central Asian republics and visibly support them in their invaluable efforts to promote human rights in their respective countries, including by speaking out against attempts by the authorities of the region to question the legitimacy of their work. Also consult and keep in contact with Central Asian human rights groups and defenders based in exile in European countries.
  • In accordance with the EU and OSCE Guidelines on Human Rights Defenders, take appropriate action to support and assist human rights groups and defenders who are at particular risk, including by issuing emergency visas and assisting with relocation to a safe third country in urgent cases.
Recommendations relating in particular to Germany’s 2016 OSCE Chairmanship:
  • Address the shrinking of civil society space in Central Asia and other countries of the OSCE region as a matter of priority during the Chairmanship, and use the Chairmanship to counter the trends of exploiting concerns about national stability and security to clamp down on civil society. 
  • Continue the good practice of previous OSCE chairmanships of engaging in close cooperation with civil society on human rights issues, including by holding regional and thematic civil society consultations on pressing issues. 
  • Initiate improved coordination among OSCE institutions and participating States on efforts to support and protect human rights groups and defenders at risk and promote awareness and implementation of the recent ODIHR guidelines on freedom of association and the protection on human rights defenders.


___________________
[1] Обращение правозащитных организаций гражданского общества Казахстана, http://misk.org.kz/news/?element_id=801. See also statement on the draft NGO law by Yevgeniy Zhovtis, Chair of the Board and Expert Consultant of KIBHR, at http://bureau.kz/en/news/kibhr_information/statement_on_the_adoption_of_the_law_on_ngo_main

[2] See statement by Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 8 October 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16585&LangID=E; and statement by the UN Special Representative on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, 15 October 2015, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16608&LangID=E

[3] See more at: http://bureau.kz/novosti/sobstvennaya_informaciya/donosim_do_vashego_svedeniya; and http://informburo.kz/novosti/mambetalina-i-narymbaeva-vzyali-pod-strazhu-za-repost-v-facebook-14058.html

[4] See also statement by members of the Civic Solidarity Platform, “Kyrgyzstan: Reject ‘Foreign Agents’ Bill in Plenary”, 26 May 2015, http://www.iphronline.org/kyrgyzstan-reject-foreign-agents-bill-in-plenary-20150526.html

[5] “Алмазбек Атамбаев: В Кыргызстане есть иностранные агенты, и об этом надо открыто говорить”, 27 July 2015, at http://www.24kg.org/politika/16825/

[6] See appeal  signed by 92 Tajikistani and foreign organizations in November 2014, “Tajikistan: Drop draft legislation restricting access to NGO funding”, http://www.iphronline.org/tajikistan-ngo-law-appeal-20141125.html

[7] See, for example, statement by Spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 3 August 2015, www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=16288&LangID=E#sthash.6yzVLtAs.dpuf

[9] Ministry of Justice press release, October 2014, http://m.minjust.uz/ru/press/news/2014/10/6343/

[10] Regulations concerning the procedure for agreeing events of non-governmental organizations (No 2679), approved by the Ministry of Justice, 4 June 2015.

[11] Human Rights Committee Concluding Observations on the fourth periodic report of Uzbekistan, July 2015, http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=CCPR%2fC%2fUZB%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en

[12] Cotton Campaign, “Uzbek government subjects human rights defenders to body-cavity searches”, September 2015, http://www.cottoncampaign.org/uzbek-government-subjects-human-rights-defenders-to-body-cavity-searches.html; Human Rights Watch, “Uzbekistan: Activists Beaten, Detained”, 24 September 2015, http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/09/24/uzbekistan-activists-beaten-detained

[13] For more on this topic, see also Alternative report submitted by the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia (AHRCA) and International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR) to the Human Rights Committee review of Uzbekistan in July 2015: http://www.iphronline.org/uzbekistan-alternative-report-to-un-human-rights-committee-20150706.html















Torture in Central Asia


Briefing for human rights seminar organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Federal Republic of Germany in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, 22-23 October 2015

This document has been prepared by the following Central Asian NGOs: the NGO Coalitions Against Torture in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, Turkmenistan's Independent Lawyers Association (TILA, based in exile in the Netherlands), Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR, based in exile in Austria) and the Association for Human Rights in Central Asia (AHRCA, based in exile in France), together with Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland) and International Partnership for Human Rights (Belgium).

Torture and other forms of ill-treatment continue to be of serious concern in all Central Asian countries and impunity of perpetrators of torture is the norm.  Not one of the Central Asian governments publishes comprehensive statistics on complaints, investigations and convictions of perpetrators and many victims refrain from lodging complaints for fear of reprisals or because they do not trust that the existing system will give them access to justice.

Since January 2015, the NGO Coalition against Torture in Kazakhstan has registered over 70 new cases of men, women and children who allege to have been subjected to torture and ill-treatment. In the same period, the NGO Coalition against Torture in Kyrgyzstan registered around 100 new cases and the NGO Coalition in Tajikistan registered over 35 new cases.

After visiting Uzbekistan in 2003 the UN Special Rapporteur on torture concluded that the use of torture and ill-treatment was “systematic“ in that country.  Although the absence of any level of effective public monitoring does not allow for a comprehensive assessment of the human rights situation, credible reports received by AHRCA indicate that torture and ill-treatment have become an integral part of the criminal justice system in Uzbekistan, and are central to how the authorities deal with critics and dissent.  From 2011 to date, AHRCA received over 165 allegations of torture and ill-treatment during investigation and detention from Uzbekistan, 27 of which were received from January to October 2015. Due to the repressive nature of the regime, no independent human rights groups are able to operate in Turkmenistan and it is impossible to comprehensively study the situation of torture, but activists in exile have received credible allegations of torture and ill-treatment on a regular basis. The authorities persistently deny that torture exists and, to our knowledge, no one has yet been charged under the Article of “torture“ that was added to the Criminal Code of Turkmenistan in 2012.

For many law enforcement officials within the criminal justice systems of the Central Asian countries the incentives to apply torture are greater than the disincentives. For example, while the risk of punishment for abuse is very small, torture or other ill-treatment open up avenues for additional income as law enforcement officers and prison personnel frequently apply torture to extract money from detainees and prisoners. In addition, Central Asian law enforcement officers continue to be assessed by the number of crimes they solve, a system that exacerbates the risk that police resort to torture to obtain a confession to a hitherto unsolved crime.

In all five countries torture mainly takes place during the first hours or sometimes days of detention when detainees are in many cases held without access to legal counsel and medical personnel, but torture cases are also reported from later stages of detention and imprisonment. Those detained or imprisoned on charges related to national security or “religious extremism” are at particular risk. In Uzbekistan, for example, the health of many prisoners serving lengthy sentences on such charges is known to have deteriorated badly due to ill-treatment and deplorable prison conditions and cases of deaths in prison have been reported regularly. In Turkmenistan the authorities continue to withhold information about the whereabouts of dozens of people arrested and convicted in connection with the alleged 2002 assassination attempt on former President Saparmurad Niyazov. Many of them were believed to have been subjected to torture and some reportedly died in custody.

The NGOs jointly issuing this statement note that the authorities of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have recently pioneered several positive legislative, institutional and other steps (some of which are detailed below)  that are aimed at combating torture and urge all Central Asian governments to follow their neighbours’ positive examples. In addition, we urge Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to ensure that all legislative steps aimed at ending torture are fully implemented in practice and that our recommendations (that can be found at the end of this document) to make newly established intitutions function more effectively are implemented as a matter of priority.  

We believe that all Central Asian states should urgently address persistent concerns and recommendations by UN human rights bodies and procedures and local and international NGOs on the following four topics: Access to legal safeguards in detention, the conduct of medical examinations, investigations into allegations of torture, and the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) and national preventive mechanisms. In addition, as a way to demonstrate their stated commitment to combat torture, we urge the authorities of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to issue  an invitation to the UN Special Rapporteur on torture.

Legal safeguards in detention

When Kazakhstan’s new Criminal Procedure Code came into force in  January 2015 Kazakhstan became the first country in Central Asia to have clarified in its domestic legislation that key safeguards including access to a lawyer and notification of family must be in place upon or promptly after apprehension. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are yet to implement recommendations to this effect issued by UN procedures and/or bodies in recent years.

While we commend Kazakhstan for this significant step we are concerned that the monitoring of the legislation’s implementation conducted by the NGO Coalition against Torture in Kazakhstan in recent months has demonstrated that detainees are often not informed of their rights promptly after the arrest and are usually not given access to legal safeguards before being entered into the police detention facility. Even after that they not infrequently continue to be held without access to a lawyer and/or medical personnel and are denied notification of their family.

International human rights law clearly states that a person is considered a detainee as soon as he or she is “depriv(ed) of liberty (…) in a public or private custodial setting which that person is not permitted to leave at will by order of any judicial, administrative or other authority” (e.g. Art. 4(2) of the Optional Protocol  to the Convention against Torture). Legal safeguards must then be in place to provide protection from torture and ill-treatment under any kind of detention.

Conducting medical examinations in line with the Istanbul Protocol

The strict adherence of forensic experts and other medical, psychological and psychiatric professionals, who are tasked with examining detainees, to the principles of the UN Istanbul Protocol can serve as an important tool to combat impunity.

At the end of 2014 the respective Ministry of Health in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were the first in Central Asia to have obliged medical personnel – when conducting examinations of detainees -- to document torture and ill-treatment in line with principles contained in the Istanbul Protocol.  While these steps are welcome the human rights groups jointly issuing this statement are concerned that many detainees in both countries do not have access to medical personnel of the Ministry of Health. Instead, they are examined by medical personnel who are not independent of the detention facility where the detainee is held.

The need for an independent investigative mechanism

The five Central Asian countries lack independent mechanisms to conduct prompt, thorough, impartial and effective investigations into allegations of torture and ill-treatment, leading to virtual impunity.  When Kazakhstan (in 2014), Kyrgyzstan (2013), Tajikistan (2012), Turkmenistan (2011), Uzbekistan (2013) were last reviewed by the UN Committee against Torture, the Committee recommended each of them that they establish such independent investigatory mechanisms.

Victims of torture or other ill-treatment often do not lodge complaints for fear of their own or their family’s safety. Judges at remand hearings typically do not ask detainees how they were treated in custody. Even when injuries are clearly visible or when detainees make allegations of torture or ill-treatment during remand hearings, judges do not usually request an investigation into the allegations in most Central Asian countries. Prosecutors rarely open investigations into torture or other ill-treatment as part of their supervisory function over the criminal investigation process. The coalitions against torture in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan observed that investigations are usually only instigated when victims, lawyers, local and international human rights organizations or media exert pressure on the authorities.

According to the coalitions against torture in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan and AHRCA, the examination of torture allegations is in many cases conducted by the internal security services of the respective Ministry of Internal Affairs or other law enforcement agencies whose employees are themselves implicated in the complaint. These internal security services usually dismiss the allegations as unfounded and, as a result, criminal cases are opened only in a small number of cases.

In those cases where investigations have been opened they have not been conducted effectively in the large majority of cases. Typically, investigators failed to engage in gathering evidence to study the circumstances of the alleged torture from all perspectives, such as interviewing witnesses and medical personnel or ordering a forensic medical examination; they did not interview the victims and they did not carry out confrontations of police and victims. Instead, investigators often relied on statements obtained from the alleged perpetrators and their colleagues.

When investigations are led by prosecutors they are also often not conducted effectively. Prosecutors, like the police, have a vested interest in achieving a high crime solution rate. In order to achieve this goal, prosecutors may be inclined to overlook human rights violations committed by police, such as torture.

In those cases where torture or other ill-treatment are revealed during court hearings prosecutors have an inherent conflict of interest. The law envisages that prosecutors carry out both the function of criminal prosecution and that of supervision over the legality of the investigative process. Within the function of criminal prosecution, the prosecutor presents indictments in courts that are frequently based on information provided by police or other law enforcement agencies. By revealing violations (including torture) that took place during their investigative activities, the prosecutor undermines the legitimacy of the collected evidence and weakens the arguments presented in the indictment.

In all Central Asian countries, lack of transparency about prosecutions of law enforcement officials for torture or other ill-treatment exacerbates the problem of impunity.

The OPCAT and national preventive mechanisms (NPMs)

Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are the only Central Asian countries to have ratified the OPCAT. In recent years UN bodies and procedures have repeatedly recommended Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan to also ratify the OPCAT.

Tajikistan took a noteworthy step regarding the monitoring of detention facilities when the Monitoring Group, consisting of Ombudsman Office staff and civil society, was established as part of the Ombudsman’s Office and started visiting facilities in February 2014. However, the Group does not have access to all relevant information and records and in some cases the administration of the detention facility appeared to have been informed of the Group’s visits in advance. Independent monitoring of detention facilities is not regulated in domestic legislation and, besides their participation in the framework of the Monitoring Group, human rights defenders are not permitted to enter detention facilities to conduct independent monitoring.

In Kyrgyzstan a fully independent NPM was set up under the National Center of the Kyrgyz Republic for the Prevention of Torture and started visiting detention facilities in 2014. The same year Kazakhstan’s NPM, set up under the Ombudsman’s office, also started its work. However, in order for Kazakhstan’s “Ombudsman+” model to work adequately, the NPM needs to be able to operate with more independence from the Ombudsman. NPM members should have the powers to decide by themselves and with full independence on all visits they wish to carry out and be able to publish reports immediately after their visits. Kazakhstan should also adopt a clear legal framework for the NPM in order to replace the current inadequate provisions that are scattered in various parts of the legislation.

Recommendations to the government of the Federal Republic of Germany, as well as its diplomatic representations in Central Asia

• Raise concerns about the ongoing torture and ill-treatment in a prominent and consistent way with the Central Asian governments; and use the leverage of Germany as a major European partner of the Central Asian countries, a leading EU member state, and the holder of the 2016 OSCE chairmanship to insist on the implementation of concrete and effective measures to address these concerns. In particular, request the authorities of the region to implement the following recommendations:

  Legal safeguards in detention:

• Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan should clarify in their respective domestic legislation that a person is considered a detainee as soon as he or she is deprived of liberty and amend the countries’ criminal procedure codes to ensure that they explicitly provide, from the moment of deprivation of liberty, for all basic legal safeguards such as access to a lawyer of the detainee’s choice, access to independent medical personnel and the right to notify a third person. All Central Asian countries should ensure that these provisions are implemented in practice.

Conducting medical examinations in line with the Istanbul Protocol:

• The respective Ministry of Health of Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan should oblige medical personnel, when conducting examinations of detainees, to document torture and other ill-treatment in line with principles contained in the UN Istanbul Protocol.

• All Central Asian countries should ensure that all other medical personnel also conducting examinations of detainees should also be obliged to follow the standards of the Istanbul Protocol.

• All Central Asian countries should ensure that personnel carrying out medical examinations in temporary police detention facilities  (IVS) and investigation isolation facilities (SIZO) are truly independent from the agencies running the detention facilities.

The need for an independent investigative mechanism:

• Oblige judges at remand hearings to routinely ask detainees arriving from police custody how they were treated and to order an investigation should there be any reason to suspect that they may have been subjected to torture or other ill-treatment.

• Create and fund an independent mechanism endowed with sufficient authority and competence to conduct prompt, thorough, impartial and independent investigations into all allegations of torture and other forms of ill-treatment. This mechanism should be transparent and accountable to an independent oversight body.
 
• Ensure that complainants, their families and civil society activists are protected against any reprisals as a consequence of their complaint, and that law enforcement officers are subjected to appropriate disciplinary or, where relevant, criminal measures for such actions.

• Suspend any law enforcement officer who is under investigation for having committed acts of torture or ill-treatment, for the duration of the investigation.

Setting up effective national preventive mechanisms (NPMs):

• Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan should swiftly ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT) and establish an effective NPM.

• In the meantime, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan should grant unimpeded access to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and expert independent NGOs working to prevent torture, to all places of detention as well as to conscription commissions and military units.

• Kazakhstan should ensure that the NPM can function with greater independence from the Ombudsman. The NPM should be granted powers to decide by itself and with full independence on all visits NPM members wish to carry out and be able to publish reports immediately after the Mechanism’s visits. Kazakhstan should also adopt a unified law that covers all aspects of the NPM’s functioning.

Recommendations relating in particular to Germany’s 2016 OSCE Chairmanship

• Make the anti-torture message a core element of all programmes (including those to combat terrorism, radicalization, drug trafficking and the abuse of cyberspace), where foreign governments provide training, support or cooperate in other ways with Central Asian government agencies, in particular law enforcement agencies and the military. 




___________________________________

1. For further information on torture and ill-treatment in Central Asia refer to:
http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCCPR%2fCSS%2fUZB%2f20803&Lang= en (Uzbekistan).


3. For further information about positive steps towards the implementation of the standards of the Istanbul Protocol and remaining concerns in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, refer to: http://iphronline.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/09/Implementation-of-the-Istanbul-Protocol-in- Kazakhstan-Kyrgyzstan-and-Tajikistan.pdf

4. For further information about the need for independent investigative mechanisms in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, refer to:  http://iphronline.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Mechanisms-to-investigate-torture-allegations.pdf