Joint Statement for OSCE Supplementary Human Dimension
Meeting on ‘’Preventing Torture and Ill-Treatment - Strengthening Co-operation
and Implementation’’, Vienna, 29-30 June 2026
Despite legislative
reforms, the adoption of action plans and engagement with international human
rights mechanisms, torture and ill-treatment persist across Central Asia. While
comprehensive statistics are lacking, available information indicates that such
practices remain prevalent in the five countries of the region. The primary
challenge is not the absence of formal prohibitions or standards, but the
failure to effectively implement safeguards, ensure independent oversight and
secure accountability in practice, in violation of the Central Asian countries’
international obligations.
We, civil society
actors committed to the promotion of human rights in Central Asia – including
the NGO Coalition against Torture in Kazakhstan, the Civil Society Coalition
against Torture and Impunity in Tajikistan, the Kazakhstan International Bureau
for Human Rights and Rule of Law (KIBHR), the Association for Human Rights in
Central Asia (AHRCA), the Turkmen Initiative for Human Rights (TIHR),
International Partnership for Human Rights (IPHR), the World Organisation
against Torture (OMCT) and the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (HFHR) – call
for renewed efforts to translate international commitments into tangible
improvements on the ground, including through the effective implementation of
recommendations and decisions issued by international human rights bodies
concerning torture, unfair trials and impunity.
Inadequate
implementation of safeguards
While the risk of
torture and ill-treatment is highest during arrest, interrogation and the early
stages of detention, safeguards designed to prevent such
treatment are often
inadequately or inconsistently implemented in the Central Asian countries.
Although legislation in the region generally provides for key protections such
as access to a lawyer, independent medical examination, notification of
relatives and avenues for challenging the legality of detention, these
guarantees are frequently delayed, restricted or applied only after detention
has been formally registered.
It is also
problematic that existing safeguards are not applicable to all cases of
detention. For example, in Tajikistan, those who are subject to
administrative detention or detained as ‘’witnesses’’ do not have a
legally protected right to fundamental safeguards. Concerns further persist
regarding inadequate documentation of injuries, unreliable custody records and
the lack of accessible, independent complaint mechanisms.
While confessions
continue to play a central role in criminal proceedings, important safeguards
such as comprehensive video recording of detention and interrogation processes
remain insufficiently developed or inconsistently applied. For example, in Kazakhstan,
video recordings have played a crucial role in corroborating victims’
allegations in some torture cases that have attracted public attention.
However, such recordings have yet to be used as a standard legal safeguard
applicable to all detainees.
Lack
of independent oversight
Another major factor
undermining torture prevention in the region is the lack of robust independent
oversight of detention facilities.
Established under the
Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT), a National
Preventive Mechanism (NPM) has functioned in Kazakhstan for more than a
decade. While the NPM provides an important institutional basis for independent
monitoring, its effectiveness is currently limited by
insufficient operational independence, resources and follow-up powers. Public
monitoring commissions also need to be strengthened.
Kyrgyzstan experienced a significant setback last
year when the National Centre for the Prevention of Torture (NCPT) – a NPM that
was established under the OPCAT in 2012 and had served as a regional model, including in
terms of its cooperation with civil society – was abolished despite widespread
criticism. This step contradicted numerous recommendations received by
Kyrgyzstan during the April 2025 Universal
Periodic Review
(UPR) to maintain the NCPT as an independent body and strengthen its
operations. Following the NCPT’s liquidation, its functions were instead
transferred to the Ombudsperson’s Office amid concerns
about the lack of full independence of this body and its capacity to handle the
new role. The ongoing transition has created a gap
in torture prevention efforts and prompted concerns about an increased risk of
ill-treatment in detention.
The other three
Central Asian countries have not ratified
the OPCAT to date.
In Uzbekistan,
the Ombudsperson’s Office has conducted an increasing number of visits
to places of detention, in cooperation with public groups created to assist in this task. However,
this office remains dependent on the executive, impairing its effectiveness.
In Tajikistan,
the Ombudsperson’s Office likewise carries out visits to detention facilities,
but it is also not an independent body. In a positive development, the prison
service allowed
members of the NGO Coalition against Torture to monitor most penitentiary
institutions as of 2024, although its access has yet to be regulated by law.
In Turkmenistan,
there are serious ongoing concerns regarding the limited scope
and lack of independence of the monitoring conducted by the Ombudsperson’s
Office and government supervisory commissions. International monitors have not
been granted access for regular monitoring.
Failure to systematically investigate, prosecute and
ensure justice for torture
Across the region,
serious concerns persist regarding the failure to systematically investigate,
prosecute and penalise acts of torture and ill-treatment, as well as to ensure
appropriate support and redress for victims.
While torture is
criminalised in Kazakhstan, the relevant Criminal Code provision
is not fully aligned with international standards and allows for penalties that
are not commensurate with the gravity of the crime, including fines and
community service. Following legal amendments adopted in 2023, allegations
classified as torture are investigated
by the General Prosecutor’s Office, but complaints involving other forms of
ill-treatment are handled by the police, which creates potential conflicts of
interest and undermines impartiality. Many complaints of abusive treatment are
not effectively investigated or prosecuted, with victims often being expected to
substantiate allegations themselves, contrary to international standards.
Insufficient protection against reprisals also discourages victims from
reporting abuse. It remains of concern that those convicted of torture often
receive lenient
penalties in practice, including non-custodial sentences. At the same time,
comprehensive mechanisms for rehabilitation, support and compensation of
torture survivors are lacking, and
compensation to victims is often inadequate, if provided at all.
In a welcome
development, Kyrgyzstan’s Criminal Code was revised in
spring 2026 to broaden the definition of torture to include not only physical
but also mental suffering and to extend liability to individuals acting in an
official capacity, even if they are not state officials. As the previous
wording had allowed many perpetrators to evade responsibility, these changes
raised hopes for improved accountability, although civil society actors
stressed that their effective implementation will be key. In a persistent
trend, allegations of torture and ill-treatment have often not been adequately investigated,
with procedural delays resulting in the loss of evidence and undermining
prospects for prosecution. When criminal proceedings have been initiated, they
have frequently been pursued under lesser offences such as abuse of office or
exceeding authority rather than torture, diminishing the gravity of the crimes.
Victims also face significant obstacles
in obtaining compensation and rehabilitation, with remedies rarely provided and
often falling short of international standards.
While penalties for torture have
been increased in Tajikistan, the application of the relevant Criminal
Code provision remains limited, and
the number of convictions issued remains persistently low, as the UN Committee
against Torture (CAT) noted with regret
during its April 2026 review of the country. When cases involving torture and
ill-treatment are prosecuted, provisions on less serious offences such as abuse
of power or exceeding official authority are frequently invoked. An independent
mechanism for receiving and investigating torture complaints has yet to be established,
with current practice relying primarily on prosecutorial bodies with close
links to law enforcement authorities, undermining prospects for effective and
impartial investigations. There are also no independent forensic medical
institutions. Judges routinely dismiss allegations of abuse raised in court,
ordering investigations only in isolated cases. At the same time, victims and
their lawyers are often reluctant to report
such treatment due to fear of reprisals and a lack of confidence in obtaining
justice. Although legislation on compensation for torture has been
strengthened, courts often dismiss compensation claims or award inadequate
amounts. There is no comprehensive, state-funded rehabilitation system for
torture survivors, with only limited services provided by civil society thanks
to foreign funding. It also remains of concern that torture is subject to a
statute of limitations and that national law does not exclude the possibility
of amnesty for such acts.
Turkmenistan criminalised torture in 2012 and further
strengthened the relevant provision in 2022. However, according
to official information, no cases initiated
under this provision have been examined by courts since it was introduced.
While the authorities report conducting internal investigations when law
enforcement officials are accused of exceeding their authority, they have failed to
demonstrate any progress on ensuring that allegations of
torture and ill-treatment are investigated in a thorough and impartial manner.
In several recent cases of torture that exile-based civil society organisations
have learned about, no
effective investigations are known to have been conducted. Overall, the lack
of prospects for obtaining justice, combined with the serious risk of
reprisals, strongly
discourages victims and their families from reporting torture
and ill-treatment. When reviewing Turkmenistan’s compliance with the Convention
against Torture in 2025, CAT expressed grave concern
about the authorities’ failure to effectively investigate and prosecute torture
and hold perpetrators accountable. It also regretted the lack of progress in
investigating enforced disappearances, with the fate and whereabouts of victims
in dozens of documented cases remaining unknown.
Under Uzbekistan’s
Criminal Code, torture and ill-treatment are punishable by up to 10 years’
imprisonment. However, according to available information,
this provision is rarely applied in practice, with cases involving abusive
treatment instead being pursued under other Criminal Code provisions, such as
abuse of power or negligence in service. Such cases are frequently tried behind
closed doors. Allegations of torture are typically not investigated
effectively, while judges often disregard complaints raised by defendants and
their lawyers and fail to order forensic examinations. Serious concerns also
persist over the lack of an independent mechanism for investigating torture
complaints and the absence of an independent forensic medical examination
system, undermining prospects for accountability. Moreover, despite continued
reports of torture and ill-treatment received by human rights defenders,
including from individuals at heightened risk such as members of vulnerable
groups and those prosecuted on politically motivated grounds, victims are often
reluctant to
report torture due to fear of reprisals and a lack of confidence in obtaining
justice. An additional concern is that those convicted based on evidence
obtained under duress face significant obstacles in seeking redress and
overturning wrongful convictions, with authorities often refusing their claims,
citing the statute of limitations.
Impunity
for torture
Due to inadequate
efforts to investigate, prosecute and punish acts of torture and ill-treatment
– as described above – widespread impunity for such practices remains a key
concern across Central Asia. This broader problem is illustrated by patterns of
impunity relating to torture and other gross human rights violations committed
in connection with crises in the region, including the suppression of mass
protests in three Central Asian countries in 2022. While far from the only
examples, these cases represent some of the most serious recent failures to
ensure accountability for abusive treatment – a concern that has also been
highlighted by international human rights bodies.
Following its June
2025 review of Kazakhstan, the UN Human Rights Committee regretted
that many investigations into torture related to the January 2022 protests were
closed because complaints allegedly were unsubstantiated. Likewise in a May
2025 report based on monitoring of court proceedings related to these
events, the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) raised
concerns regarding inadequate investigations, disparity
between widespread allegations of abuse and the low number of prosecutions, and
the lack of appropriate redress for victims.
When reviewing Tajikistan
in April 2026, CAT criticised
the lack of effective and independent investigations into allegations of
torture, ill-treatment, and extrajudicial killings reportedly carried out by
security forces during the suppression of protests in Gorno-Badakhshan
Autonomous Region (GBAO) in 2021 and 2022, noting that only a very small number
of cases had been reviewed by court.
Similarly, during its
April 2026 review of Uzbekistan, the UN Committee on the Elimination of
All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) expressed
grave concern about the lack of accountability for torture and other serious
violations targeting members of the Karakalpak ethnic group – including human
rights defenders – in connection with the July 2022 protests in Karakalpakstan.
The UN treaty bodies
called on the authorities of the Central Asian countries to ensure effective
and impartial investigations into all allegations of abuse related to the 2022
events, prosecute perpetrators, impose appropriate penalties and provide redress
to victims. While issued in relation to specific events, these recommendations
are equally relevant to addressing the broader problem of impunity for torture
and ill-treatment across the region.
Challenges
facing anti-torture advocates
Civil society
organisations, activists and lawyers play an indispensable role in efforts to
prevent and combat torture in Central Asia. In addition to monitoring
and documenting
violations, they provide victims and their families with crucial legal,
medical, and psychological
support, and engage in efforts to bring perpetrators to justice. However, amid
a broader decline in civic space, their ability to carry out this work is
increasingly challenged by hostile rhetoric, restrictive legislation, undue
interference and other forms of pressure. This, in turn, weakens efforts to
ensure accountability for torture and ill-treatment. Rather than obstructing
civil society contributions to preventing torture, supporting victims and
securing justice, the authorities should recognise, welcome and support these
efforts.
International
cooperation, non-refoulement and transnational repression
The concerns outlined
above underscore the importance of continued international engagement to
support efforts to prevent and combat torture in Central Asia, including
through assistance aimed at strengthening safeguards, independent monitoring
mechanisms, and investigative and prosecutorial capacities, in line with
recommendations issued by international human rights bodies. Support for civil
society actors working on torture related issues is an essential component of
such engagement.
The persistent
occurrence of torture and ill-treatment in Central Asia, combined with
continuing shortcomings in prevention, oversight and accountability, also
underscores the importance of fully respecting the principle of
non-refoulement. In particular, at a time of increasing efforts to facilitate
returns and removals, states cooperating with Central Asian countries should
ensure that their migration policies fully comply with this principle and
refrain from expelling, extraditing or otherwise transferring individuals to
the region where there are substantial grounds for believing that they would be
in danger of being subjected to torture or other prohibited ill-treatment. In
this context, close attention should be paid to growing patterns of transnational
repression and the targeting of individuals on politically motivated grounds
beyond national borders, including through attempts to secure their forcible
return. Such individuals are at heightened risk of torture and other serious
human rights violations if returned.
Recommendations
Against the
background of the concerns raised above, we call on the governments of Kazakhstan,
Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan
to:
Translate international
commitments concerning torture and ill-treatment into tangible
improvements in law, policy and practice, including through the
implementation of recommendations and decisions issued by international
human rights bodies.
Ensure that all detainees enjoy
fundamental safeguards from the moment of actual deprivation of liberty,
including prompt access to a lawyer, an independent medical examination,
notification of relatives and effective avenues for challenging the
legality of detention.
Strengthen safeguards against
abuse during detention and interrogation, including through comprehensive
and tamper-proof video recording systems covering all stages of detention,
transport and questioning.
Ratify and effectively
implement the OPCAT, where this has not yet been done, and establish,
strengthen or restore National Preventive Mechanisms, ensuring that they
operate fully independently, are adequately resourced and have
unrestricted access to all places of detention.
Establish independent and
effective mechanisms for receiving and investigating complaints of torture
and ill-treatment, and ensure that all allegations are investigated
promptly, thoroughly and impartially.
Ensure that torture and
ill-treatment are prosecuted under appropriate criminal provisions, that
penalties reflect the gravity of the offences, and that statutes of
limitation, amnesties or other measures do not contribute to impunity.
Establish independent forensic
medical examination systems and ensure that allegations of torture are
properly documented in accordance with international standards, including
the Istanbul Protocol.
Protect victims, witnesses,
lawyers, medical professionals and human rights defenders from
intimidation and reprisals related to the reporting, documentation and
investigation of torture.
Ensure that victims of torture
and ill-treatment have access to effective remedies, including adequate
compensation, rehabilitation and other forms of redress, and fully
implement decisions issued by international human rights bodies in
individual cases.
Ensure effective, independent
and transparent investigations into allegations of torture and other
serious abuses committed in connection with the suppression of protests,
and provide appropriate redress to victims.
We
call on other OSCE participating States, OSCE institutions and international
partners of the Central Asian countries to:
Continue to prioritise the
prevention of torture and ill-treatment in their engagement with Central
Asian governments, including through bilateral dialogues, multilateral
forums and co-operation programmes.
Support efforts aimed at
strengthening independent monitoring of places of detention, improving the
implementation of safeguards against torture and enhancing accountability
mechanisms in the region.
Provide political, technical
and financial support to independent civil society organisations, lawyers
and victim support initiatives working to prevent torture, document
violations and assist survivors.
Consistently raise concerns
regarding individual cases involving allegations of torture, impunity and
reprisals against victims, lawyers, journalists and human rights defenders
working on torture-related issues.
Encourage and support the full
implementation of recommendations issued by international human rights
mechanisms with respect to efforts to combat torture, ill-treatment and
impunity.
Refrain from forcibly returning
individuals to Central Asian countries in violation of the non-refoulement
principle, including in cases involving transnational repression.
More
information
For more information
on the issues outlined above, please refer to the following publications:
